Never miss a post! 
Sequential Tart
An email I read tonight hyping a new trade paperback, featured a quote from a writer for Sequential Tart, the mostly-female-driven monthly comics webzine, and it was then I realized that I hadn't even seen the name Sequential Tart for the better part of a year, much less read it.
So I did.
And as much as I think the more writing about comics by women, the better, it's also not too hard to see why someone could forget about this site for long stretches of time. This isn't meant to be a devastating takedown or anything, trust me, but I did notice a few things:
1) Bad design. When it started, I guess it worked, but now it looks pretty tired, and sort of ugly. The white field with black and red lettering is nearly overpowered by the ominous black sidebar on the left. I think the conceit that this is a magazine, thus requiring a different "cover"/clickable entrypoint, is a good one to keep, though this month's offering is unattractive and hostile-looking. The Editorial, linked on the main page way up on the top right, is apparently the first place one should go, as it mentions what's in the issue, but I'm guessing most people will miss this. The other frustrating thing is that 90% of the articles and columns need to be opened before one has any idea of the contents. How about a sentence below each link that lets you know that "Goin' Postal" is where Tarts shoot the shit, that "Hopelessly Lost, But Making Good Time" is advice for the minicomics creator, and so on? Give us a little hint, because I guarantee a lot of people don't feel like clicking on stuff about which they have no clue. "Interview: Josh Richardson - Digging Trenches"--good luck with that, Josh, whoever you are. I would make the Editorial a must-read, a short something right above the Contents, and again, add a line below each link describing the contents of that feature, column, interview, etc. For convenience, I might like the fact you can see the number grades for all the comics, though since they were all 7 or 8 (both "Above Average"), it raises some questions on critical faculties, or just makes one less interested in reading all the reviews, since obviously they liked everything.
2) Focus - I guess the "Sequential" part throws me a bit, because I expect a bit more comics content, when for quite a while it's been a pop culture mag with an emphasis on comics. To be honest, I wouldn't mind the non-comics content so much if it was just better. I mean, we have a loooong tribute to STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE that sincerely believes a scene-by-scene recounting of the film is the sincerest form of flattery; a column on the annoyance of being put on hold; and a feature with comics pros (well, Devin Grayson, Barbara Randall Kesel and then much less familiar folks) talking about their cats. I freely admit what I see as lack of focus can, in part, be chalked up to just my lack of interest in cats, fantasy novels with dragons, or reviews that start with "Woohoo!" and end with *sigh*
What's missing, and this is true of just about every site out there but Comic Book Resources, are regularly scheduled, essential writers. There are some pretty good ones here--though I know longer watch the show, the writer of the West Wing Tips knows what she's doing, and Rebecca Salek and Katherine Keller are capable reviewers, but where's that Must Read column? For that matter, where's the humor? I really miss that Bizarre Breasts column from long ago, when an example of terribly drawn bosoms was called up for ridicule. And that was about the only art to appear on the site, so let's get scanning, ladies. Give people some comics covers and whatnot to look at, at least. And as far as the reviews, how about some artcomix in there? There's plenty of mainstream superheroes, some Image action adventure, and some manga, but nothing really "alternative" except the artist-driven showcase FLIGHT 2.
The interviews still tend to be the best part of the mag, and I enjoyed the ones with Brenda Bowen of Hyperion Press, and Steve Englehart, which focused on his new BATMAN: DARK DETECTIVE miniseries. I like Englehart and the series is off to a fine start, but I do think he exaggerates the importance of his eight issue run on DETECTIVE as influencing everything done with Batman later, nor did the interviewer endear herself to me with nonsense like arguing that Marshall Rogers might be a better Batman artist than Neal Adams. Puh-leeze.
So I did.
And as much as I think the more writing about comics by women, the better, it's also not too hard to see why someone could forget about this site for long stretches of time. This isn't meant to be a devastating takedown or anything, trust me, but I did notice a few things:
1) Bad design. When it started, I guess it worked, but now it looks pretty tired, and sort of ugly. The white field with black and red lettering is nearly overpowered by the ominous black sidebar on the left. I think the conceit that this is a magazine, thus requiring a different "cover"/clickable entrypoint, is a good one to keep, though this month's offering is unattractive and hostile-looking. The Editorial, linked on the main page way up on the top right, is apparently the first place one should go, as it mentions what's in the issue, but I'm guessing most people will miss this. The other frustrating thing is that 90% of the articles and columns need to be opened before one has any idea of the contents. How about a sentence below each link that lets you know that "Goin' Postal" is where Tarts shoot the shit, that "Hopelessly Lost, But Making Good Time" is advice for the minicomics creator, and so on? Give us a little hint, because I guarantee a lot of people don't feel like clicking on stuff about which they have no clue. "Interview: Josh Richardson - Digging Trenches"--good luck with that, Josh, whoever you are. I would make the Editorial a must-read, a short something right above the Contents, and again, add a line below each link describing the contents of that feature, column, interview, etc. For convenience, I might like the fact you can see the number grades for all the comics, though since they were all 7 or 8 (both "Above Average"), it raises some questions on critical faculties, or just makes one less interested in reading all the reviews, since obviously they liked everything.
