As Mr Spock (Leonard Nimoy) would say, “Facinating.”

“[Roger Ebert] IS an authority on film, and I often trust his opinion even though I don’t always agree with it.”

And then you wrote this:

“An authority is better at finding the facts and has a better understanding of the medium so that when they point out facts they’re more likely to be believed. Siskel and Ebert are the best examples.”

Holy shit, you’re an idiot.

Critics do not provide facts, they provide opinions.

That’s why they’re call critics and not the Arbiters of What is Objectively Good and Bad.

Because there is no objectively good and bad in art.

I don’t even know what your original point was, but I do know you keep digging this hole deeper and deeper with your nonsense. Now you’re stuck.

Give up already.

Also, I take this back. You didn’t deserve it. I was trying to be nice, and in return I get patronized.

Ah, the internet. “Where everybody is equal. Except for those of us who are better than you.”

Kid, you really should sit this one out.”

No, I wasn’t. I think you should sit it out because you seem to be commenting on and responding to things that aren’t there.

Actually, I had in mind the reviews of the first four issues – you know, the ones people actually bought before jumping off the title. I imagine the people who still review it still like it, but the reviews for early issues generally weren’t very favorable.

No, you’re not talking about facts, you’re talking about opinions.

Kid, you really should sit this one out.

I know you’re not indirectly talking about me. I don’t fit the description. Since you are responding to a quote from my comment, I thought I should respond. I do agree with that, though. A person that is threatened or emotionally involved can find it difficult to handle a discussion and end up making things worse.

“even people who are “authorities on the subject” still only provide opinions.”

Case in point… you agree with what I said but neglected to actually respond to it. SRS responded to me on your behalf and made things worse.

An authority is better at finding the facts and has a better understanding of the medium so that when they point out facts they’re more likely to be believed. Siskel and Ebert are the best examples. They often disagreed, but each one’s opinion was often trusted because they were authorities on the subject.

“No amount of money a reviewer receives will ever change that.”

I made no mention of money.

I’d also like to point out that I didn’t say anyone’s opinion was invalid. I provided counterpoints and contrary opinions of my own. Both Michael Aronson and (begrudgingly) SRS seem to be intelligent guys that many people disagree with. That’s life on the internet, folks.

Er . . . kidding, yes?

I’ve looked at several reviews of POWER GIRL #9. The reviews were favorable, but it was a matter of the reviewers sharing Palmiotti’s and Gray’s sense of humor and loving the artwork. The series might be as dependent on the artwork for its success as any series out there.

SRS

Er, even people who are “authorities on the subject” still only provide opinions. Those opinions are often more informed and better constructed and supported, but they’re still opinions. No amount of money a reviewer receives will ever change that.

“It would be great if people wouldn’t pass off their opinions as authoritative criticism.”

It would be great if people who feel threatened by the arguments presented by those with differing opinions wouldn’t try to participate in discussions they’re unable to comprehend and handle.

Hey, thanks a ton for searching my name to find my reviews. The Astro Boy Essays was probably the last book I wrote a published online review for, though. It’s been a while and I do kind of miss it.

Er . . . kidding, yes?

The thing I always liked about comics is that this high-brow elitist mentality wasn’t ingrained in it.
Not all good writing has to be literary. All the artwork doesn’t need to fit in with what’s going on in the Contemporary Art scene.

I like Daniel Clowes and I like Todd McFarlene. Comics as medium shouldn’t equal Jim Lee or Daniel Clowes exclusively.Depending on who you are or where you come from, one is acceptable one the other cringe-inducing. I don’t know if liking Jim Lee’s work is an issue of “low quality” standards as much different standards. The mainstream is mainstream for a reason. It appeals to the widest variety of people. Non-mainstream stuff will not.
I think there’s a serious question as to whether superheroes are the genre that appeals to the widest cross-section of people but other than that, should it be disliked simply because it’s popular?

Jim treads a mid to lower lower-mid brow in comics. I’m not a big follower of his work, I do think he’s a credit to the industry.
I always thought he was superb inker. He’s inked some of the best artwork I’ve ever seen in a comic.