moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (05/15/85)
In article <2826@sdcc3.UUCP> ee171ael@sdcc3.UUCP (GEOFFREY KIM) writes: >Aww come on Jeff. (and everyone else for that matter). > >Admit it. The Xmen suck head right now. Too much time IS >wasted on character development and hardly any time on >just a plain old good story. > >In fact, every issue after about 150 sucked. >I won't give any reason because it is all too plain and >evident. The comic is trying to live off of its early >reputation. > >I don't know why Jeff Meyer and the Jerry B. give it >C ratings (on the average). In my opinion it always >deserves an F. > >The next time someone give an Xman comic anything above >a D, I will have a flame reply waiting to point out all >the crappy points that I can't mention now. > >Larry Kim > >Please don't flame me since you know the comic really >sucks head. Hmm. I thought we had too much of a good thing here; net.comics so rarely resembles net.flame, that it really shocks me to read something like this. Not because of the constant repetition of the term "sucks head" (though it make you wonder about the vocabulary of the author); but because the author refuses to give reasons for his views. This constant bit about "no reasons because they're evident" just doesn't make it. Larry/Geoffrey/whoever, everybody in this newsgroup has opinions; sometimes they're the same, sometimes they're different. In fact, the latter is what makes it so interesting; if Jerry and I didn't disagree on 25% of the comics reviewed, it would be pretty boring. However, give REASONS why you disagree with a review. Otherwise, it's just babble. And be tolerant of other's views. There are some comics that the reviewers will NEVER agree on (Batman & the Outsiders :-) ), but people reading this group to figure out which comics to buy get a better idea of their choices when we tell why we liked or disliked it. The review above is just about useless to the readership (and writership) for any reason other than heartburn. Let me quote something from the latest issue of the CBG, by Don Thompson, one of the finest reviewers I've ever read. He says, "I would rather recommend a good comic book than pan a bad one, even though it's easier to be 'clever' when doing killer reviews." I have to agree that this is a good rule-of-thumb, though I need to improve some on the non-killer reviews myself. Finally, I guess our opinions of the X-Men exists. If Claremont and Romita can keep the plot, dialogue and art up to last issue's standards, I'll continue to keep giving it a C or higher. I like character development (though I'll admit that if anyone goes overboard with it, Claremont does) over fight scenes -- when you've read all the comics I have, *BIFF* *BAMM* *POW* *THHHKKKKKUUUNNNKK* (The latter brought to you by Simonsin Sound Effects) gets stale pretty quick. "There *are* standards. If you can't see one, you *make* one and stick to it come Hell or high water -- until you see a BETTER one." -John Gaunt Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsri}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA