Bob Layton and Jim Lee in South Korea

The Korea Times reports 2 veteran artists, Jim Lee and Bob Layton, went to Seoul for a convention at a local specialty store. Here's what's said about the former for starters:

Lee, whose career spans decades and continents, said that while Japan’s manga industry is something he's more familiar with, Korea had remained largely unexplored territory. He noted that while DC distributes translated comics in Korea, he had not realized there was a dedicated audience actively purchasing both translated and original English versions.

Lee reflected on the global reach of comics, noting that while American comics have long enjoyed strong followings in Europe and South America, Asia, and particularly Korea, has only recently seen significant growth. Over the past two to three years, he's seen a big increase in interest, especially among younger readers — many fans in Asia were not yet born when much of his most famous work was first published.

I wonder what some of them might think if they knew he'd watered down his artwork in the past decade to appease a woke agenda, among other galling steps? Some could feel very disappointed if they knew how awful the Big Two's output has become, but obviously, Lee's not going to admit or acknowledge it. Now, here's what the latter says:

Lee wasn't the only big name in attendance that night. Many at the cafe have had the experience of being mentored by veteran comic artist and writer Bob Layton, who was also in attendance. Layton, known for his work on Iron Man, has been a regular at DCC, cultivating the local comic community and using it as an informal training ground.

“This is the one place they can buy,” said Layton, who was also in attendance, referring to the scarcity of American comic book retail spaces in Korea.

Layton also spoke candidly about the need for stronger storytelling skills among emerging artists, stressing that sustained success comes from narrative ability, not just striking images. He praised several artists present for producing full-story pages, which he said was an encouraging sign.

Explaining why he avoids consuming other comics or animated works, Layton said that fiction is work, not entertainment, allowing him to draw inspiration from history, current affairs and real-world experiences.

Here's the problem - many artists and writers today, despite what Layton says, aren't tackling the most challenging subjects at all, not Islamic terrorism, nor even modern communism. I suspect many will not even touch a subject like the recently captured Venezeulan despot Nicolas Maduro with a 10-foot pole, if at all, nor the recent resistance in Iran to the tyranny of the ayatollahs. Much as I may have more respect for Layton at this point than Lee, I realize Layton, most unfortunately, may be that much of a sellout too from a modern perspective, and not only is he unlikely to write a single story now drawing from such topics, the editors/publishers today are almost certain to reject any such story pitches.

Lee emphasized that while DC views itself as a global brand, international expansion requires careful strategy. Storytelling, he noted, does not automatically translate across cultures. Decisions regarding format, pricing, distribution and who gets to tell the stories are critical to reaching broader audiences.

Well that's another problem. If you look carefully, you'll notice most national/ethnic cultures aren't explored in mainstream like DC/Marvel, if at all, in sharp contrast to say, LGBT ideology, along with whitewashed depictions of Islam. No Bulgarian culture, and even Korean culture may not factor in, despite how 37 years ago, when William Messner-Loebs introduced Linda Park in the pages of the Flash; it's not like they explored Korean culture seriously to date there either. Suggesting Lee himself may not exactly identify as a proud Korean descendant, so much as he does as a USA leftist. Although interestingly enough, the paper says he seemingly addressed this:

Korean storytelling has gained international recognition for its emotional depth and narrative unpredictability qualities that could translate powerfully into comics, he explained.

Lee cautioned that representation in the field must go beyond the surface, including creating meaningful Korean characters and stories that engage deeply with the country's struggles, history and resilience. He described Korea as an “incredible place” for storytelling, rich with untapped narrative potential.

He also confirmed that DC is actively seeking international creators, including in Korea. While many Asian artists enter the American comics industry through variant covers, he emphasized that long-term recognition is built through interior storytelling. Writers, especially those capable of working across languages and cultures, represent the next frontier.

