Quoth Mr. Zabel: "I've been hearing about a 'Veitch Vs. Groth' thread somewhere, apparently on the Journal message board; but I can't find it. Can anyone please help me?!"

Actually, it's right here at home, under the 'retailing' board:
http://207.69.158.95/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000188.html

[This message has been edited by JohnEWIlliams (edited 01-28-2000).]

"A discussion with someone whose intellect I respect is always a pleasure."

Fear not, Don, I shan't leave you.

My respect for your intellect is determined by your debating tactics.

Quack, Don

------------------
HUNDREDS of daily comics -- and MORE!
http://www.stormloader.com/markstein/daily.htm
"Your Daily Dose Links Page"

With those debating giants, I wonder how poor little me fares?

Sam
LMAO

Some folks have an inflated view of their intellect....

I've been saying that the Kalish editorial is representative of the Journal's editorial philosophy, that it was in fact a 'defining moment' for the Journal. Former Journal editor Tom Spurgeon's defense of the editorial on this thread helps substantiate my assertion.

Let's look at Tom's defense.

I agree with Tom that criticism of the recently deceased is a proper journalistic function; but I would add that responsible magazines and newspapers exercise that function only when it is necessary and appropriate. Tom cites critical posthumous articles about some sports stars, and a Mencken 'attack obituary' on William Jennings Bryan; this is unconvincing, since Kalish was not a celebrity or a politician.

Also, Tom's missing the point of the editorial. Groth's assertion that Kalish's job was dishonorable is only the premise of his article. The thesis of the article, however, is that Kalish was so deeply tainted that eulogists who failed to note her sins were 'distorting and falsifying' her role in the comics industry. So Groth wasn't merely criticizing Kalish-- he was blasting others who wrote about her for not properly anticipating Groth's own low opinion of her!

Tom went on to say, 'As for Joe Zabel, I strongly disagree with the implication that TCJ editors lack compassion, or that the magazine overall lacks compassion. TCJ refuses to indulge people in their infantile excesses, but the coverage of creators rights, corporate malfeasance, and its championing of art over commerce are all extensions of a compassion for the predicament of the artist and the art-lover in cold, modern society.'

Jim Hanley, myself, and others have acknowledged the Journal's positive role in promoting alternative comics. If Tom wants to characterize this as 'compassion,' then so be it. But he's talking about a selective compassion for fellow members of a self-defined elite. I'm talking about compassion for the human race in general. If Tom thinks that writing to a letters column with tributes for a dead friend is an 'infantile excess,' then he might well have trouble understanding what I mean.

Addressing me, Tom adds, 'The fact that a noted corporate apologist, who has consistently argued for the rights companies have to screw over peoples' lives rather than the right-and-wrong of it, is banging his cane in your honor should make you question the wisdom of your original post.'

I find this disturbing, Tom. You seem to be indulging in guilt-by-association. But I've paid my dues as both an alternative comix creator and as an alternative comix enthusiast, and you can kiss my ass. I wonder too about that phrase 'banging his cane'-- is that an ageist reference, Tom?

Finally, I want to point out a remarkable passage from Tom's letter: 'Just because someone is having an "honest reaction" does not mean that said action is therefore automatically excused from criticism. If I constantly and loudly crack up during a screening of Schindler's List, being told to shut the hell up is not argued against by saying "But that's how I honestly feel."

This is a perfect analogy, although not the one Tom intends. The 'screening' of course represents the Kalish tributes, and Groth is the one with the 'honest reaction.' I can well understand the rest of the audience telling Groth to 'shut the hell up.'

PS: Thanks, John, for pointing out that other thread. Wish I had time to read all the comicon threads-- plenty of good stuff out there!

[This message has been edited by joezabel (edited 01-29-2000).]

Not to let facts intrude upon this delightful
and highly constructive little give-and-take,
but just to challenge one of the more minor accusations being thrown around:

"I wonder too about that phrase 'banging his
cane'-- is that an ageist reference, Tom?"

Well, on page 3 of this thread, Pat O'Neill
wrote:

"Gentlemen and ladies:

I say to ye, Joe Zabel!

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

[This message has been edited by Sean Medlock (edited 01-29-2000).]

I don't remember who said it, but my phrase was "attack obituary" not "attack eulogy." I wanted to make clear that Gary's was an editorial, not the article about Kalish's passing. An "attack eulogy" is indeed a very bizarre thought.

Hi, Joe:

Thanks for taking time to respond. And damn, but your re-working of my analogy is pretty great rhetoric. Some responses.

1. I think there are much better candidates for defining moment in the Journal -- Carter Scholz's "Seduction of the Ignorant" essay and the Kirby crisis spring to mind -- than the Kalish editorial because I think those moments better define the vast majority of the magazine's aims and preoccupations.
I'll admit that the editorial is a microcosm of its relationship with the fan community, and that it was important in its publishing history as it was so poorly received by members of same.

2. Joe says that papers exercise criticism of the recently-deceased when it is appropriate and necessary. I would imagine Gary found his article be appropriate and necessary, although you may disagree. Kalish wasn't a celebrity or a politician, but like Bobby Phills her death received an inflated amount of attention within its limited sphere that made it worth public commentary.

3. I agree with Joe that the point of the article is in its thesis, not premise. I disagree with his assertion that it was about a failure of the proper public accounting of her role. I think it was about the reasons people did this -- in Gary's opinion -- and what that says about comics culture. I don't think he had a low opinion of her, in fact I think he says the opposite in his piece. And I don't think he wished people to replicate his opinion, either, but to question their own.

4. C'mon, Joe. I certainly don't define compassion as promoting alternative comics. I think that the Journal's advocacy against things like corporate abuse and free speech-haters is compassionate because without a journalistic/advocacy check on things like that, they have and will continue to destroy peoples' lives. I don't think these are things that only matter to a self-defined fellow elite, but to all people everywhere.

As far as "infantile excess," I don't necessarily think that writing letters for a dead friend is defined that way. Gary might. I do think that excessive mourning for someone you didn't know very well or at all indicates an infantile urge that may have -- may have -- something to do with one's desire to participate in a group activity. I have a great deal of compassion for people who do that, and it happens a lot; but my concern would be for how they create meaning and perspective in their lives. That sounds awful, but that's where I'm coming from.

5. Joe, I know you've paid your dues. I own tons of your comics, and have made a gift of your recent work to my mystery-reading father. I wouldn't respond as thoughtfully as I hope I did to a less eloquently-phrased post. I apologize if you thought I made my disagreement with you on this a personal indictment.

My point is that my sense of compassion doesn't really match up with what I perceive to be Pat's publicly-expressed continued interest in noting "the other side of the story" in cases of corporate abuse. I'd be mortified if he similarly agreed with me given that outlook.

The banging his cane phrase was a reference to Pat's endorsement of your original dissection of the Journal, which I supposed meant to be something like a 19th Century Congress scene of hearty agreement. I'm too darn old to be ageist.

6. I wish my passage about Schindler's List were remarkable, but if it were I think you would have better understood it. The key is that it's an indictment of the defense "I was having an honest reaction." Gary would never defend an editorial by saying "I'm being honest about it." The only way I or anyone else would do so would be to point out that if you believe honesty is an absolute virtue, then you should respect Gary's.

I don't object, and I certainly couldn't imagine Gary objecting, to anyone disagreeing with Gary's editorial and telling him he's wrong. Or to shut up. I simply disagree with specific readings I've read here and elsewhere of what that editorial's existence and content means. Editorials should sponsor the exchange of ideas. Gary's editorial is a success in how it's done that, although I think a lot of the criticism that isn't yours, Joe, doesn't engage those ideas as much as make what amounts to political commentary.

Tom--

Thanks for your respectful response. Let me make it clear that I respect you, and our disagreement does nothing to change that. My hope is that the kind of dialog we are having is a constructive exchange that will improve everybody's understanding of the issues in the Kalish editorial.

Regarding the 'canes' reference, I didn't know you were referring to Pat, and didn't pick up the reference from his post (he after all referred to 'walking sticks,' plural.) I never believed that you were an ageist, but I couldn't resist the temptation to turn the tables, since you were trying to connect me with corporate apologism (is that a word?)

I don't know Pat, and I don't know much about him, but I question if it's fair for you to describe him as '...a noted corporate apologist, who has consistently argued for the rights companies have to screw over peoples' lives rather than the right-and-wrong of it...' You provide no foundation for this scathing accusation.

I especially object to your making this accusation without using his name. In effect you're setting him up so that if he complains about the characterization, you can say, 'well, if the shoe fits...'

This improper attack is of course the kind of thing people objected to in the Kalish editorial.

You said earlier that I should question the wisdom of stating an opinion that Pat agrees with, and speaking for youself, said, 'I'd be mortified if he similarly agreed with me given that outlook.' Obviously we should both evaluate our opinions based on their sincerity and the soundness of their reasoning, not on whether the 'right' people agree.

Regarding the Scholz essay you referred to, I hope the Journal adds it to their web page, I'd like to read it. (The TCJ message board had a thread with a number of articles mentioned as high points-- maybe they should put them all on the web.) As a defining moment, the Kalish editorial doesn't necessarily represent everything the magazine engages in; what it does represent is how the magazine functions at an extreme-- it defines the boundaries, just as the Washington Post Watergate articles defined the boundaries in the use of undisclosed sources.

