Erin Schadt, The Comic Queen, posts an excellent review of True Story Swear To God. I particularly liked her insight into present-day marketing realities: "Like I said, I had heard good things. I was not in any way prepared, however, for how great this series truly is... I'm at a loss to find a flaw with this series, and I can pick at and be critical of most anything, so that's truly saying something. I'm giving this series my highest recommendation. Bottom Line: A+" Sometimes, apparently, you really can believe the hype.

That Pop Culture Gadabout himself, Bill Sherman, looks at the latest incarnation of Scurvy Dogs: "For those unfamiliar with the adventures of this dissolute band of pirates - who rummage their way through modern times, getting into pointlessly violent scrapes with monkeys ("pigeons of the seas," they calls 'em) and hobo kings, tossing off the occasional "Yar!" and silly pop culture reference (one that made me laugh out loud on the reread: a set of Hummel figurines done in tribute to violent deaths in the Great War) - well, to you I say, plunk down $12.95 for a copy of this collection today. Because Boyd & Yount need to be encouraged to do more of this sublime silliness. And because any form of intentional silliness is all too rare inAmerican comics these days..."

Jason over at Comic RIOT! has a real nice review of the Scurv as well: "But apart from the hilarious 'origin' stories of each pirate and the apparent disdain they have for anything that doesn't revolve around their little world, these stories still have a 'screw you' relevance that delicately mocks the comic book industry itself. Kind of a 'Who cares about success and glamour? We'd rather stab you in the kneecap and laugh.'" Truer words, never spoken, etc. "'Screw you' relevance" is my new motto.

Khaled over at Broken Kode, after tearing my old pal Bri Wood a new one way back when, finally uncovers True Facts and writes: "There were a couple of articles in there that were exceptionally useful to me. Some articles were very amusing to read, while others went absolutely nowhere." That's pretty much the whole gamut run, there. Spectrum, I say. Still, I'd make the argument that a straight-line trend benefits those paying attention more than a Bell Curve any day, and that's a fact.

Thank God Greg Burgas wrote "I May Have Caused Larry Young Some Vexation" when titling his latest, at least allowing for the fact that maybe there was some tongue-in-the-cheek on my part in my last post about his review of the Capes. Nice work, Greg! Anyone who has "ABBA rules!" at the top of their site is OK with me by definition. All the other stuff in your review is as Joe Casey tells us: "People see what they want to see." This quote of yours, though, is spot friggin' on: "Planet of the Capes accomplishes what it wants to do, I suppose, but it's done so brutally and nastily and humorlessly that I recoil against whatever point Mr. Young is trying to make." Bubala: the point is brutal and nasty and humorless. You got it exactly: recoil is the only sane response. Go, and sin no more.

There's one last bit of business with that one: "Anyway, just because I didn't like one thing that AiT/Planet Lar puts out doesn't mean that I hate the publisher, and just because I didn't like one thing Mr. Young wrote doesn't mean I'm never going to read anything else he writes." Nobody said you weren't, Greg. People see emotional responses in dispassionate disagreements in Real Life all the time, even with the cues that dry Internet postings lack. So to prove my good will, I see you also wrote: "I have heard good things about Astronauts in Trouble and want to check it out (I will someday!)." Just email me your mailing address at:

larry@ait-planetlar.com

and I'll hook you up with a hardcover collection, gratis, for you to check out at your leisure. Heck, I have half a mind to throw in a Proof of Concept, too, just to show I've got no hard feelings.

But, seriously, commentators, isn't that whole line you toss to creators (who try to interact with you as an audience member) of "creators should just grow thicker skins" as silly as the creator line (thrown back at commentators) of "just try to produce a comic book and then we'll listen to you about what you think of our comics!"? I mean, really? Does context mean nothing? Yes, if a genetics professor tells me "Emancipating Lincoln" from Proof of Concept is implausible because you can't get clonable DNA from Abe's blood-soaked shirt in the museum under Ford's Theatre, well, yeah, maybe that's an interesting exchange to have. But if some college sophomore half this writer's age says that you can't have a society of Lincoln clones in the future because some Star Trek: The Next Generation episode said you can't clone a clone without introducing disastrous results in the resulting organisms... well.

You can see how creators maybe would tend to look at context a little closer than commentators, just on a sanity-preserving level alone.

"Perhaps something offends you about this column. I'm sure it does. Remember: Your outrage trumps any defense I might make. It doesn't matter what I meant, it's what you think I meant." — Jon Carroll