Out of curiosity, is he seeking say, Danish and Bulgarian talent? Or French and Dutch talent? Somehow, I get the sad feeling that's not the case, and chances are high he wouldn't accept certain forms of storytelling based on politics and culture involved. Another something that's unfortunately overlooked here is the sadly plummeting birthrate in Korea, which Lee likely didn't comment on, and won't in the pages of comics either. Yet how does he expect there to be a stable fandom in the far east if birthrates are that low? Or even the best recruits for artwork and writing? Layton probably won't address such issues either. And that's why this convention they went to at a local specialty store is unlikely to produce anything meaningful from a real life perspective, and neither Lee nor Layton are going to admit why the comics industry's suffered horribly from bad directions in the past quarter century or more.

More about the new biography for Will Eisner

The Forward wrote about a new bio based on the life of cartoonist Will Eisner, previously written about here. At the beginning though:

In 1992, Art Spiegelman’s Maus won the Pulitzer prize.

The first graphic novel to win the award, Maus testified both to Spiegelman’s singular brilliance and to the graphic novel’s acceptance as a serious medium. This owed a great deal to one man: Will Eisner.

The problem is that Spiegelman's politics are far different from Eisner's, veering far more to the left than the late Eisner ever did. Perhaps that's why Spiegelman won the Pulitizer? Also, who knows if Spiegelman ever really thanked Eisner for what good he did for the medium when he first published A Contract With God?

A legendary figure within the comic book and graphic novel industries, yet comparatively lesser-known without, a new biography of Eisner from longtime graphic novelists Steve Weiner and Dan Muzur introduces Eisner to a new generation.

And to do justice to the life and career of the man who coined the term graphic novel, the duo have written — you guessed it — a graphic novel, entitled Will Eisner: A Comics Biography.

“What, it should be an opera?” Mazur joked, when I met him and Weiner over Zoom. “If you want to learn about Will Eisner, and you don’t want to read a graphic novel, I don’t know how that works.”

Mazur and Weiner had moved in the same comics circles in Cambridge, MA, for several years. Their work had even appeared side by side in 2017’s Cambridge Companion to the Graphic Novel. But they officially met only in 2022, when Weiner pitched Mazur a graphic novel about Eisner-the-artist and Eisner-the-man.

The pair clicked immediately. “We just started talking about the books and comics we liked,” said Weiner, who has a shock of curly white hair. “I thought: This is going to work.”

Well that depends on if they're going to explore all the most relevant creations Eisner developed in his time, right down to The Plot, his last GN, which he thought of working on after doing research on Islamic antisemitism. Something which, I suspect, quite a few leftists in the industry today are against, and for all we know, they might ban Eisner's works one day if they consider even that anathema, right down to the very award ceremony dedicated to his name.

I guess a vital query is whether Mazur and Weiner's planned biography will acknowledge any of Eisner's most challenging works, and if memory serves, he also disapproved of feminism, so of course one must wonder if they'll acknowledge Eisner's exact beliefs on anything. Why, for all we know, it might be a great idea for Mazur and Weiner to discuss how Frank Miller threw Eisner under the bus, after all the good Miller's mentor tried to do for him. What Miller did was uncalled for, and just another example of how we doubtless have a certain segment and generation in the medium who don't have what it takes to appreciate the past veterans.

For now, however, Mazur and Weiner's book, unfortunately, may still have a flaw:

Interestingly, though the biography is about Eisner’s work, we don’t see examples of his drawings; the duo are less concerned with the specifics of Eisner’s art than with the life that made it possible and the stories he told.

I fully agree his life and times obviously make important components for a discussion, but even so, publishing some samples from his art can still convey the subject better. I realize that if this is a GN itself, the focus is foremost on what Mazur/Weiner have illustrated. Even so, I'm sure it could still be possible to put samples of Eisner's art on display.

Towards the end, this article, most unfortunately, bounces back to a troubling bias:

It’s a worthy tribute to a man who, first with The Spirit, and later with Contract with God, laid the foundation for Spiegelman’s Pulitzer win.