I agree that one needn't be a celebrity or a politician to receive post-mortem criticism. But I don't think, in the 'real world' you referred to, it is commonplace for a sales representative to be attacked after their death because someone objects to what their company does. I disagree with your assertion that 'outside of a closed sub-culture people realize that this is simply something that's done.' And, by the way, that's a rather demeaning reference to the comics community, most of whom do read a newspaper now and then (at least the sports section).

Regarding your point number three, I think the thesis of the Kalish article is fairly summarized in this sentence from its first paragraph: '...genuine private sorrow has turned sickeningly into public blubbering that, aided and abetted by CBG's editorial yahoos who have splashed letters ranging from the trivial and inarticulate to the ignorant and incoherent, has resulted in nothing less than sensationalizing her death, exploiting the crude sentimentality of its readership, and, sad to say, distorting and falsifying Kalish's contribution to the profession.' That kind of suggests what you're saying as well as what I'm saying, with a bit more besides.

Regarding point number four, I don't object to characterizing as compassionate the promoting of alternative comics, championing artists' rights, and fighting for free speech. I'm only arguing for a broader and more consistent sense of compassion that extends beyond ones own immediate area of interest.

The eulogies may or may not have represented, as you say, the desire to participate in a group activity. In any case, this is a universal human need, not an 'infantile urge.' People should not be ridiculed so bitterly for harmlessly following a natural impulse of this kind. I think you're on the right track when you say 'I have a great deal of compassion for people who do that, and it happens a lot; but my concern would be for how they create meaning and perspective in their lives. That sounds awful, but that's where I'm coming from.' Unfortunately, that is not the attitude of the editorial.

Your Schindler's List analogy isn't really a perfect fit; the eulogies for Kalish certainly don't compare with the subject of the film, and Groth's article doesn't constitute giggling. But it was a disruption of a solemn occasion, seemingly without good reason, and in that sense the analogy is very apt.

Thanks for giving your Dad a copy of my comic; I hope he enjoyed it.





[This message has been edited by joezabel (edited 01-30-2000).]

Joe, Joe, Joe,


You must realize that to be a TCJ hot shot you must do the following:

1. Find a target (preferably something or even better someone who is not of Fantagraphics) attack, smear with as much propoganda that would make Goebbels proud.

2. Kiss Gary Groth's ass and proclaim that every word typed from his terminal to be divine and inspired as such.

3. Be a true contributor to the Bible known as The Comics Journal.

4. Above all attack, hate, crush, destroy all of your advesaries whether they be a threat or not, dead or alive.

5. Maintain the Khan mentality "For me to succeed, all others must Fail."

Do this, and you too can be a TCJ first class-ass apologist.

Sam

Hi, Joe:

Just a couple of follow-ups.

1. My characterization of Pat wasn't intended as an ad hominem personal attack on Pat even though that's what it ended up being, especially for you. Actually, it's a re-iteration of longstanding disagreement we have, made in a thread in which he was participating. I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm an elitist, a Groth-robot, and mean and disingenuous besides. It's nothing personal beyond where professional disagreements become slightly personal. I've defended Pat on-line, too: he knows a ton about aspects of the comics business I don't, and I'm told he's a good guy and a good dad. We just have very different definitions of journalistic aims that I think speak to the heart of compassion in journalism. I don't think it's completely necessary to reiterate how I built that opinion of Pat, anymore than it's necessary for anyone to prove why they think Gary in general is a mean son of a bitch.

I apologize for the rambling, ad hominem nature of that characterization, though. I know what that feels like.

2. I don't think promoting alternative comics is compassionate. I do think the other things you list have elements of compassion, and, more importantly affect all people.

3. I think what Gary says in that sentence covers all of the issues upon which he touches, but what he spends the majority of the essay on are the issues of culture and restraint rather than accuracy in reporting.

4. I graduated with a master's from the School of Inexact Metaphors at Northwestern Univeristy. Let's dump Schindler's List altogether and I'll repeat my point sans dressing: an "honest reaction" isn't the same as a "proper reaction." "But it's funny" is a better answer than "But I wanted to."

How one should respond to such an issue when one sees it is a difficult issue and rife with potential landmines, but I think sometimes a sterner word can be more effective than a gentle reminder. I imagine several people at least re-thought their position.

5. Yeah, Dad liked your books. I think he wrote a review of one of them for his MWA chapter newsletter.

Tom

P.S. -- I'd love for them to put that Scholz essay on-line. It's sort of the ur-review from all which all modern TCJ criticism came.

P.S.S. -- Sam, Sam, Sam. Being a TCJ Hot-Shot (now there's an oxymoron), all you need to do is follow the same advice Walter Matthau gives for being a film villain.

1. Look like you know what you're doing.
2. Wear a tie.