Comic Book Resources

You’re only saying this because it’s April first.

You love us really.

Right?

This seems vaguely familiar. I think you’ve mentioned something like this before, just not in the context of being your “Scott and Jean”. Still a good point however.

Oh man, I hate that too.

People still care about Jean to name it “My Scott and Jean”?

To each his/her own, I guess, but I think all of the following rile me up a lot more than ascribing motivation to one’s commentary:

1) Constant lateness/delays of certain titles;
2) Errors in graphic novels/trades (see Rich Johnston’s recent LITG comments on the Alan Moore Swamp Thing HC for a blatant example. I’m mean — c’mon, people, you’re reprinting here for cryin’ out loud! Get it right already! And don’t these companies have editors and proofreaders to catch these things?).
3) 30% price increases (without additional value, in Marvel’s case)

These things rile me because they would not be tolerated if this were any other industry or business. This may be hyperbole but perhaps the only industries which treat their customers with less respect are airlines, cable companies and health insurers.

What a weird way of saying “Identity Crisis.”

That’s a real stretch of the whole “scott/jean” thing if you ask me. But I’ll run with it to an extent.

I don’t think I have anything like that myself. They’ve really broken my emotional ties to the characters over the last ten-fifteen years. Things like moving Emma into Jean’s role or turning Speedball into Penance likely would have bugged me a whole lot at one point in my childhood but I’m well past the point of caring. I just read what I think I’m going to enjoy now. Even things that I’m ultimately disappointed about don’t bother me so much anymore. For instance, I was really, really looking forward to Johns doing a nuanced exploration of Hal’s guilty status/the cost of his fearlessness in Green Lantern: Rebirth as he had just worked on the Rogues in Flash and Black Adam in JSA, so I thought he was well suited for it. Obviously we got something as far from that as possible, but ah well.

In fact, the only thing I’m actually still annoyed by is the fact that the build up for Infinite Crisis was paid off by being thrust completely to the side for the sake of a 20 year old story that was totally unrelated to any aspect of the build. Maybe that’s more disappointment for what I wanted to see and didn’t get, too, though, but I was really into DC in 2004-2005.

As for something similiar to what you mentioned. I do get bugged by fandom’s rather sad celebration of any tiny little acceptance by the mainstream public of comics/superheroes. There’s a whole lot of insecurity about the medium and liking the medium/genre that rears its ugly head all the time. That’s not necessary to go into here though.

I agree with your arguement, but I have noticed on this site that personal bias’ are usually lumped into “ascribing motivation,” and that’s not neccessarily right.

Let’s be honest, this happens most often when it’s a post about Morrison. And quite often when Brian or someone else reviews a Morrison book, there are posts claiming that he just likes that book because Morrison wrote it. Or with FC, that Brian or the other posters didn’t understand the book, but are defending it only because Morrison wrote it. And while I agree that is a flimsy arguement, there is the possibility that a person’s favorable bias for Morrison could mean they forgive things in his stories they wouldn’t if it was written by someone else. It’s really no different than having a favorite band, and being predisposed to liking their music. I know I’m more likely to like a Rolling Stone or Foo Fighters album simply because I’m a fan of the bands, and I might be willing to overlook some not-so-good songs for that reason.

I’m not trying to say that this is why Brian likes Morrison or why he liked FC, I’m just trying to point out that there could be a kernal of valid arguement in these claims. There’s just probably a better way of expressing it than by saying “You’re just saying that because…”

Brian, I agree with you completely: most people don’t realize that what someone says in print may sound COMPLETELY different to what they intended. A joke may sound like a put-down, for example. That’s why we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, but instead ASK the original poster what he meant.

As for my “Scott and Jean?” It isn’t a particular character, but rather the attitude that the current DC comics has for its comics. I no longer feel safe reading ANY of their titles because they have shown they’re willing to throw in shocking stuff for cheap shock value in ANY of their titles. Wendy and Marvin eaten alive in Teen Titans? Sure, why not?? I’d understand that stuff in, say, Batman -maybe- but Teen Titans??? I’m convinced Didio and company don’t “get” their own comics, but rather have a “Hollywood” mentality for them- more sex! more violence! It sells!! (and sometimes it does- but sometimes it doesn’t, however, and they don’t learn the lesson. Sigh…)

Anyway, I’m not buying any DC title (except non-continuity stuff like All-Star Superman) until I feel that attitude has passed.

