Funnybook Babylon

February 27, 2008

Wizard Check: Still Punks

Filed under: Articles — Jonathan Bernhardt @ 8:30 am

You know what’s passé? You know what’s been done? Making fun of Wizard Magazine. Specifically Wizard Online, because fuck if I’m going to shell out bills for a print version.

But sometimes you click a link, and you read a thing, and then you got to write a thing, even though your first reaction is, “Wow, a company dedicated to having a profit margin allowed this to run on their site,” and your second reaction is, “But it’s Wizard. Everyone complains about Wizard. The internet is killing Wizard. They’ll be irrelevant soon enough, and there’ll be no one left to mourn them.”

Here’s what’s up. Wizard does a piece about the top five books with a lead female in comics. The results are predictable:

There’s no shortage of superheroines running through the paneled pages of your favorite monthly fare, but there isn’t an excess of books headlined by the women of the comic world either. We at Wizard know how to treat a lady and it’s about time these titular titles with female leads got their due! We shuffled through stacks of books to bring you five comics headlined by heroines that you really shouldn’t miss, so read the recommendations and then head out and buy the books!

Well no, The Wizard Staff, I’m not going to go do that. In fact, I’m reading Supergirl, and I’m considering dropping it because I found out you guys liked it and wanted to give it props. Here’s the surface level analysis, Wizard Staff: you just used the phrase “titular titles.” Do you know what that means? It means, “titles that have titles.” Or perhaps, “titles that exist in title only.” It’s a meaningless, redundant abortion of language. And you guys only used it because the first three letters of the word “titular” are “tit.” Let’s put aside the frenzied, freshman-comp overuse of alliteration for a minute — you put bad English on your web page because a word reminded you of titties.

And then, Kevin Mahadeo, you have the gall to drop this bit in your Supergirl review: “Stop looking at her chest. She’s more than just the “S” shield inscribed across it.” Oh shit, Kev. Please, do that shit. Tell me more about objectifying women, Kevin Mahadeo of Wizard Magazine. Talk down to me more while your site’s sidebar promises me a chance to meet Summer Glau and Anna Mercury gives “fuck me” eyes. I’m not a monster, Kev. I know you chose a good book for this little shindig. Kelley Puckett’s Supergirl is tight, and it does need more sales. Your review is generally sound. But don’t put yourself on a page with “titular titles” and then lecture your readers. Wizard Magazine could have done a lot of things with its cache as the number one magazine in popular comics and general nerdery, and your employer chose “titular titles” and objectification. That’s their prerogative. That’s what makes them money. But you don’t get to have it both ways.

Haha She-Spawn fuck youLet’s be clear. This page, the Leading Ladies concept, hell, the entire site, is done on purpose. There are reasons for everything that a publication like Wizard does, and those reasons drive a profit margin. The blogoplanet has discussed this to death; Wizard focuses in hardcore on a certain demographic that is willing to spend lots of money, and tries to maximize the spending that demographic does on it and its advertisers. That’s why Andy Serwin and Jim Gibbons are, completely without irony, pimping Jungle Girl and Sheena: Queen of the Jungle right next to each other. That’s why this fucking atrocity, this Bomb Queen IV: Suicide Bomber, co-starring Spawn with huge cans, set in a city where “rape, murder, pedophilia, and incest” are all cool subjects to write explosions about, that’s why this is at the top of the page, getting Jerry Whitworth to throw down lines like, “Well, meet Bomb Queen: the meanest, nastiest, smuttiest and biggest super-villain to ever grace the comic book industry.” Notice the lack of any books from Marvel, such as the incredibly conspicuously absent Ms. Marvel – maybe Wizard’s gotten stiffed on exclusives from them recently. None of this is a mistake, and all of this is planned.