The bio may be worthy, but the writer seems to be looking for a regrettable excuse to gush over Spiegelman in the process. Considering what a bad lot Spiegelman is by contrast, one who doesn't respect his ethnic heritage in contrast to Eisner, that's exactly why it's insulting to the intellect Spiegelman should even be brought up here. There are doubtless other cartoonists who could make better side allusions. Citing Spiegelman seems awfully deliberate, and suggests the writer isn't really so respectful of Eisner as he is of Spiegelman, all because of the latter's shoddy leftist politics.

Dilbert cartoonist in sad health situation

The New York Post says Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams' situation with prostate cancer is getting worse:

Cartoonist Scott Adams is sharing a harrowing health update.

The 68-year-old, who created the comic strip “Dilbert,” revealed that his prostate cancer prognosis is not a positive one.

“I talked to my radiologist yesterday and it’s all bad news — the odds of me recovering are essentially zero,” he said during his podcast “Real Coffee with Scott Adams” on Thursday. “I’ll give you any updates if that changes, but it won’t.”

I'm sorry to hear that. It's certainly a sad day for the cartooning industry as much as Adams himself.

Comic strips like Blondie enter public domain in 2026, but is Betty Boop still stuck?

The Los Angeles Times wrote about more creations of the past century that're now becoming public domain, like the Blondie comic strip, and animated cartoons like Betty Boop. Along the way, they also note:

Those characters have been part of America’s cultural heritage almost since their first appearance — the Blondie comic strip still runs daily in The Times, and Betty Boop’s image is widely and popularly merchandised.

Why the long wait? Blame commercial interests, including the Walt Disney Co., which agitated for the long term chiefly to maintain control of Mickey Mouse for as long as possible. (Mickey entered the public domain in 2024, which was 95 years after his first appearance in the 1928 short “Steamboat Willie.”)

Considering how bad Disney's output became in the past decade, it's quite welcome now that their leading mascots have entered public domain. I'm sure similar problems also affected the Blondie comic strip over time. But perhaps more interesting is what they have to say about Betty Boop:

That brings us to the case of Betty Boop, which may occupy the copyright bar for years to come.

The argument for Betty’s entry into the public domain stems from her initial appearance in a short titled “Dizzy Dishes,” by the brilliant animator Max Fleischer and his brother Dave.

The Fleischers and Disney were contemporaries, but the resemblance ends there. Their animation techniques were utterly different, as was their character.

“Broadly speaking, there was an innocence in Disney’s view of the world, while Fleischer projected an underlying kinkiness,” Charles Silver, the film curator at the Museum of Modern Art, wrote in 2011. “Although the films were shown to all audiences, one can’t escape the feeling that Disney saw his audience as children while Fleischer’s target was more knowing adults, attuned to Betty Boop’s seductiveness.”

Fleischer Studios went out of business in 1946. By then it had sold the rights to its cartoons and the Betty Boop character. A new Fleischer Studios was formed in the 1970s by Fleischer descendants, including Max’s grandson Mark Fleischer, and set about repurchasing the rights that had been sold.

Whether it reacquired the rights to Betty Boop is up for discussion. (The controversy doesn’t involve Fleischer’s trademark rights in Betty Boop, which are separate from copyrights and bars anyone from using the character in a way that suggests they represent Fleischer.)

According to a federal appeals court ruling in 2011, the answer is no. Having navigated its way through the three or four copyright transfers that followed the original rights sale, the appeals court concluded that the original Fleischer studios sold the rights to Betty Boop and the related cartoons to Paramount in 1941 but couldn’t verify that the rights to the character had been sold in an unbroken chain placing them with the new studio.

The “chain of title” was broken, the appellate judges found — but they didn’t say who ended up with Betty Boop. The Fleischers maintain that they own the Betty Boop rights through “several different chains of title, which we believe are all valid,” Mark Fleischer says.

