I Love The X-Axis

why, again?

Because good reviewers don't just review good art. Again.

Oh god, I picked this up in the shop, and I understand what everyone means about Claremont's phonetic accent. Moira's Scottish (Irish?) brogue is accomplished by random vowels being replaced with apostrophes.

Ach.

See also his reviews of the final days of Mutant-X.

#29 #30 #31 2001 Annual #32

"good reviewers don't just review good art" doesn't imply "reviewing bad art makes you a good reviewer". however many times you do it.

does he get these comics on comp or something?

I think he just spends obscene amounts on comics every month.

What I like most about him is his consistency. I might not always agree with him, but he publishes so many reviews that I know where our tastes diverge and I can read between the lines. Sorta link that punk Ebert (although Paul O'Brien is OTM much more often).

" I taught a class on "The Decalogue" a few years ago, using tapes from England..."

If you wanna show Paul at his best, I'd've selected his reviews of Chuck Austen's Uncanny X-Men issues, beginning from around UXM #423.

this is terrifying

You're on a COMIC BOOK DISCUSSION BOARD; what exactly are you expecting here?

Sunshine, lollipops, rainbows in a cup. You know, for kids.

i'm expecting people not to have any degree of emotional or intellectual involvement in the doings of marginal and mediocre critics!

i mean, i don't see why that wasn't clear ...

Because you haven't actually said that he is/why he is marginal and mediocre (you might have thrown in meretricious while you were at it).

Your initial complaints (here and on Peter Milligan) seemed to be based around the idea that he was bad because he reviewed bad XMen comics. Now you seem to be saying that he's bad because he's self-evidently bad, against considerable evidence. Do you want to advance your argument a bit?

"marginal" = 'he's a guy with a website'

i'm aware that he spends much of the index making fun of how bad the books were at the time, yes; i don't see how this actually justifies the undertaking, but eh

-- tom west (u3i0...), May 19th, 2004.

i think it's bad (or at least pointless) writing to wallow in something like the dregs of marvel superhero comics with no plan other than to take as many cheap shots as one can find, is all: if o'brien were to advance some kind of aesthetic in which what he's spending his time doing is vaguely worthwhile, i'd have more time for him. pointing out the various ways in which When Marvel Comics Are Bad They Are Very Bad isn't really the hardest job in the world. and his thinkpieces at ninthart always seemed to have a rather poor snarkiness-to-actual-thought ratio.

looking at the thing dan links: "If you're wondering why it's called Excalibur... well, so am I." is a cretinous and cringeworthy construction; like something out of a student paper. and more or less every sentence is like that! countless, uh, unfunny and undergraduate unctiousnesses...

imagine ben elton reciting it.

and: isn't xavier being "middle aged, middle class" kind of a major slip, for someone who's wasted THIS MANY FUCKING HOURS doing this sort of thing?

sp: unctuousnesses

which are, incidentally, unforgivable

Of course, removing the sentence following the one you quoted ("It's got nothing to do with the previous book at all - it's actually about Professor X's efforts to rebuild Genosha. ") actually does impact the tone and meaning of the quote, but why let that get in the way of aimless, lazy bile?

(For "aimless", see your nebulous "he must put forward an aesthetic" criticism which completely misses the point of his reviews, namely "Will someone who enjoys comic books enjoy this one?" as well as a fairly strong desire for preservation of continuity and internal logical sense, and for "lazy" see the incredibly tired and played-out "he writes like a university student" argument, which in my experience appears to be code for "I don't like this but I can't actually formulate why".)

Having said all that, I would completely buy an argument that said Paul is pandering to a particular type of comic book reader when he writes a review and his reviews come across as very cliquish and off-putting as a result. Seeing as I'm a member of that clique, that aspect of his writing doesn't really bother me.

and now, more words beginning with "un"

unberufen!

unciform -

uncle.

unglaublich!

Dan gets points for his Nightcrawler impersonation.

I'm wondering what "clique" you're specifically referring to, tho - a clique that's aware of / has fondness for these characters, that's been through the ups & downs & knows a fair amount of history. I can't think of any comic review sites that don't pander to that demo by default simply by writing about comics. I blame the internet.

Tom, if you're still around, I'm curious - are there any folks on the web writing about comics that you'd consider worthy?

David R@pos@

In general that describes the clique, Dave, but specifically I was thinking about the subset which would be the regulars from rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks, which was where the reviews originated.

Well, there you go - my internet blame is justified! Woo!

Leeeee, would you believe I ALMOST thought that was Tom giving me & my non-existant comic analyses props?

Shweet!

gawwwwwwwwd, i don't know: the warren ellis forum used to be about one part useful to nine parts sycophantic, and a few of the people at NinthArt are obviously capable of some kind of criticism, but i haven't read anything regularly since 02 or so..

ewing and sinker and, uh, padgett? on ILE all tended to be interesting on comics.

haha o'brien started out on usenet? why, that explains everything

and harvell, too, and probably others. (..'nabisco'? idunno.)