This is where the second level of analysis comes in. Wizard isn’t striking a mighty blow against funnybook feminism with this piece, regardless of their intentions (and either way, defending or carrying the flag for women’s issues in comics is neither my place nor my interest). Perhaps one of the most telling things about what this means for gender interaction in the funnybook community is that the effect that this piece and others like it from Wizard have on women and the image of women in comics is entirely incidental, and the result of what’s essentially a dialogue between guys. Wizard, in isolating itself demographically and speaking only to men — and, within that subset, to only a certain kind of man — is somewhat abusing its bully pulpit: as a publication that has secured exclusivity marketing rights with Marvel and DC, it becomes the de facto print voice of the Big Two. And when that publication, in the same breath, seeks to target a demographic that only comprises a contingent of the readers it draws due to these contractual agreements — however large a contingent that may be — shoulders start to bump against each other. Wizard certainly makes occasional efforts to appeal to other demographic groups within the readership they draw through their convention and marketing agreements, but they handle it a lot like they handle the piece above: with nerdy smugness and a touch of “oh, what a novelty, a girl/lesbian/gay man reading comics!” And they can’t help it, really. They hire bad help.

gaakSpeaking of which: this article, as a piece of professional promo work – never mind journalism – is pretty lacking, and showing that Wizard’s sponsors clearly aren’t getting their money’s worth. I’m going to assume Marvel figured this out early and that’s why they’re not on this list. I’m not sure if this was, like much of Wizard Online’s content, originally printed in the magazine, but it’s certainly symptomatic of the fratboy men’s-magazine mentality Wizard has been unsuccessfully trying to emulate for years. Truly subversive or offensive content is at least intelligently constructed; here, they stick the two DC books and two jungle books next to each other just to emphasize the homogeneity. They also apparently don’t get digital DC comps anymore, because those covers look like they were scanned on an HP ScanJet from the ’90s and posted. I’m shocked they thought to resize them first.

I can’t fathom, in any way, an audience who would read this list and track down these comics, because anybody who would take the authors of this list seriously enough to get these comics based on these blurbs is either A) looking for smut in the first place or B) of the opinion that comics about girls make people think they’re queer. It doesn’t serve a purpose as a promotional tool or as a signpost for new readers, and the “titular titles” under review have basically nothing in common thematically or conceptually other than the fact that the main characters belong to 50% of the population of the planet, and are largely pretty sad representatives of that group.

Meanwhile, apparently the landmark 200th issue of Wizard is coming, featuring, I’m sure, more variant covers than the average 200th issue of an actual fucking comic book. So, we have the Wizard History Poll-O-Rama, all about shit that went down while Wizard was discussing comics. I’m not sure where these nominees came from – I assume Wizard’s ass – but it includes such gems as the “Most Disappointing Comic” poll choices consisting of, uh, the three issues of Frank Miller’s DK2. Also “Best Captain America Writer” is apparently down to Mark Waid and Ed Brubaker, no other choices, kids.

Wizard’s stopped even being offensive; this is like watching fish bounce out of the ocean and suffocate to death on the land because their outlook and drive are so horribly unsuited to what they’re undertaking and what they’re up against. It’s just pathetic. I know it’s probably redundant, but it’s really worth noting just watching this former media giant wither away and die of irrelevance in front of the very audience that nurtured it in the first place.

Get with the times or die, kids. Asking your readers to vote on which possible videoblog hostess is hotter isn’t going to dissuade anybody of the notion that you’re a huge promotional machine. People know it. You’ve got no clothes. Get some real content or go home.

Some of this article was by Jon. Some of it was by David. First person plural is off-putting, so we just kept it singular. It’s like some Captain Planet shit.

33 Comments »

  1. Agreed about Wizard – but give Bomb Queen another look. Jimmie Robinson has pulled off a nice satire of the T&A genre in that series. It’s intentionally over-the-top but is intended to lampoon the T&A stuff.

    Comment by matches — February 27, 2008 @ 1:58 pm

  2. Seven Soldiers: Bulleteer was a send-up of cheesecake. Bomb Queen is much more comparable to Empowered as a book that takes refuge in audacity. It’s tongue in cheek, but not in a satire way. More of a Hey look how crazy this shit is! kinda way.

    Comment by HitTheTargets — February 27, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

  3. “But don’t put yourself on a page with “titular titles” and then lecture your readers.”

    That’s really the size of it right there. I don’t mind Wizard’s Maxim-like approach to comics so much – superhero comics are male power fantasies and, as a result, will objectify women in a cheesecake way – but I don’t want to be lectured by the people who are doing the objectifying.

    ‘Wizard isn’t striking a mighty blow against funnybook feminism with this piece….[edited for length]”

    Yep. I wish more people saw it this way. Wizard, and Marvel and DC, truth be told, are not trying to strike against feminism or make books that women won’t like. They’re simply trying to make books to be bought by what they believe is the largest demographic spending money on comics – young men. It’s all about the dollar.