2) Focus - I guess the "Sequential" part throws me a bit, because I expect a bit more comics content, when for quite a while it's been a pop culture mag with an emphasis on comics. To be honest, I wouldn't mind the non-comics content so much if it was just better. I mean, we have a loooong tribute to STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE that sincerely believes a scene-by-scene recounting of the film is the sincerest form of flattery; a column on the annoyance of being put on hold; and a feature with comics pros (well, Devin Grayson, Barbara Randall Kesel and then much less familiar folks) talking about their cats. I freely admit what I see as lack of focus can, in part, be chalked up to just my lack of interest in cats, fantasy novels with dragons, or reviews that start with "Woohoo!" and end with *sigh*
What's missing, and this is true of just about every site out there but Comic Book Resources, are regularly scheduled, essential writers. There are some pretty good ones here--though I know longer watch the show, the writer of the West Wing Tips knows what she's doing, and Rebecca Salek and Katherine Keller are capable reviewers, but where's that Must Read column? For that matter, where's the humor? I really miss that Bizarre Breasts column from long ago, when an example of terribly drawn bosoms was called up for ridicule. And that was about the only art to appear on the site, so let's get scanning, ladies. Give people some comics covers and whatnot to look at, at least. And as far as the reviews, how about some artcomix in there? There's plenty of mainstream superheroes, some Image action adventure, and some manga, but nothing really "alternative" except the artist-driven showcase FLIGHT 2.
The interviews still tend to be the best part of the mag, and I enjoyed the ones with Brenda Bowen of Hyperion Press, and Steve Englehart, which focused on his new BATMAN: DARK DETECTIVE miniseries. I like Englehart and the series is off to a fine start, but I do think he exaggerates the importance of his eight issue run on DETECTIVE as influencing everything done with Batman later, nor did the interviewer endear herself to me with nonsense like arguing that Marshall Rogers might be a better Batman artist than Neal Adams. Puh-leeze.
Posted by ChristopherAllen at 11:51 PM [Link to this post]
4 Comments:
Someone want to tell me who the hell Marshal Rogers is?
Point proven.
JPR: I like Rogers' Batman a lot, and while I prefer Adams' rendition, I don't have a problem with your preference for Rogers. Clearly, though, and what I meant to get at, is that Adams has had the greater influence on the character than Rogers has, partly of course because Rogers' run was so short.
Chris: No offense, but your not knowing who Rogers is hardly proof he's insignificant--that's a dangerous road to go down. My very limited knowledge of Rogers after his DETECTIVE run is that he was the original artist on the late 80s SILVER SURFER, replaced by Ron Lim after a year, give or take.
Rogers came on the scene at roughly the same time as Mike Golden, in the mid-late 70's. His odd, angular, slightly awkward style was actually something quite different in mainstream comics at the time, kinda without precedent, and that made him a bit of a low-key fan favorite. Besides the Englehart Detective run (actually, he had done some Batman stories before Englehart came along, I think) and he also drew Mister Miracle's first revival, also in the 70s. I feel like he did something else fairly significant in the 70s, but I forget what right now. Mostly one-or-two issue stints, I think. He went with Englehart to Eclipse Comics as the 80s came along, drawing Coyote and his own creation, Cap'n Quick and a Foozle, which lasted about three issues. I seem to recall that he illo'd an issue of Justice League Europe. One of the last things I remember from him as the 80s wore down was one issue of The Shadow, bridging the gap between Helfer/Sinkeiwicz and Helfer/Baker. He kept a real low profile in the nineties and so far this decade; don't know whether he had other, higher-paying gigs in advertising or whatever, or just decided to pump gas somewhere for a dozen or so years. Anyway, that's who the hell Rogers is.
His Batman better than Adams'? Nah. His is good, but nowhere near as fresh and different as Adams' was back in the day. That Detective run he and Englehart did was good, but I think time has added to its luster a bit, if you know what I mean.
He also did a one shot at DC of some female mystic/palm reader/spiritual wanderer called Madame Xanadu, co-created Detectives, Inc. with Don McGregor and had a brillliant run on the first volume of Doctor Strange from the 70's (issues 48-54).
He's was one of the greats in the 70's and early 80's, and I'm still a fan of his work.
Post a Comment
<< Home