What about the Betty Boop of “Dizzy Dishes,” which is indisputably entering the public domain in 2026? Mark Fleischer told me the Betty Boop-like character in that short may be in the public domain but “is not the Betty Boop we know today.”

In a “fact check” posted on its website, Fleischer Studios states bluntly that the idea that Betty Boop is entering the public domain is “actually not true.” Yet the character in “Dizzy Dishes” certainly looks and sounds a lot like the Betty Boop we know today. She’s a flapper with a short skirt and spit-curled coif, the facial structure of Betty Boop, speaks with the high-pitched voice of Betty Boop and utters the catchphrase “boop-boop-ba-doop” (which was identified with a popular singer of the period). But she also has a few canine characteristics that soon disappeared — chiefly flapping dog ears, which morphed into hoop earrings by 1932.

It’s hard not to see the strong resemblance between the 1930 version and later incarnations; indeed, on a Fleischer Studios web page tracking the evolution of Betty Boop in illustrations, the very first entry is the “Dizzy Dishes” character.

Fleischer says his company hasn’t sued purported copyright infringers since the appellate case, though it has “contacted one or two” to explain its position “and we’ll see how they respond.” But he says he wouldn’t be surprised to see that some people will accept the assumption that Betty Boop enters the public domain next year without delving into the legal technicalities.

Jenkins maintains that the copyright protection given to post-1930 depictions of Betty doesn’t extend to “‘merely trivial’ or stereotypical modifications of Boop 1.0, such as replacing the dog ears with human ones, [or] dressing her in standard attire for a cabaret performer or homemaker.” Whether that’s the case might have to await further court rulings, if purported infringers appear.

Well that's certainly interesting to learn. The heirs of the Fleischers want to retain a copyright on the character, and when it comes to anything produced long after the 1930s/40s, arguably, they do. If they respect the creations enough and don't approve of modern PC, then I could probably sympathise with their wishes. But otherwise, it's to be hoped they don't think copyright issues are a grand emergency compared to other serious issues in modernity.

NPR also wrote about the coming public domain releases, and if Betty Boop is destined for the path, there's regrettably bad but perhaps unshocking news as to what awaits, not unlike the embarrassment that accompanied Winnie the Pooh's entrance to publlic domain:

As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026.

Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz-inspired Wicked movies.

Well, if that's the case, then if the Fleischer heirs really care about their classic creation, are they going to speak out against this obsession with turning every famous cartoon/children's creation into a sick horror thriller? If they don't, what's the point of telling the LA Times where they stand? Also note how NPR reports all this without any objectivity or questions as to whether this is fair to the original creators and animators. That's why they're such an outmoded news source today.

NBC news also had a report, now that 2026 is in, and these creations have definitively entered public domain status. And another item that's mentioned in these reports is Nancy Drew, the last book creation overseen by Edward Stratemeyer before he passed on:

The teen sleuth Nancy Drew, whose first four books came in 1930, starting with “The Secret of the Old Clock.” They were written by Mildred Benson under the pen name Carolyn Keene.

The famous girl detective premiered 3 years after the Hardy Boys, and now, it looks like all products of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, save for the Dana Girls, which came in 1936 after its founder passed on, are now pretty much in public domain. ND saw its own share of comics adaptations in past years, and it includes a 2018 miniseries by Dynamite Entertainment, "Palace of Wisdom", written by none other than Kelly Thompson, one of the woke writers who destroyed the real Ms. Marvel, Carol Danvers, and with ND, Thompson's story relied on artwork like in the following panel by Jenn St. Onge, which looks very mediocre and uninspired. This doesn't suit Stratameyer's production at all, and that's why, if ND is now in public domain, I hope somebody with more respect will develop a better comic adaptation of ND, if comics adaptations matter. As Parade says:

As Nancy Drew's earliest adventures join classics like Betty Boop and The Maltese Falcon in the public domain, the character who taught millions to trust their instincts and solve their own mysteries is finally free, just as Benson always intended her to be.