    “I can’t fathom, in any way, an audience who would read this list and track down these comics…[.]”

    The purpose of the article was exactly like you said, the show they’re trying to appeal to females while smuggly saying, “Look how progressive we are. These fleshy titty things are good for more than just wanking off to.

    Comment by Kenny — February 27, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

  4. I’m sorry you feel that way.

    Comment by Jerry Whitworth — February 28, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

  5. “Notice the lack of any books from Marvel, such as the incredibly conspicuously absent Ms. Marvel – maybe Wizard’s gotten stiffed on exclusives from them recently. None of this is a mistake, and all of this is planned.”

    The staff was asked what leading lady they would like to write on. I picked Bomb Queen. Nothing conspiracy-esque about it.

    Comment by Jerry Whitworth — February 28, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

  6. I’m also sad to see such a negative response.
    But I respect your opinion on the matter and your desire / passion to improve the comic industry.
    That said, there’s just so much ground to cover in the market, and if this particular Wizard piece was the final word on the subject then I’d side more with the opinion expressed here. But that’s not the case, today. Perhaps in the 1980s / 90s when information was channeled through the few, but we cannot say that now. Thus, I enjoy Wizard’s addition to the subject among the ever-expanding blogsphere.

    As for Bomb Queen, thanks to the other posters for the kind words. Yes, the title is satire, it’s also shock-jock saying look at how wrong it is, it takes jabs at T&A and bad-girl books, and it’s very self-aware. It’s *all* of that, and more.

    I’m happy that Jerry Whitworth spoke up for me when several female-lead titles could take my place.

    Comment by Jimmie Robinson — February 28, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

  7. Yeah, I’ll back that Bomb Queen rec. I haven’t read past the first book, but it was a fun, if raunchy, read.

    Titular titles, though? Ugh.

    Comment by David Brothers — February 28, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

  8. “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

    Don’t be sorry. This is how you’re making your money, it’s all good for you.

    “I’m happy that Jerry Whitworth spoke up for me when several female-lead titles could take my place.”

    That particular bit of the article was mine, and I take responsibility for it. I haven’t read Bomb Queen, and that particular piece of promo material — both in the style it was written and the picture it conveyed of the work it was discussing — was an extreme turn-off in terms of me ever touching the book. As it’s described now, it’s still not honestly anything I can say I’m that interested in, but I’m glad I’ve gotten a little better handle on what you were thinking when you did the book, so thanks for dropping by and helping clear things up.

    Comment by Jonathan Bernhardt — February 28, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

  9. “You know what’s passé? You know what’s been done? Making fun of Wizard Magazine.”

    You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but after your opening statement, you’ve really set yourself up for failure.

    I for one am extremely happy to see Wizard choose a non-corporate character as one of the top lead females in comics. In my opinion, it would have been much more predictable and passé to pick all corporate female leads. What it comes down to is the fact that you don’t like the choices. That, my friend, does not make Mr. Whitworth’s opinion any less valid than yours. All it does is makes your rant the very thing you say you hate.

    -D

    Comment by Dwight L. MacPherson — February 28, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

  10. Just a few quick comments.

    1. I don’t hate Wizard magazine, but making fun of it is pretty old-hat and passe. As a matter of fact, I check their site regularly and usually tend to think Thursday Morning Quarterback is the most levelheaded review section on the ‘net.

    2. I apologize for the insinuation of a conspiracy regarding the Marvel content, and yeah, if I’d looked I would have noticed alphabetical order. So my bad.

    3. Those two aside, I think that when the first thing I see on a list of leading ladies in comics is a parody of leading ladies in comics, something is really, really, really wrong with leading ladies in comics. And to see an article placing that fact front and center just kind of tweaked me.

    No personal offense meant to Mr. Whitworth, or Jimmie Robinson, and I’ll give Bomb Queen a try based on your comments – I don’t know if it’s my cup of tea, and I still think that having it headline a listing of fascinating female protagonists in comics is downright baffling, but it’s only fair.

    and:
    4. Mr. MacPherson, did you, like, read the article? I really don’t think our complaints had anything to do with feeling that poor, pantywaisted Marvel Comics is being ignored by the media juggernaut that is Wizard, but rather the fact that the entire list couched everything in sexual terms and then spent the entire time talking about how you shouldn’t judge these books on sexual terms.

