writhaus

While looking over the morning headlines, I noticed that JP Morgan had initiated buying Bear Stearns for $2 per share. I read the Associated Press article via Yahoo.

As I read the article, I noticed this passage:

Something with that tickled the back of my mind, but it was early, so I let it go. I continued reading and crossed this passage:

Then I realized why that earlier passage bothered me. World War I ended in 1918, about five years before Bear Stearns was founded. But then, I thought, how did something that is pretty basic like this slip through? I mean, I am not a professional and I noticed it, and this story had two writers plus (I’m guessing) an editor go over it, right?

Oh, two other reporters contributed to the story. Think back to May of 2003. There was a lot of controversy going on in the newspaper business because people were doing reporting for other reporters and were not being given credit. New York Times contributer and Pulitzer winner Rick Bragg lost his job over it. It was a common practice, I think. I’ve seen reporters huddle together to flesh out a story because each reporter has sources the other needs. I’ve seen more senior reporters help a tyro journo rewrite their story, too. The question is how much do other reporters need to contribute before they get credit for writing some of the story.

At any rate, did one of these two helper journalists add in the inaccurate statement? There really isn’t any way for us to know, but there are at least four AP writers who need a basic 20th century history class or at least an internet connection to Wikipedia.

(more…)

It’s been a while since I read a Spider-man comic.

It isn’t that I don’t enjoy the character or comics in general, I just haven’t been that interested. With the Spider-man Reboot of 2007, where 20 years worth of material was jettisoned, I thought I might sample the new old status quo.

This issue features the writing of Back to the Future writer Bob Gale and the art of Phil Jimenez. It’s mostly a setup issue for their multipart story, which is fine, but while I read the issue, I had a nagging feeling I read it somewhere before. As I finished it, I realized why. This story reads just like a Spidey comic from the 70s, the kinds I read reprinted in Marvel Tales as a wee lad.

Mostly there isn’t anything really wrong with it. The art is top notch. Jimenez has strong George Perez/Neal Adams influences, though, and that makes the art feel classic, if a bit dated. There wasn’t as much energy to the linework as I expect from a Spider-man book.

As I said, Gale’s script is mostly set up. The Daily Bugle has a new editor in chief. A crook robs the soup kitchen Aunt May works at and gets chased by Spidey. Later, said crook, named Freak gets hopped up on stolen drugs and has problems.

Marvel’s editor in chief, Joe Quesada, stated the reason for rebooting Spider-man is there are stories you can’t tell when your hero is married. He also stated this very weekend that “life is more interesting when you’re single.” These are both understandable comments, but if this is the sort of story you needed Peter to be single to tell, call me perplexed. The only thing out of the ordinary from your standard 70s comic is Aunt May has a job. Everything else is the same…some cops think Spider-man is a bad guy…Peter hates doing laundry…Peter needs money. Before this arc is over, I expect Peter to run out of web fluid and wax philosophical about what he’s doing with his life.

I rate this book one star out of four. It’s certainly a passable story, but this issue might well have been recreated from clipouts of old issues. Points are lost, too, for abandoning modern comic book storytelling conventions. If you are 50 and haven’t read a book in 30 years, here’s your chance to jump right back in. For anyone younger or those of us wanting something a little more substantial, ignore this issue, excepting the fine artwork.

(more…)