On which note, I'm also aware that ND's recurring boyfriend Ned Nickerson might take a year or so longer to enter public domain, since he was introduced in the 7th story. But, if anybody thinks for now that a non-monogomous characterization for ND is worthwhile, then let's hope they go ahead and develop some comics adaptations with an entertaining story in mind that's better than what Dynamite had to offer. After all, merit matters first and foremost.

I found and updated the template again, to something similar to the Forest Green template I had earlier

I searched around the web, and discovered the Rounders4 template originally developed 2 decades ago, which is similar to the Forest Green template I'd been using for 15 years or so from Gecko and Fly. After all these years, it's great to have discovered some early classics, and I guess for now, I'll make use of it.

I do miss the Forest Green template, which was one of the best drawing from what was originally offered by Typepad, and honestly, I hope it does become operable again someday, but for now, I found it great to discover this early template, which I can use in an "everything old is new again" way, and hope it'll work out in the long run. There may be a few parts I need to smooth out here, but overall, it works fantastically, and it's delightful to discover these classic early templates again, which were common years ago, and now can be great for use again today.

The history of Steve Ditko's influences by Ayn Rand

Reason wrote some history of the late artist Steve Ditko's influences by Ayn Rand:

Of all the popular storytelling artists striving to emulate Ayn Rand, the most significant was Steve Ditko.

Ditko, a comic book artist, is most famous for co-creating Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. Rand, in addition to writing novels that still sell hugely seven decades down the line, developed a philosophy she called Objectivism, the politics of which were highly libertarian and highly controversial.

Ditko's commitment to Rand's ideas led him down a curious and troubled path, and made him resemble a real-life Rand character. From developing enduring legends for Marvel Comics in the 1960s to Kickstartering in the 2010s with fewer than 150 sponsors his uniquely and often bizarrely abstract stories, Ditko emulated aspects of both of Rand's most prominent fictional protagonists.

And the place where he may have done this more was with Charlton creations like the original Question, and Blue Beetle (which have since become DC properties):

While no one seems certain when and under what circumstances Ditko became a Rand devotee—Ditko biographer Blake Bell thinks Lee may have been his entrée to her work—his unmistakably Rand-influenced art didn't start to appear until after his first departure from Marvel. In 1967, Ditko debuted a character who would never be owned by any corporation: Mr. A. The hero was named for Rand's core directive via Aristotle: that "A is A" and all reasoning must be rooted in never countenancing contradiction.

Mr. A is a vigilante with no superpowers—or perhaps, as Ditko wrote, his superpower is "knowing what's right, and acting accordingly." In a famous sequence in his first appearance, a woman stabbed by a malefactor nonetheless wants Mr. A to save the crook from falling to his death. Mr. A tells her that "to have any sympathy for a killer is an insult to their victim."

The next year, he vividly brought Rand's aesthetics into mass-market superhero stories in a Charlton Comic starring another of his creations, the Question, allied with an older superhero Ditko had significantly revamped, the Blue Beetle. The pair gets involved in a case centered on two sculptures, one representing man as misshapen and grotesque, the other strong and noble. They fight the artist and forces that want to promote the ugly, and thus anti-man, and thus anti-mind, and thus anti-life, art.

That's certainly interesting, and I'd strongly recommend checking out Ditko's Silver Age stories like those just as much as Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, because there's bound to be plenty to think about in the early Question stories, along with Blue Beetle, that shouldn't be overlooked. Ditko may not have been perfect, and I think it's a shame he had fallouts with Stan Lee back in the day. But Ditko too has admirable work to consider, and that's why it's a good idea to check out these classics as well.

A dreadful choice for best of 2025

A writer at Superhero Hype chose what he claims is the best of 2025, and his selection of Dr. Doom material from the past year sounds pretty predetermined:

2025 was a red letter year for Doctor Doom. His profile was boosted publicly by the hype surrounding the upcoming MCU movie Avengers: Doomsday. HIs star also rose in the comics, where he dominated the Earth in the One World Under Doom miniseries. And yet, for all this, his finest turn in 2025 came as part of an unlikely team-up with Rocket Raccoon.

