New Comics: 10/18

Here's what's coming out on Wednesday.

And here's what I'm planning to get:

Conan #33
52 #24
Birds of Prey #99
The Creeper #3
Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall
Hellblazer #225
Shadowpact #6
Casanova #5
Elephantmen #4
Runaways #21
CSI: Dying in the Gutters #3
Wasteland #4
Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse #3

Writing is Hard: Stop Calling Me!

No, no. You don't have to stop calling me. The title refers to writers who harrass their editors.

An anonymous editor wrote an article for Gawker.com about what not to do if you want your editor to be favorably inclined towards your work. Most of the list involves nagging.

By way of supporting that, I found that link on the blog of another editor who whole-heartedly agrees. And, as a comics critic who is sometimes pestered by well-meaning publishers and/or creators about why they haven't yet seen my review of their books, I'll co-sign my own name to the rant.

But even though the point of that lesson is to ease off the editors, there's another lesson for writers in the article. It may not offer any practical advice for writers to follow, but it's a sobering revelation about editors' thoughts on the importance of authors in the Grand Scheme of Things.

"...authors are a cross to bear somewhere between 'creepy messenger guy' and 'can't even afford a new coat from H&M' on the job-dissatisfaction scale. Because, with a few glowing exceptions, authors are the craziest, meanest, strangest, cluelessest people you've ever met."

The bright side to that complaint is that if you can avoid being crazy, mean, strange, and clueless, you're likely to stand out as someone editors would like to work with (assuming you're any good).

Review: 'Salem's Lot

It's been years since I read 'Salem's Lot, but it's one of the few books that I can remember giving me genuine chills. Appropriately, the 1979 mini-series that was made from it (starring David Soul) had the same effect.

Neither is scary the whole way through, but they both have strong moments. For the book, I don't remember details, but I still have this strong, chilling impression of sneaking around back of the Marsten house and feeling the evil coming off the place, especially from the cellar door. It's an entirely different scene in the mini-series: the fog rolling in at Danny Glick's bedroom window as his dead, little brother Ralphie floats outside and scratches at the glass, begging to be let in.

That probably doesn't come as a surprise. It's what everyone remembers from that series. The problem is that it's so overwhelming that it makes people forget the weak parts, like the lack of chemistry between Soul and Bonnie Bedelia, the lack of any acting by the James at 15 kid, or how cheesy Barlow looks. I appreciate the Nosferatu homage, but Barlow isn't frightening in the least.

The novel may not be scary all the way through, but there aren't any weak points. Even when it's just describing everyday life in a small town, it's interesting and makes you care about the people all this stuff is happening to. The mini-series is able to do some of that too, but the book's gradual, horrifying revelation of what's going on in the town is brought about too quickly in the series and loses credibility in the process.

Still, there is that window scene. And the scene in the cellar towards the end when James at 15 thinks he's all done killing vampires, but we see several slowly crawling towards him from behind. And then there's the terrifyingly feral way that the vampires' eyes are lit, making them stab at you from the darkness.

The more recent mini-series version starring Rob Lowe, unfortunately has zero chills. Barlow looks a lot better as a relatively make-upless Rutger Hauer and the acting is mostly better. Dan Byrd's (The Hills Have Eyes) cool, but frightened portrayal of Mark Petrie is much better than James at 15's wooden one, for example. I also liked Andre Braugher's (Gideon's Crossing) quietly persecuted version of Matt Burke more than ubiquitous '70s guest-star Lew Ayres' kindly-old-man performance. There still wasn't any chemistry between Rob Lowe and Samantha Mathis though, and Donald Sutherland, though more animated than James Mason, isn't nearly as creepy.

Though I liked Hauer's Barlow, I've got a big problem with how the vampires ended up in this version. They're cool at first, but by the end of the show, when they hit the street in droves, they give up the cool zooming around and walking on walls that they were doing earlier and take to shambling stupidly around the streets. It's like they've forgotten what movie they're in and are doing a zombie flick instead.

Still, some nice moments. I like how the story changes characters around to keep it fresh. Or maybe it was the 1979 version that changed characters from the book and this one's just changing them back. I don't remember. Either way, the same things happen in both versions, but to different people. In 1979, for example, the real estate agent is having an affair with his married secretary; in 2004, it's the doctor (who was Bonnie Bedelia's dad in 1979) messing around with a married patient. I also like the scene where Eva decides to marry Weasel, regardless of the personal cost to her, and I like most of the updated cultural references, like making Burke gay.

Didn't so much like the change in the framing sequence though. Ben and Mark hunting vampires in South America is much cooler than Ben getting his butt handed to him in the urban U.S.

And, of course, it would've been nice if it were actually scary.

Writing is Hard: Outdoing Your Idols

Indie comics writer Dirk Manning (Nightmare World) has a writing advice column called Write or Wrong. It's geared towards people trying to break into the comics industry, but a couple of weeks ago he ran an article called "Kill the Buddha" that's applicable to any writing endeavor. Or, part of it is, at least. Manning goes off on a lot of tangents about the nature and business of collaboration, but he eventually gets around to this helpful reminder:

"Do not seek to imitate the masters… seek what the masters sought. If you meet the Buddha… kill the Buddha. Your goal should not be to create comics as good as your favorite comics… your goal should be to create comics that are better."