[...] Alert Nerd: Our Scott and Jeans Phoning It In: “Trust Me!” Geeked: My Scott and Jean The Book Smugglers: That’s Our Scott and Jean Fantastic Fangirls: Q & A 22 – What is your “Scott and Jean”? Faust’s Fantastically Fantasmagoric Forum: My “Scott & Jean”: You Can’t Spell “Dark Knight Detective” Without “Dark” and “Detective” Love Dat Joker: Mad Love: My Scott and Jean Bill Wendel: My Scott and Jean: Stan Lee The ISS: My “Scott and Jean”: Waid and Wieringo’s Magic Dr. Doom Confessions of a Retconned Fangirl: My Scott & Jean: Or Leave My Hawks Alone! The Discriminating Fangirl: What’s Your Geek Sacred Cow? Ashley Awesome: newsflash: you are an idiot david brothers @ 4thletter!: My Scott & Jean: Knowing When To Let Go Jeff Lester @ The Savage Critics: My Scott, Your Jean: Jeff Takes A Quick Look at His Sacred Cows. Written World: Sir Gawain: Great Knight, or Greatest Knight? Those are your only choices. The Fount of Useless Information: Geek Apologetics: “My Scott and Jean” Nothing Challenging or Specific: Are you f*@$ing kidding me, Brett Ratner? My geek sacred cow… Suicide Aint’ a Viable Career Option: The Geek Sacred Cow aka my Scott and Jean aka Incoherent Ramblings Reporting on Marvels and Legends: My Scott and Jean The Secret of the Wednesday’s Haul: I’ll stick with you baby for a thousand years Comic Overload: Barry Allen is F’ING DEAD – DEAL WITH IT Clay Harrison: My Scott and Jean Comic By Comic: No Scott & Jean for me Gaming Angels: Made of Awesome: Dr. Strange Thunderdog: My “Scott and Jean” Issue: Magneto’s Un-Death The Nut and the Feisty Weasel: My Scott & Jean: Wasted Story Potential, Part I Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources: My Scott and Jean [...]

Constant Continuity Resets… The Rolling Timeline…

Whatever you want to call Marvel and DC’s constant desire to have their characters stay the same age, yet still keep up wiht current affairs…

For goodness sake, why can’t they allow them to grow old, have kids, leave a legacy, etc. without having it done in a separate universe?

You want Barry Allen back? Write some Flash stories based in the 70s and 80s. Job done.

This is one of the things I like about Judge Dredd. He gets older. Each year in our time is another year passed in Megacity One…

I didn’t mind so much when I first started reading Marvel and DC as a kid. DC had Earth-1 and Earth-2, etc, so they could tell WWII Batman stories and modern-age Batman stories at the same time. Crisis cleaned a lot of confusion up and reset things. I was fine with that. Then they had to do it again. And again…

As for Peter Parker? Poor, poor boy… One minute he’s all growed-up, married and teaching in school, the next thing you know, he’s never been married, he’s still living with his Aunt (who yukkily calls him “Tiger” – so, so wrong!) and he can’t hold a job down…

At least after Zero Hour, DC had a sort of Timeline for all its characters… Even though it no longer stands post-2000…

Either have your pop-culture references and current affairs, in which case age your characters; Or, have them constantly living in a “non-specific” time, where 10 years of comics can be said to have taken place over a few months…

Don’t try and do both. It gets silly and messy…

mine would probably have been kyle rayner being the only green lantern, since i started reading DC at green lantern 53 or something, but theyve done such a kickass job of bring hal back and still kept kyle front and center in GL Corps, that i really dont mind it anymore

My “Scott and Jeans”:

1) Peter Parker is Spider-man
2) Norman Osborn is DEAD

Violating number one and resolving the issue with the violation of number 2 pretty much ruined me on Spider-man forever despite loving the character since childhood. Yes, very stupid and childish to hold a grudge like that but it still irks me a little even today. The Bat titles at the time were just boring so I quit them. Spider-man BETRAYED me. I read one or 2 trades of JMS’s Spidey run and didn’t care for it and otherwise no one ever seems to recommend any Spidey stuff to read. And any Spider-man stuff that makes headlines just seems like clone saga type stuff that I don’t have much interest in (besides keeping tabs on it on the internet).