    Mr. Whitworth, thanks for responding, and keep up the solid work on the myriad articles, interviews and reviews I enjoy reading at Wizard. I just felt that the standard had gone up recently and this was disappointing and self-defeating and I had a visceral reaction.

    Cheers.

    Comment by David Uzumeri — February 28, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

  11. Y’know, as an actual girl, I’m not sure I can properly express how pissed off “titular titles” makes me. But it’s probably just as mad as I got *last* time I tried to read Wizard. Seriously. I know girls are not really a majority of comics readers but there’s no need to be offensive, boys.

    Comment by erin — February 28, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

  12. I had the titular line in Star Wars.

    Comment by ash — February 28, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

  13. It’s all good. After all this is “Tough Love For Comics”, right?
    I’d worry more if the reaction was opposite. I think everyone came out the better for this. Thanks goes out to all sides.

    Comment by Jimmie Robinson — February 28, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

  14. Wowzee, wowzee, woo-woo. Well that was quite a rant. Titular Titles is like alliteration coupled with innuendo, it works, its not the best writing, but it was appropriate. Anywho, keep up the Wizard bashing? *shrug*

    Comment by Esbat — February 29, 2008 @ 3:14 am

  15. How was it appropriate? I mean, does every article about women have to involve some measure of innuendo? This wasn’t about the sexiest women or whatever.

    Comment by David Brothers — February 29, 2008 @ 3:39 am

  16. Man what kind of world we live in where dudes come in and start out by saying “Wowzee, wowzee, woo-woo,” but by the time they’re done they’re trying to condescend to you

    That takes some kind of stones, kid, and for that, I salute you.

    As for the content of the thing, Brothers got it covered.

    Comment by Jonathan Bernhardt — February 29, 2008 @ 3:40 am

  17. While Bomb Queen may be excusable in the article (chock me up as another who has never read it), the fact that two blatantly cheesecake “Naked Jungle Woman” books (one by Frank Cho, no less) are featured is a little sickening. Sheena might have a “layered plot”, but using phrases like “a smoking hot, arrow-slinging, knife-wielding, panther-riding jungle queen” and “curvaceous covers” in the review is doing Wizard no favours whatsoever.

    Comment by John McAree — February 29, 2008 @ 8:38 am

  18. Well alot of people say you’re mistaken in my “stone having” abilities, but alas. I feel it was just an overblown response, considering Wizard has a looooooooooooooong history of talking about T&A, because its written by guys.

    Now consider the fact the magazine AND the site are now trying to grab a broader demographic of the Maxim/FHM generation, where those magazines are specifically T&A. So when the cover of your publication specifically states “#1 Men’s Pop Culture and Comics Magazine”, chesticles and ba-donka-donks are going to eventually come into play.

    Comment by Esbat — February 29, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

  19. Esbat, I browsed your blog for like five seconds and I’m not going to try to respond since we clearly read comics and comics-related media for completely different reasons.

    Chesticles? Ba-donka-donks? What are we, five?

    Comment by David Uzumeri — February 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

  20. Esbat:

    So when the cover of your publication specifically states “#1 Men’s Pop Culture and Comics Magazine”, chesticles and ba-donka-donks are going to eventually come into play.

    Chesticles? What is wrong with you?

    A men’s magazine doesn’t have to be immature or idiotic.

    I don’t think that you can say “ba-donka-donk” either. That stopped being cool when they made a country song out of it.

    Comment by David Brothers — February 29, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

  21. I don’t remember saying “chesticles” when I was five, then again I was born before the internet was invented.

    *ahem*

    As for whats wrong with me… alot. And yes I do enjoy comics, do I buy them, no; do I buy wizard, no. I buy Toyfare because I enjoy the things I couldn’t afford as a child and thus are stuck in a Jungian stage of adolescence when I should have progressed into young adulthood about 5 years ago.

    Socio-economic impacted childhoods aside, I wanna remind you I’ve never been cool I still say things like “rad” and “fantastirastic”. I also enjoy Bon Jovi and Journey.

    Anywho, thanks for checking out my blog, its nothing fancy as I lack HTML or typographical skills. My milieu is my own twisted imagination and the minds of others.