Written by J. Michael Straczynski, with art by Will Robson, Doctor Doom & Rocket Racoon #1 finds Rocket summoned to Latveria. Doom is in a contemplative mood, and has come to question the nature of existence. In short, he seeks the meaning of life.

However, for all his knowledge, Doom is a master of Earthly science. This is where Rocket and his own brilliance with alien technology come into play. Rocket, for his part, thinks Doom is nuts, but he’s willing to indulge just about anything if the money is good.

Doom and Rocket are an odd couple, to say the least. However, the pairing makes sense under Straczynski’s pen. Both characters are largely amoral, yet can be pressed into playing the hero. This leads to the development of an odd friendship that defies logic, yet fits both characters perfectly. Beyond that, the story delves into some truly deep philosophy.

Robson’s artwork further highlights the paradoxical nature of the story. The image of a talking raccoon standing alongside a Wagnerian figure in full plate is frankly ridiculous. It is the sort of thing that only works in comics. And yet, it does work.

Yeah right, and all because JMS is the writer, and based on that, the columnist wants it to. At least that's my perception of what's going on here. Surely it's not appalling we have a case here of a presumed goodie who's making a Faustian pact with a villain? Atop all that, it's sad how a Hollywood scribe who played a part in bringing down Marvel and DC in the 2000s has been welcomed back by C.B. Cebulski to writing the former's creations, all for the sake of endless line-wide crossovers that brought down Marvel in the long run.

The article even fawns over Gail Simone's writing in X-Men, and says:

I’ve honestly never been much of an X-Men fan. The franchise has often exemplified the worst excesses of superhero comics, with writing that presumes you already know the characters. Uncanny X-Men #17 does not do this. Indeed, it’s a simple one-shot story with an interesting new villain.

This is confusing, because IIRC, there were times when some characters in X-Men and other such comics would have an introduction written for them multiple times, explaining what their powers are and what they could do. That's not "presuming we know" the cast of characters, but rather, assuming we don't. Of course, today, if you know where to look, you'll notice some examples of mainstream comics where they couldn't care less if you didn't know any of the characters, because they intend to obliterate any characters they consider literally expendable through a crossover or some other shoddily written event, as was the case with Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled 2 decades ago. And such a direction, when taken, is disgraceful as it's insulting to the intellect.

All that aside, this is another puff piece that seems to be deliberately written just for promoting an overrated writer who wasn't worth all the fuss when she began. And then, there's also the choice of the Titans Annual:

Donna Troy is notable among DC Comics’ characters for being one of the few heroes created by a continuity error. Her backstory has become even more muddled over time, thanks to various reboots changing the history of the Amazons. She’s been everything from a baby rescued by Wonder Woman to an evil clone meant to replace her. Titans 2025 Annual #1 sought to once again clarify this, creating a definitive history for Donna in the DC All-In era.

Writer/artist Phil Jimenez has often said that Donna Troy is his favorite superhero. That is made more than clear over the course of this issue. It is an obvious labor of love, made all the more miraculous for how it details some fairly complicated history and makes it accessible. The artwork is simply gorgeous as well. [...]

As I noted some time ago, the character design for Donna was watered down and mediocre, so it's decidedly not hard to guess the fawning commentary was deliberate, and the columnist expects virtually everyone to buy into his puff piece without question. This is why such news sites aren't serious sources for information, and only multiply the insults to veteran artists and writers. If that's how Jiminez is going to draw Donna, then his claims she's his favorite character are phony. And Donna's backstory is muddled? Well gee, maybe they should blame previous editorial boards and writers, Dan DiDio included, for all that.

