I must respectfully disagree with those who say that the Kalish editorial was some kind of accident or abberation, something that should be overlooked.

It is obviously a polished piece of writing with a carefully-focused intent. Groth has consistently stood behind it, even to the point of having it republished on the TCJ website. His partner Kim Thompson has described it as Groth's best work. Current editor Darren Hicks invites us to read it.

In fact, the editorial is THE defining moment for The Comics Journal. No other Journal piece has attracted so much attention, and it is unlikely that any ever will.

The editorial is, in microcosm, everything the Journal is about and everything it stands for. It is a lasting testimony to the magazine's greatest strengths, and a vivid expose of its weaknesses.

It is a strength of the magazine that it is willing to question the sale of junk literature to the public, and to criticize those who take part in it. It is also a strength that it is willing to offend a great many people when the editors think they are right. Those two attributes are amply on display in the Kalish article.

However, the article is a telling example of the magazine's difficulty in distinguishing fact from opinion. Groth paints a startling portrait of 'chilling' sales presentations and a woman who would wish that the world was more stupid so she could sell it more junk comics. But all of this is either skewed perception or outright fantasy. When all of Groth's rhetorical inventiveness is swept away, we are left with a solitary fact-- Kalish was an employee of Marvel Comics.

The Kalish article demonstrates the Journal's tendency to combine elitist artistic tastes with intolerant moral judgements; not only do they disagree with what comics you like, but they assign the cause of that difference to a moral failing on your part. Kalish is being attacked for doing the same thing that every employee of Marvel, its distributors, and its retailers is guilty of doing-- supporting the sale of superhero comics. The moral principle Groth is championing is so broadly based that it suffocates the comics community's legitimate right to survive, and it tramples on individuals' rights to choose the comics they want to be associated with.

Finally, the Kalish article demonstrates the Journal's troubling lack of compassion. It was obviously aimed at shocking and offending those who had tender feelings towards Ms. Kalish. Groth appears to have no regard for the natural human emotions of love and respect that inspired her eulogists, and seeks to replace them with suspicions, accusations, and ridicule.

None of this is a departure from the Journal's editorial tradition; in fact, its perfectly consistent.

Although I don't wish for Kalish's loved ones to be caused any more pain, I think it's appropriate that the Kalish article is a permanent part of the Journal's website. There is no better introduction to The Comics Journal philosophy, and no better explanation of why so many of us have come to reject it.

What Joezabel said!

And to think I ever cursed your attitude Joe, I am humbled and stand fully corrected. Very well put.

This has been akin to reading the CBG lamentations all over again. Once was enough.

Truth hurts, Marvel sucks, and Death wins in the end.

So what else is new?

All that's needed now is for Pat O'Neill to wring his hands in glee (see next post).

------------------
"Do me something now, you c**ks**kers!" ~ Wallace Wood (1927-1982)



[This message has been edited by Buckminster F. (edited 01-24-2000).]

Gentlemen and ladies:

I say to ye, Joe Zabel!

[Followed by much pounding of desks with hands and floors with walking sticks]

Best, Pat

Joe,

As Howard Cosell said "you tell it like it is".

Sam

Yes, Gary's editorial was entirely consistent with his and the Journal's long-standing view of Marvel's central place in the comics medium's standing in the world of letters and its dismal ethical record regarding those toiling in its vineyards. That is understandable given Marvel's sales dominance for the prior generation (and Gary's personal history as a Marvel syncophant as a teenager.)

However, Fantagraphics and Gary (and Kim and Mike Catron) also had a history of putting their money where their mouths were. They began publishing comics with works that were clearly outside the mainstream of the early eighties comics market. They did business under terms that were fair to the creators of said works. They quietly did good works for creators who were unable to produce work for them to publish.

All this was done by ploughing back the profits from their cash cows TCJ and Amazing Heroes into publishing efforts that showed little prospect of paying for themselves. This is the part of Fantagraphics history that is usually overlooked by critics who equate Kim & Gary with Grand Inquisitors.

No matter what you think of them personally, fairness requires that the good they have done be balanced against their lapses in judgement.

I only wish that a similar sense of fairness had been exercised by them before the Carol Kalish editorial was published. That the editorial is now available again just makes it incumbent upon those who knew Carol to provide the counter balance to Gary's (and presumably Kim's) view of her.

Very well said Jim, I think another Jim, Friel to be precise, may have the best take on this subject.

Definately Fred Astaire, right? For one very good reason: I got my first real kiss at the opening run of Finnian's Rainbow (Tina Camphouse I think, but it was long ago). As far as I know, Gene Kelly never helped me get kissed. But then he did such a fine job in Singing in the Rain, and there was Brigadoon... Hell, I don't know. It's a close one. Then again, our high school production of Brigadoon beat Gene Kelly's version, no contest. Kelly didn't have the fabulous Lisa Van Hoosema in his cast. So definately Fred Astaire. Fine. That's settled.

------------------
My Page: www.clockworkstorybook.com

Jim Hanley--

I agree absolutely that Fantagraphics has performed a very positive role in the world of comics. In fact I recently wrote a summary of alternative comics publishers (in my Indypreviews column) in which I praised their efforts. I also think that the Comics Journal in particular has done a great deal to further the cause of alternative comics.

But that shouldn't prevent us from criticizing them in the same spirit as they criticize the rest of us.

In my note above I focused on three key areas where the Journal's editorial philosophy is wrong. These are not lapses in judgement on their part-- they are integral parts of their philosophy and ongoing practices, and I'm sure they'd be ready to defend them.

I want to make it very clear that I don't accept these things, and I reject their editorial philosophy.