    But I still wholey support the T and the A, which you probably got from the whole Bouncy boobs gif of Power Girl! Exelsior! *hands Stan Lee a nickel*

    Comment by Esbat — March 1, 2008 @ 3:15 am

  22. Don’t read this with an angry tone, I’m not arguing, just talking for a while.

    It’s great that you folks who write this blog have an opinion and all but it’s pretty lousy to rag on Jim just because he tried to make an intro paragraph fun to read with alliteration and Kevin because he was playing-off Jim’s joke. I understand all about writing to appeal to a certain demographic, but that’s what every business does, that’s how they all survive. Wrong or right, the big-wigs say they have to do it. Everyone’s got a mouth to feed, you know?

    You guys really think the Wizard staff sits down and plans “Hey, let’s objectify women in this paragraph and then tell people it’s wrong to do it in the next!” It’s more like “Hey, let’s make a joke here and alliterate with “titular titles” because A) it doesn’t make sense so it’s funny B) it flows well with the rest of the paragraph C) people will have enough of a sense of humor to realize we’re having fun with this and not intentionally insulting anyone’s intelligence”

    That’s just the impression I get, from having talked to these guys for a while.

    Bomb Queen is a protagonist in her own book, that’s why she’s on the list. The genre is interesting too, it’s not a T&A book, if you take the time to read what Jimmie Robinson says in the commentary of some of the issues, you’ll see it’s meant as a satire with T&A, not T&A with satire tacked-on. If he sounds sarcastic when he says it, it’s because he’s got a sense of humor.

    I think the problem you guys had with the Wizard article is that you’re taking the satire and jokes too seriously. You may have a good reason for doing so but you have no reason to be talking down to Kevin and Jim.

    Comment by Dr Nightmare — March 1, 2008 @ 5:28 am

  23. Esbat, I find your heteronormative reading of the Wizard article and subsequent response fascinating, but what you’re overlooking is the problematized semiotic palimpsest of gynophobic comic fans in re: their commodity fetishization of — oh wait sorry, the adults are talking here.

    Wizard printed what came off as a somewhat dumb and juvenile article, and Jon and David vented. Jimmie and others came in to point out how they were perhaps unfairly dismissive of Bomb Queen, lessons learned all around. But really, if you want to show us the power of your “Condescence”, you best come correct: most of us went to grad school, which is pretty much nothing but writing in condescending academic speak. You could start by using real words.

    Seriously, can we pretend this thread ended with Jimmie’s reasonable wrap-up? You can stop your little WizardUniverse war party, and we promise not to make fun of your lesbian action figure fumetti or your ninja weapon collections!

    Comment by Chris Eckert — March 1, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

  24. I’ve read the article and have let the comments stew for a while. I believe a lot of people are missing the point over one small portion instead of seeing the article as a whole. Wizard’s article was meant to point out super heroines that the writers wanted to showcase. However, they did it in a completely tongue-in-cheek fashion.

    Now everyone’s got a different sense of humor, but I felt that really cheapened the article. The FBB article was meant to discuss what Jon and David thought as Wizard’s processes as of late and people are inclined to rather pick at the Bomb Queen comment continuously (which has been resolved), but now it’s popping up again. Let’s just get back to discussing what’s relevant without resorting to made up words. (Wowzee Wowzee? Seriously)

    Comment by mvo — March 1, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

  25. Hey, Wowzee Wowzee is *almost* the name of a Pavement album, give him some credit.

    Comment by David Uzumeri — March 1, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

  26. Ixnay on the inja weapons nay! (Can’t let the man know about those!)

    I’m mostly here for the attention because thats how I roll.

    Anywho, education level name dropping aside, I dig the snarkiness and pomp of B and U. One blog post I disagree with isn’t gonna make me shat troll bricks. Normally I’d read this kinda stuff and move on but it says loads when something clicks and I settle in and start self depricating.

    Comment by Esbat — March 1, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

  27. “most of us went to grad school’

    Oh no, grad school!!!!1 Esbat, you better back down NOW. You’re going to get owned by the academic might of guys who went to college AND talk about comic books. That’s a one two power combo you couldn’t possibly handle.

    Comment by Paul — March 2, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

  28. Sigh.

    If any more friends or family members of Wizard want to show up and post in this thread, please go ahead. I just want you to think before you post about what the article was about and what you get out of comics? Several of the posters coming along attacking this site and the article seem less interested in actual comics and more with the action figures and fetishization of female superheroes.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, but I prefer you guys were more open about that aspect. Like David said, FBB seem to get something completely different from comics than you do. Don’t present yourself as caring about things like plot points, story elements and characters, if that isn’t your main concern.