Substitute "stories" for "comics" and you've got some great advice that crosses mediums.

I was at a convention once and got the opportunity to walk around it with one of my favorite cartoonists. He was looking for Jack Kirby stuff and I was surprised to learn that Kirby was one of his influences. His stuff doesn't look much like Kirby's (or anyone else's, which is why he's one of my favorites). I must've said something to him about that, because I remember that he told me that he wasn't wanting to draw like Kirby; he was wanting to achieve the same kind of effect that Kirby achieved. He was trying to learn what it was that he liked about Kirby's work, so that he could learn how to do the same thing in his own style.

When I think about my own literary idols (Neil Gaiman, Ian Fleming, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Edgar Rice Burroughs, for example), I can't get my mind around trying to write better than them. But I can conceive of studying their work in order to find out what they were/are seeking to accomplish. That's a hard enough task, but then the real work begins: trying to accomplish the same thing in my own style.

TV Schedule

This has been my first fall TV season with TiVo and it's about to kill me. They've got this thing where you can automatically record the first episodes of all the new shows, so I naturally felt obligated to try them all out at least once.

Well, maybe not all of them. I was pretty sure I wasn't going to like John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor's new sitcom, so I deleted that one unwatched. And there were several shows that I only watched part of before getting bored: Ugly Betty, Smith, and Six Degrees come to mind.

I made it through an entire episode of some shows, but decided that they weren't for me. Brothers and Sisters was too Dynasty, for example.

But there are a lot of shows that have my attention, at least enough that I'm going to follow them for a bit to see if they reach their potential. So here, joined by shows that I was already watching from previous seasons, is my updated TiVo list.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
Heroes
The Class
Gilmore Girls
House
The Unit
Lost
Justice
Jericho
The Nine
Grey's Anatomy
Smallville
The Office
Battlestar Galactica
Doctor Who
Men in Trees
The Batman
Legion of Super-Heroes
The Venture Brothers

That's a lot of shows. I'm guessing that some, like Heroes and Smallville, are going to get dumped eventually. Others, like Kidnapped (pictured above) -- which I liked, but is getting cancelled -- will be taken off my plate by the networks.

Thank Heaven for networks making my decisions for me.

Review: The Illusionist

Saw The Illusionist last night. Very disappointing. It was well-acted, well-shot, and created a nice mood, but the story was... well, let me illustrate.

I don't know if I should post a spoiler warning or not for this. What I'm about to do is give you a brief summary of the first half of the movie. Without describing the ending, I bet that after learning what happens in the first half, you -- like me last night -- will be able to accurately describe exactly what happens in the last. So, with that in mind:

Spoiler Warning (I guess.)

It's the story of two star-crossed lovers. The poor son of a carpenter (Edward Norton), and the rich daughter of aristocracy (Jessica Biel). Her family vows to keep them apart, so he leaves to go study the art of illusion. Years later, he's a famoust illusionist and he brings his show to Vienna where the girl is now engaged to be married to the violent, bullying Crown Prince of Austria (Rufus Sewell). They meet and fall in love all over again, but the illusionist soon gets on the Prince's bad side when he insults the Prince during a performance. The Prince has the illusionist investigated by Vienna's Chief Inspector (Paul Giamatti, in -- credit where it's due -- one of the best performances I've seen him give).

How will the lovers get together when the Prince is keeping such a close eye on them? Especially when it becomes clear that the Prince needs the girl as part of his plan to overthrow his father and usurp the kingdom? He'll never let her go!

And then, just when things can't get any worse, the girl tells the Prince that she's leaving him, and in a drunken stupor he follows her out of the palace and off camera; the ceremonial sword he always carries slung at his side. A scream! Eeeeeeee! Then a horse comes back on camera with the girl lying limp on it's back. Off the horse goes into the night.

Remembering the title of this movie and the occupation of it's main character, tell me what happened.

It wouldn't be so bad if the movie acknowledged that the audience was in on the joke, but it doesn't. It plays exactly as if it thinks it's fooled us, even up to the part at the end where -- Usual Suspects style -- Giamatti's eyes light up as he figures out what we've known for the last hour and the montage of all the key scenes and dialogue reveals the clues that we were supposed to have not caught on to.

If only the film-makers had been as clever in their misdirection as the illusionist was supposed to be.

Having the murder take place off-camera? Really?

Writing is Hard: Stories for boys (and girls)

Last week I ranted a little about how diverse comics are these days and how frustrating it is that the media still sees a need to keep bringing that up. As sort of a counterpoint to that, here's a recent Wizard interview with cartoonist Kyle Baker about how comics actually aren't enough for kids these days.