Brian,

Going a completely different way, I’m confused as to why you think it’s bad to recommend something that you don’t think is good. Isn’t recommending something that you don’t think is good a sign of maturity and the ability to view others’ points of view?

An example: I love almost everything Morrison has ever written, but can’t quite get into his JLA run. But if someone loved All-Star Superman and New X-Men, but didn’t much care for The Filth and Invisibles, I’d say “You know, I didn’t love JLA, but it’s probably right up your alley.” What’s wrong with that?

Let me know if I completely misunderstood your rule or something, because I’m curious to see what you think.

Coincidentally, my Scott and Jean really would be Scott and Jean, as the need for a happy, stable couple in the comic at all times goes up against the inherent rule of drama being motivated by conflict. It bugs me when discussion of the actual story is made auxillary to the ‘shipping.

But I agree with Brian that ad hominem attacks on a person’s motives really stupefy any discussion.

The fact that you have no storyline related “Scott and Jean” is a mark of why I respect you.

“Going a completely different way, I’m confused as to why you think it’s bad to recommend something that you don’t think is good. Isn’t recommending something that you don’t think is good a sign of maturity and the ability to view others’ points of view?

An example: I love almost everything Morrison has ever written, but can’t quite get into his JLA run. But if someone loved All-Star Superman and New X-Men, but didn’t much care for The Filth and Invisibles, I’d say “You know, I didn’t love JLA, but it’s probably right up your alley.” What’s wrong with that?”

The difference is that in your example, you’re making a recommendation to one person, in response to their stated preference. On this site, the recommendations are made to the general public, based only on what has been published and read by the CSBG crew.

Telling the readers, “I hated this, you should check it out” just doesn’t really make any sense.

Apodaca,

Certainly, writing on a blog like this is something a different situation, but the rule could still apply. For example, I generally dislike the work of Steven Soderbergh, and yes, if I was going to review one of his films on my blog, I’d probably just say “Steven Soderbergh sucks and so does this movie.” But I might also say something like “This does all the necessary Steven Soderbergh stuff, and if you (god forbid) liked Traffic, you’ll like this.”

What’s wrong with that?

For goodness sake, why can’t they allow them to grow old, have kids, leave a legacy, etc. without having it done in a separate universe?

Well why can’t they be allowed to stay relatively the same so that future generations can discover them in a similar state to how we discovered them and have that same adolescent enjoyment of said status quo that we did as kids? Why is it because WE experienced said status quo as kids and enjoyed it as children and are now growing up, why do we have to demand the characters grow old with us? Sure it’s old hat to us, but not to the next generation. It just comes off as an incredibly self-centered fan attitude. I prefer to have Elseworld tales and What If’s for exploring radical changes while the core titles stay somewhat close to the recognizable status quo.

My “Scott & Jean’s”:
1) Ben Parker stays dead
2) Captain Mar-Vell stays dead.

My previous “Scott & Jean’s” have come and gone, and the world hasn’t crumbled because of it… namely, Scott and Jean’s relationship, the dissolution of which I think has worked out really well, actually (I’ve seen more development in Scott’s relatively brief relationship with Emma than in the few decades Jean & Scott spent together) and the resurrection of Bucky Barnes, which I’ve been enjoying thoroughly. Never cared either way that Peter and MJ were married, but agree that One More Day was ill conceived, at best.
-r-

The problem with that idea, T, is that comics fandom isn’t being renewed with young readers who are newly discovering these characters. The average comics reader now is a 35 year old, not a 12 year old – that’s for Western comics, obviously. Those Naruto books which would dominate the NYT bestseller list if they were allowed to compete with Western comics are a different demographic animal entirely. So I think it’s entirely fair for us to ask for characters to grow and change – if the characters stay the same for young readers, then there’s something terribly wrong, because the young readers don’t seem interested.

Personally, though, I don’t really care that characters in continuity don’t age or change. I hate characters that don’t age or change, and above all else (I guess this is my Scott and Jean?) I hate the illusion of change, the continual “killing” of characters and then bringing them back, the inevitable divorce and remarriage, or the inevitable magical dissolution of the marriage, etc. How do I reconcile hating comics stories about characters that don’t change and not caring whether or not characters in continuity don’t change? Simple: I rarely read Big 2 in continuity stories. Batman is my favorite character ever, but my Batman shelf is slim: Year One, Gothic, DKR, Arkham Asylum, and (the only in-continuity stuff) Morrison’s recent run. So yeah, sometimes it’s weird that I own twice as much Fables as Batman, but I just don’t want decades of circular storytelling.