    Wizard presents itself as being a source for comics news and comic information but is something else. The article goes after Wizard as an institution. It’s not about the content of the article but the way the article approaches the subject. It’s less about valid and exciting reasons to talk about books with female protagonists and ha ha funny tit jokes. Which completely undermines any original point the article could make.

    Wizard cant have it both ways, it’s either a magazine for fetishing superheroes and their memorabilia, or it talks about fucking superhero comics with a little respect. For the long time it’s been the former, I just wish you guys would own up to it and stop acting like it’s anything more than that.

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — March 2, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

  29. No no no… its the #1 Pop Culture AND Comics Magazine. It stopped being the Magazine for Comic Books a while ago. Its FHM for Nerds.

    Comment by Esbat — March 3, 2008 @ 1:52 am

  30. Esbat,

    I know this is your attempt as some mega troll about how we are assholes who think we are better than you because we had rich parents who spent a shitload of money to send us to Ivy league school. That this education entitles us to call wizard and the side projects of its online writers sexist. I cannot wait to see you rattle against us self-important bloggers. Let me help you out here with the point that I got out of the article, that honestly none of the Wizard writers defended against. I’m taking all the grown up big words out since I don’t have a grad school degree, so we can both understand it.

    Esbat Version –

    Wizard continuing to be a magazine and website full of shitty articles written by people who don’t care about comics beyond breasts is going to make it die a sad pathetic death in a gutter. The few who miss it will go to your website to get their rocks off.

    For everyone else –

    I personally don’t care if you want to spend your day making female action figures kiss, or get tons of orignal art of female characters in risque and sexualized poses. I’m pro-fetish all the way. As long as no one gets hurt by what you do to get your rocks off, go ahead and do it.

    But at this point, we are having 2 different conversations about comics. I know this is your moment to shine and prove us wrong about something, but Wizard wrote a very very bad article. Being the FHM of comic doesn’t excuse the quality of the writing or the fact that the article tries to sell the concept of 5 female books out of the current market have quality female protagonists and trips over itself to make inane after inane joke about tit-tays. It goes out of its way to be hostile to females and then accuses people of sexualizing characters sentences later after doing itself. This is the complete opposite of what it states it wants to do in it’s opening paragraph. This isn’t jokey, let me be non-topical and random writing but instead just lazy and shitty writing.

    You are right that it’s something that we should take less seriously, and the wizard writers hardly do themselves. That’s why they wrote such a terrible piece. It’s disposable writing that wouldn’t be worth the free lab paper I could print it on. Wizard just tends to print a lot of stuff like this, all the time.

    I’m not going to lie and say I didn’t read Wizard when I was younger, and periodically, check it since they have exclusive rights to information before other sources, or even the hope that they will get their act together and finally start writing about comics in a non-cringe worthy way. I give it a stay of execution with my 5 dollars or whatever they get off the ads on the side. But every time I do, I know I’m going to have to run back to the internet for my comics content.

    I’m not losing sleep over something like this because in the end as long as Wizard as an institution prints out more articles that even their freelance and non-paid writers cannot take seriously, the faster it will make itself useless to the internet and comics reading world as something to buy, let alone read. Shit, I think they stop illegally scanning it because no one would download it. You can barely fucking give it away.

    At this point, Wizard is exactly what the writers of this article aspired to be. A joke that hasn’t been funny since I was a kid.

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — March 3, 2008 @ 7:23 am

  31. Bomb Queen is satire like de Sade is satire: it commits the crimes of its subject matter in greater kind, not in jest.

    Comment by Jbird — March 17, 2008 @ 1:40 am

  32. […] the Comics Foundry preview I got at the MOCCA Arts Festival last year. I had high hopes for it: Wizard has been fucking up the job of being a comic magazine for so long and The Comics Journal has moved […]

    Pingback by Funnybook Babylon » Blog Archive » Comics Foundry Spring 2008 Review — April 9, 2008 @ 2:12 am

  33. The idea that Marvel is a sponsor of Wizard and that Wizard is set up to do press for them is ludicrous. In all my interactions as a writer for these publications I have never been given the instruction to pander to a company or entity, other than “if you completely trash something, they might be hesitant to give us quotes in the future.” To think that the magazine exists as a mouthpiece for any comic company is incorrect.

    Comment by Ethan Kaye — July 12, 2009 @ 1:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress