Comments on: Year End Reviews in Review Part One

By: Bully

Bully — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:09:38 +0000

Golly, thanks MarkAndrew! I v. much appreciate the compliments and the plug. (Although when I see my own writing someplace else it makes me cringe only because I realize I can't end a sentence and just go on and on and on and...) Anyway, you're too kind. A tip o' the nose ring to your nice words.

By: XyphaP

XyphaP — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:50:47 +0000

haha, I didn't notice that about Nadel's list. I jsut assumed he meant newspaper/classic reprints. I think the first reprinting of material into one volume constitutes a new work (which would make most of the newspaper strips viable as well). I guess he just wanted to fit more of his favorite comics into the 9 (?) best comics of 2006, which seems fine.

By: Bobb Decker

Bobb Decker — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:21:25 +0000

"given my uncritical adoration for the Fox/Sekowsky Atom book from the sixites."

It was Gil Kane who drew the Atom. If its any consolation, Sekowsky occaisonally helped Kane with deadlines on the Atom and Green Lantern.

But you should probably fix that.

By: Paperghost

Paperghost — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:59:33 +0000

I didn't think the "worst of the year" list was THAT bad in terms of how it was written, but the thing in there that DID make me roll my eyes was this (with regards the superman returns comics): "Ok, ok, these were actually pretty goodâ€¦but they also led us to expect that the movie would be pretty good, too â€“ and it wasn't. Oh, dear Buddha, it wasn't. Call this the "guilt by association" vote, and let's move on â€¦" ....without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've read in ages for, oh god, so many reasons I couldn't even begin to list them here.

By: stealthwise

stealthwise — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:29:50 +0000

Dammit, this article pissed me off.

Essentially it pointed out that I've yet to read a ton of great shit from last year.