"I’ve been in this business since 1983. And when I started, comic books were distributed at candy stores and 7-11s. And you were always told that your audience was children and there were rules that the pictures should tell the story because your audience probably can’t read that well and things like that... At some point, Marvel and DC comic books stopped being for children to the point where I can’t give Wonder Woman to my daughters because there’s too much T&A. I just personally don’t know how to do that stuff. When I did Plastic Man, I said, 'I’m gonna do a kids book.' I’m from the days when DC comic books were for children. So I pretty much expected it to not sell. That’s why I’m working for companies like Disney and Nickelodeon and Scholastic..."

Baker's talking about the actual state of the comic industry in this country and he's dead on. That's what makes it especially aggravating that the general public still sees comics as a kids' medium. Not only do comics include stories for adults these days, they pretty much exclude stories for kids. And that's not only sad; it's stupid.

"I think it’s wonderful that there’s more variety in books and there are things like Dark Knight. I’m a big fan of Alan Moore and all that stuff, but you really do need to have some stuff for kids. And just from an economic standpoint, at the end of the day, kids spend more money on cartoon products. Spongebob makes so much more money than Superman does. They’re really missing the boat. That’s my opinion.

"...Only in DC Comics when you say, 'Hey, I’ve got a great idea for a kids cartoon,' do they look at you like you’re crazy... But these are also the people who can’t sell Scooby Doo comics. If you can’t sell Scooby Doo, you should really quit the business."

This is all interesting to me not only because I love the comics industry and want to see it as healthy as it can be, but also because I'm thinking more and more about my own stuff and whom it's appropriate for.

Right now, for example, we're thinking over some of the language in Robots vs. Monsters and whether or not to tone it down for kids. On the one hand, you want to be true to your story. Chances are, if someone comes face to face with a giant freakin' monster that's crushing fighter planes left and right, that person's response isn't going to be, "Holy Mackerel!" It's going to be a bit stronger than that. On the other hand, maybe it's worth replacing the stronger word with something like "$#!%" so that we enlarge our potential audience. I mean, kids would like a comic about giant robots and giant monsters beating the snot out of each other, wouldn't they?

Writing is Hard: How Not to Market

Gail Simone has an article up on her blog with some excellent advice for authors and fans alike about how to turn people off of whatever it is you're trying to turn them onto. The secret? Whine about how no one's reading it.

"...if we make a book that isn't appealing enough to be picked up off the shelves... is that really the customer's fault? Is it right to imply that a book's failing is solely because of the readers?

"...it's wrong to blame the customer if they don't want your product. This is true both of individual creators and even large publishers, and trying to guilt a reader into buying a book is a bad move because; 1) It rarely works, and 2) It's chicken."

For more insight on why it doesn't work, check out the link. It's good stuff for writers, but it's also good for fans who are trying to drum up support for a favorite book or show. She also has advice on how you should drum up support:

"If you love a book and it could use more readers, I suggest you consider telling people why it's great, what it is you love about it. Imagine someone suggesting you try a new restaurant by saying, 'This restaurant is going under... why aren't you eating there?' It's just not appealing. It may feel good momentarily to say, but ultimately, it just bugs the hell out of me to blame the readers when they WANT to support comics. It's we who, somewhere between our computer and the comic shop, didn't give them something they felt intrigued, compelled, or horny enough to buy."

Writing is Hard: No Magic Bullet

Stephen King has an excellent article on The Washington Post's website about the Writing Life. Totally takes the mystery out of it, which is a good thing.

I can't count the number of times I've seen a successful writer asked by an aspiring writer, "Where do you get your ideas from?" As if the answer to that question will somehow lead the aspiring writer to those same ideas and make him or her a Successful Writer. It's the desire for the Magic Bullet. If only someone would just show me how to do it -- what the Secret is -- then I could replicate it and be the next (insert the literary idol of your choice).

By proclaiming that there is no Secret -- no Mystery -- to the writing process, King puts the hard work right back where it belongs: in the writer's lap.

"I'm often asked if writing classes are any help, and my immediate and enthusiastic answer is always, Yes! Writing classes are wonderful for the writers who teach them and can't make ends meet without that supplementary income. They are also good places for unattached people to meet, talk about books and movies, have a few drinks and possibly hook up. But teach you to write? No. A writing class will not teach you to write. The only things that can teach writing are reading, writing and the semi-domestication of one's muse. These are all activities one must pursue alone.

"Aspiring writers are told these things over and over again and constantly push them aside. They want something quicker."

To Read: Cryptid

I don't know much about Cryptid except that it's got giant monsters, weird science, huge apes, eerie castles on hidden lakes, beautiful women, and two-fisted heroes. What else do you need to know?

What little info is available can be found at Newsarama. Definitely keeping an eye out for this one.

New Comics: 10/11/06

Diamond's got their shipping list finalized for the week. Here's what I'm getting:

52 #23
Absolute Sandman Vol. 1
Fables#54
Fables Special Edition #1
Martian Manhunter #3 (thinking about dropping this one, but we'll give it one more month)
Battlestar Galactica #2
The Phantom #12
X Isle #3