>>Yes, the editorial criticized what she did -- careful, of course, to note her personal intelligence, likeableness and integrity. <<

Integrity? See the material I repeated above. Groth saw no integrity in Carol....

Best, Pat

Charles--

I agree with you about the 'timing' issue. I don't think it's relevant, and Don's earlier comment about what the actual timing was put the issue to rest, I think. I agree with Jim that if the timing of the editorial had been BEFORE Kalish's death, it would have made a great deal of difference.

You said, 'The problem seems that some of us believe emotional outpouring can sometimes be unjustified, while others evidentally believe it always valid.'

If you're referring to me, let me assure you that what you describe is not my position. We've been discussing a particular circumstance, and misleading comparisons with Princess Di and others aren't helpful. Mourning perfect strangers based on what you see on television is silly; but setting those people straight is pretty low on my priority list.

You said, 'Furthermore, I saw no indictment of Kalish other than her choice of work, so could someone state what factual errors were made in the editorial without falling back on the "not the Kalish I knew" inveiglement?'

If you're referring to me, let me remind you that I did not accuse Groth of making factual errors. I referred to 'the magazine's difficulty in distinguishing fact from opinion,' and cited examples.

Speaking ironically, you said, '... Gary is just being inconsistent when he sees a difference between agency in the domination of puerile fodder and a person who occassionally enjoys such fluff.'

In debating that whole issue, the distinction between the fan, the creator, and the seller of 'fluff' is an important one. Once again, if you're referring to what I said, I'll concede that my earlier letter was somewhat muddled in making that distinction. When I talked about 'what comics you like' I was thinking of creators and retailers as well as fans.

I don't want to oversimplify the issue, or suggest that there are no moral implications to being a purveyor of fluff. But I stand by my opinion that it is intolerant and morally suffocating to condemn every single person involved in the creation and sale of superhero comics.

Charles said, 'I agree with Joe that the editorial is consistent with Gary's other expressed views on life; it's not somehow aberrant.'

Actually, my thesis is that the article is representative of the Journal's editorial philosophy. This is in response to Don and others, who've suggested that the article is old news and should be put to rest.

I don't want to castigate anyone for old mistakes (and I certainly don't want to harm Fantagraphics); but the Kalish article was not a mistake, and is a useful means for discussing the Journal's editorial philosophy. There are few articles that so perfectly encapsulate what the Journal is about, and what people object to about the Journal.

I notice, Charles, that you've raised no objection to my characterization of the Journal as lacking compassion. Do we agree on that?

The Journal lacks compassion?

I guess so. So does my TV and computer. And my socks have never said a kind word to me in several years of faithful service... not even when I add those "get fluffy" sheets to the drier.

I suppose you mean those who write, edit, or otherwise contribute to the Journal lack compassion. Is that what you meant to say? I don't want to put words in your mouth. If that is your point though, I'd be interested in finding out which of those people are the ones lacking. Does anyone who works there lack it? Or are there individuals you'd like to mention?

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

Bill, I meant the Journal editorial philosophy, adhered to by the staff to a greater or lesser degree depending on who they are. I don't want to get into personal attacks on individuals. Of course the writer in question here is Groth, but his attitude (which he has every right to hold) is championed by many of his fellow staff members and readers.

Also, I'm talking about the compassion of the writing, not the way the writer acts and thinks when they're away from the keyboard. I'm talking about the idea of whether (and how) the writing should be compassionate. This is an idea about which reasonable people can disagree and constructively debate.

If your point is that I'm overgeneralizing, then maybe you're right. But if the Journal is just some vast grey mist about which nothing specific can be discerned, then the same must hold true for its strong points as well as its weak ones. Anyway, most people give Groth and Thompson more credit for leadership than that.

Note-- I edited this message today to remove a somewhat intemperate remark I had at the end. My apologies to anyone who might have been offended.



[This message has been edited by joezabel (edited 01-27-2000).]

I agree with the comments that TCJ has no compassion....Add to that mean-spirited. Gosh, they are like a bunch of Republicans!

Sam

Found this...I really wanted to put it in the current "Veitch v. Groth Royale" thread on the retailing board, but I'll put it here and not interrupt.
________

Quoted from an advertisement in "The (Rampaging) Hulk" Magazine - June 1980:

"Get Inside Marvel! Next month, start reading the COMICS JOURNAL, the #1 magazine about comics -- especially Marvel Comics!"

"Read the Magazine the Bullpen Reads!"

"WE GUARANTEE you'll become an authority on Marvel Comics in only 30 days or we'll send you a refund on all unmailed copies!"

"YES! I want the full behind-the-scenes story of today's comics -- especially Marvel!"

[This message has been edited by Greg (edited 01-26-2000).]

Hmmm.

I don't see anything in my post which would lead anyone to conclude that I don't want these things discussed here. But if you're going to make up arguments I never attempted to voice (write?) in order to punch holes in them, then you don't really need me at all, do you?

And for the record, it was Fred and Gene, and it was in reference to an earlier post by Rory Root. Fred and Ginger is a whole 'nother discussion, but also one I didn't write (which seems to suggest a theme shaping up, huh?). If there is anything else I didn't write you'd like to take exception to, by all means carry on.

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

You're right, Bill; my apologies.

Editorials are about the communication of ideas. Gary's editorial communicated several ideas so well that it's one reason they're still talking about it years later.

In the real world, editorials often dissect the actions, behavior, and professional conduct of the recently deceased. There are even critical discussions of behavior by sports figures -- Bobby Phills' recklessness, Wilt Chamberlin's excess -- in the notoriously criticism-light world of sports journalism. If you want to read something that's actually an attack obituary, don't read Gary, read H.L. Mencken on William Jennings Bryan. But very few people reading the American Mercury questioned the wisdom of Mencken's approach, because outside of a closed sub-culture people realize that this is simply something that's done. And further, that it's right and necessary to do so.

If Gary thinks that Carol Kalish's job was dishonorable, so what? She had a job, and Gary is allowed to have an opinion of it. It's not personal; it's professional. When Gary dies, people will no doubt analyze his reputation as a journalistic bully and his part-time occupation as a pornographer. It goes with the territory, and I can't help thinking that the reason why a criticism of professional conduct is considered a personal attack by those heavily involved in comics is because a lot of people in comics see one's relationship to comics as the most important defining element of a personality.

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." Again, I think it's a comics thing that this general, somewhat-childish impulse in society is intensified here. Comics is the land of shared, non-judgmental enthusiasms.

Anyone who sees Gary's editorial as a personal attack for questioning someone's professional choices and pointing out the excesses of public mourning only proves his point that a real person's life was perhaps not being engaged there.

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. 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.

Hey, administrators. I tried to delete one of the posts above, but I couldn't. I couldn't even edit it. Can you delete please?

Sorry about that. You break a New Year's resolution at someone else's request and all you have are hassles...