” Well why can’t they be allowed to stay relatively the same so that future generations can discover them in a similar state to how we discovered them and have that same adolescent enjoyment of said status quo that we did as kids? Why is it because WE experienced said status quo as kids and enjoyed it as children and are now growing up, why do we have to demand the characters grow old with us? Sure it’s old hat to us, but not to the next generation. It just comes off as an incredibly self-centered fan attitude. I prefer to have Elseworld tales and What If’s for exploring radical changes while the core titles stay somewhat close to the recognizable status quo. ”

This is a very good point. I would also add that rebooting characters to younger ages not only prevents that sort of mid-life-crisis story stagnation, but often leads to better stories period; my favorite franchise superhero stories of the past few years are the early Ultimate comics, because they redid everything from scratch and had a vibrance and energy to them that the mainstream books couldn’t match. I prefer the X-Men as a band of teenaged outcasts to a group of celebrity super-messiah-militia types pushing into their thirties…

Who was recommending stuff they didn’t was good?

I’ve seen you mention it several times, but never really seen a reviewer ever do it.

My ‘scott and jean’ of reviews is if a reviewer tells me what they would have done IF they were writing it.
Be it a simple ‘I’ve got a great idea for this character’ or a review I read once where the dude said how he would entirely have re-written the issue, it just shits me off.

Oh man, I hate that too.

You only hate that because Grant Morrison hates that.

Man, I said I was sorry! Why do you torment me so, Dread Lord and Master?!?!?!?

(Actually, I’m not sure if I ever said I was sorry. I kind of suck that way.)

Although: When I was younger, my Scott and Jean was Jean Grey coming back to life. I stopped buying new comics for YEARS after I found that out. (I think I was 12, so that would make this 2-or-so years after it actually happened. I was a bit behind.)

Going a completely different way, I’m confused as to why you think it’s bad to recommend something that you don’t think is good. Isn’t recommending something that you don’t think is good a sign of maturity and the ability to view others’ points of view?

Sure.

I meant only when people would recommend something in a sort of coddling manner. “It wasn’t a very good comic book, but eh, I’ll give it 3 out of 4 stars!” or some such nonsense.

You certainly should be able to recommend works that while not to your particular sensibilities are still “good” works.

Man, I said I was sorry! Why do you torment me so, Dread Lord and Master?!?!?!?

(Actually, I’m not sure if I ever said I was sorry. I kind of suck that way.)

I promise, I was not thinking of you while writing this at all! Honest!

Who was recommending stuff they didn’t was good?

I’ve seen you mention it several times, but never really seen a reviewer ever do it.

I know, it sounds so absurd now, doesn’t it?

But I assure you, in 2004, I saw it frequently on message boards. It was basically a sort of “coddling” deal that I really hated. Like someone would go through a review, pointing out all these bad things and then end with, like, “B+!” It was so annoying.

But yeah, I see less of it nowadays, and certainly so little that I don’t feel the need to mention it to any contributors.

Now the internet is united in its collected negativity.

No good marks are given unless something is above and beyond good.

Jazzbo: “personal bias’ are usually lumped into ‘ascribing motivation’”

I’m guessing you meant bias held towards people rather than by people, but I don’t really see how that isn’t just another type of motivation.

Lets look at this analytically. What we are essentially saying is that people have a sort of objective view on the merit of a comic, then a cognitive bias prevents them from seeing this objective view and the opinion delivered is not then the reader’s own. Thus the reader’s opinion of the comic is worthless, because they don’t even agree with themselves.

The problem isn’t whether such biases are TRUE, as they almost certainly are at times, but whether they are VERIFIABLE. If you can’t prove that someone’s view is biased, and it doesn’t matter if it is a personal or political or emotional bias, then it is UNFAIR to belittle there view because of it.

Sure such biases exist, what I believe Brian was saying is that we just shouldn’t accuse people of them.

“The problem with that idea, T, is that comics fandom isn’t being renewed with young readers who are newly discovering these characters. The average comics reader now is a 35 year old, not a 12 year old – that’s for Western comics, obviously.”

Maybe the reason that comics aren’t being read by teenagers, is that the things that drew us into the medium as teenagers is gone. For all the wonderful storytelling of Miller and Moore, the guys trying to copy what they did (and not doing it well) took the books and characters in places and directions that made them unappealing at best, and unaccessable at worst for the next generation.

The cry for “better comics, more adult comics” limited the audience, and resulted in the next generation not being able to jump on board like most of us did. So then a more juvenile line is created, with the animation style artwork, that may have had good story telling, but the art style could also be a turn off as too juvenile for new readers.

The move away from self contained stories with limited subplots to ongoing sagas makes jumping on for a new reader almost impossible. Episodic narratives still have to have stories for each episode. Most television series can be jumped into at almost any point. That’s how comics used to be.

Today’s comics are like 24, or Lost. So filled with back story that stepping in mid stream is difficult. The reader is filled with too many questions, and can’t understand the dynamics easily. This works great fro a limited series, where the reader knows he’s stepping into the middle of something, but for an ongoing series, it doesn’t work so well.

No good marks are given unless something is above and beyond good.

I think “good” should suffice, but yeah, that’s about right, and I think that’s a fine goal to shoot for.

I don’t like the idea of ever recommending something that’s “okay.” We should expect more from comics. Comics should be, you know…

And yes, Ted, you described my point well, thanks.

An example: I love almost everything Morrison has ever written, but can’t quite get into his JLA run. But if someone loved All-Star Superman and New X-Men, but didn’t much care for The Filth and Invisibles, I’d say “You know, I didn’t love JLA, but it’s probably right up your alley.” What’s wrong with that?”

Because you wouldn’t say it if Geoff Johns had written it!

I don’t think I have any “Scott and Jean.” I’m pretty laid back about comics, able to enjoy different styles, and different takes on the same characters.

I like dark stories. I like “fun” stories. I like blood and sex. I like nostagic innocence. I like shock value. I like continuity. I like stories that disregard continuity as long as they’re interesting. I like tragic stuff happening to heroes. I like to see the heroes winning too. I like it all. Really, the only thing that bothers me? It’s fans that are fanatically commited to a monobloc vision.

It really doesn’t matter what is their preference, it’s their one-track tastes that bother me. In the 1990s, I hated the kewl angry young fans that wanted everything to be dark dark dark. Nowadays, I hate the old fogeys that want everything to be fun fun fun. My “Scott and Jean” is diversity. I want to be able to read Agents of Atlas and then jump right back to my re-read of Brian Bendis’ Alias.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “Hey, maybe your view on this matter is biased.” As I mentioned, I agree that just making a blanket statement of “You’re only saying this because _____, so therefore your opinion is worthless,” is not a good argument. But pointing out that someone is criticizing Writer X for something, when they previously had praised Writer Y for doing the same thing and that maybe a personal bias is in play, I think that’s legit. I don’t think that’s the same as belittling people for liking what they like.

As Ted so nicely points out, jazzbo, the key point is “verifiability.”

If someone praises Writer X for something that they criticize Writer Y for, then sure, you complain about it – I’d never dream of suggesting someone shouldn’t point out stuff like that.

That’s not ascribing motivations, that’s just pointing out an inconsistency.

But if you DON’T have anything substantial like that, then don’t make the charge – and my complaint is that the charge is constantly made withOUT anything of substance behind it, and if you don’t have anything to verify your charge, you ARE then ascribing motivations, and that’s lame.

I agree with you. I read Ted’s statement as saying “You can’t verify a bias, therefore it is not a valid argument.” But I can see that I misinterpreted what he, and you originally, said.

Scott Jean, huh?

It’s like asking, “Is Batman really staying dead?”

I think that matter’s probably settled, but just so I can get the last word in.

“You can’t verify a bias, therefore it is not a valid argument.” I can see how you could see that but I was attempting to argue not that it wouldn’t be a valid argument, which it is, but rather that it wouldn’t be a SOUND argument, at least not without proof.

As for finding such an inconsistency, which I think would be a very difficult task, that would be proof of bias, which is all I was asking for. So if you did find proof it would be reasonable to point out such a bias.

Perhaps we should say pointing out a bias isn’t inappropriate, pointing out a bias without proof is inappropriate, which is something I think we can all agree on.

Of course if I person was to call themselves biased, that would be a whole different matter.

Boatman,

I don’t know how old you are, so I can’t speak to your generation. I’m 25. Sometime in middle school, I went to a comic book store for the first time, trying to figure out how to read an X-Men book that would feed my love for those characters, born from the TV show. I went to the store, no one offered to help me, and there were what seemed like dozens of different X-Men books. I picked up one, and it was confusing…Magneto was in a coma, Colossus seemed to be on Magneto’s side…I put it back and have never tried to get involved in continuity again. So maybe you’re right, maybe today’s comics with their infinite backstory are offputting to young readers.

But I’m a pretty obsessive comics reader now. That’s because my roommate lent me Sandman freshman year of college. I went from there to Moore and Miller, and the forward to Ennis, Ellis, Vaughan, Brubaker, and yes, above all, Morrison. Along the way, I also discovered a love for a different tradition of comics, and thus books by Eisner, Spiegelmann, Robinson, Thompson, Lemire, Tomine, Ware, and Clowes sit on my shelf next to those other guys. But as I mentioned before, (with the exception of my sad habit of Morrison) you won’t find any mainstream (ie Big 2 Company owned characters) ongoing superheroics on my shelf. They’re still not interesting to me, and I can’t really imagine anyway to make them interesting to young readers. I’d be happy if those comics just died, and every book ever written about Batman was an “elseworlds” that no one pretended was actually happening in semi-real time as the same universe as Superman and Detective Comics (how does Batman solve so many cases) etc. I’ve always thought, if you want new readers to jump in, tell real stories, only tell stories when you actually have a story to tell, and tell everything in OGN format, because new readers do not want to be surrounded by dozens of cardboard boxes filled with generic superhero stories told because DC has to publish 24 stories a year about Batman and because Marvel has to tell 100 stories a year about the X-Men.

Most of my friends my age have this exact same view of comics – you can get them to read DKR or Y easily, and they love them, but you couldn’t get them to read a single issue of, say, Detective Comics, to save your life. Personally, I think that’s fine.

T – The point is, Marvel have about three or four versions of Spider-Man going at the moment. Marvel 616 version, Ultimate version, Marvel Adventures version AND the retired one in Amazing/Spectacular Spider-Girl…

If they want a reset, why don’t they do it each decade. January 1st, 2010. Start all over again. On all the titles. LIke they seem to be planning with the Ultimate Comics… Marvel seem particularly bad at resetting one title out of synch with the rest…

Anyway, it’s my “Scott and Jean”… It doesn’t have to be rational!

Ok, so myultimate “Scott and Jean” is that, elseworlds aside, Bruce Wayne is Batman. No body else has the back story to make becoming Batman make sense. And why do we need Batman 2.0, didn’t we have that with Knightfall, and didn’t we see Dick in the Cape and Cowl in Prodigal?

G- I’m in my mid forties, and sometimes really miss picking up the latest Batman issue. But for all the incease in paper quality and coloring advances, the stories aren’t accesible. Maybe Trade Paperbacks are the wave of the future, but there was something about that collection of boxes I had that was kinda cool.

You start with one issue, and ad otehrs, and eventually you have this pile of comics, and then you discover these special boxes, ( just for comics!) and it’s a long term thing. It was cool having a complete collection of Batman from 300 to 500.

I’m glad for collections of earlier stuff. Neal Adams collected, or the Showcase volumes. It is nice to put these things on shelves, and it is easier to re read and re find stories. Bjut it’s not quite the same. ANd it never will be, because of something you mentioned.

You wanted to pick up an issue of X-Men because of the cartoon. As I am sure some people would do because of the movie. So now the characters spawn movies, TV shows, videos, whatever, and these are consumed in mass quantities.

It used to be the comics that were mass consumed. So I wonder what is wrong with comics that the msses have left them. Today’s best sellers have circulation numbers that would have gotten a book cancelled 20 years ago.

I don’t have any answers. I agree that the distribution sucks. Comic Shops are not inviting to new readers, and staff aren’t trained to be retail salespeople, they are comic geeks who have gotten their dream job. (short of producing comics, at least they are in the industry).

I miss the days of spinners of comics in every grocery, convenience and Wal Mart type store. Tremendous exposure of the medium, and reading them was more accepted. Now it seems like comics shops are almost like porn shops in that only weirdos go into them. (I’m not saying that’s the case, just the perception)

I find the discussions and topics interesting on this web site. It hasn’t made me want to buy a current issue of any comic, the industry has probably lost me forever on monthy issues. I will pick up some trades, but it won’t be convoluted carnage like Final Crisis, or Civil War, Or One More Day, or almost any of the “hot” books currently.