On the other hand, Bam-Smack-Pow says Image was the best of the year:

This year, Image Comics may not have made as much money as the big two, but they were the best comic book company of the year. Superman, Batman, and the Absolute Universe are always among the top sellers of the month. For example, a title starring Batman was in four of the five best sellers in November 2025 (DC / Marvel - Batman / Deadpool #1 (One-Shot), Batman No. 3, Absolute Batman No. 14, and DC K.O. Knightfight No. 1). Nevertheless, you can’t discount the impact titles from the Energon Universe have made in 2025. It was so good that the universe is getting an adult animated series.

Some of these comics based on licensed merchandise like GI Joe/Transformers may be worth the effort, but that doesn't mean everything's recommendable there. For example:

Of course, comic book fans want stories with characters using unfathomable abilities to defeat overpowered villains. Image Comics doesn’t deprive readers of stories like that. Titles like Ludo Lullabi’s Ghost Pepper, along with Benito Cereno and E. J. Su's Blood and Thunder, are two comics that provide the sci-fi adventures you may crave. However, they also publish more “grounded” comics like Doug Wagner and Daniel Hillyard’s I Was a Fashion School Serial Killer. There are still fantasy tales, but without having a hero flying or breaking steel with their hands.

With titles like those, it's clear not all is rosy at Image, and when they promote horror thriller fare so blatantly, far more than anything optimistic, it's sad.

Another thing to love is how Image Comics uses its social media. Image doesn’t just promote the comics. They make sure to show real people who have read and reviewed the comics. The best part is that the reviews are genuine. You can tell they mean what they say instead of doing it to get a paycheck. It’s easy to see those videos and be drawn into what they’re highlighting because it’s coming from an actual comic book fan.

I think that's awfully naive and jumping to conclusions too. There's all sorts of "professional" critics who can be biased and predetermined in their positions, so it does little good for Image to make use of their reviews for social media promotion. And if they don't sell in millions of copies, then like the mainstream, they haven't exactly accomplished much.

So again, there may be more overrated slop being fawned over by specialty columnists this year, and what's really sad is how they won't champion the visions of veteran writers of the past who did better than what the mainstream's offering today. And while I'm sure Image has some palatable stuff, that doesn't mean we should take a naive view of their output either.

Book Riot complains about comics being censored over allegedly right-wing standings

Looks like left-wing feminist site Book Riot is trying to make a case for censorship based upon the insinuation that right-wingers are responsible for comics being subjected to it:

Comics are a target because it’s a medium that requires a unique literacy to understand. Comic books make for easy targets because a person who has been infected by right-wing rhetoric can print the pages sitting on RatedBooks, Take Back the Classroom, or their predecessor BookLooks, and claim the comics are inappropriate without any context about the where, why, or how of that image within the book itself. Unfortunately, these people are not interested in learning literacy. By spreading these images without context, they inflame other people who don’t have the time or capacity to develop that literacy and actually “do their own research” on the matter. Comics are a collaborative dance between the words and the art. Young people with access to and exposure to comics are honing crucial intellectual skills while also enjoying creative, clever, fun, and educational stories.

Since 2021, comics have been among the top books banned in America. Many of these comics are far from new; they, too, are averaging the age of the typical high schooler. It’s worth taking a peek at the most banned comics since 2000 and seeing where and how they’re simply copied and pasted in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, with the addition of primarily queer-focused comics and comics by creators of color.

On the one hand, from what I can tell, this is a matter of whether they're stocked in schools. On the other, when I took a look at their list of banned comics since 2000, it shows Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis on the list, and it's actually surprising they allegedly care, considering Iran's one of the worst Islamic regimes still in power now, one that does simultaneously suppress LGBT practice, and so that makes it a contradiction of their whine for the sake of allowing LGBT-themed comics to be kept in school libraries. On which, Book Riot's writer doesn't even explain why they believe LGBT practice should be taught to youngsters, or why they believe it's a better role model than heterosexuality. What's their point?

Making matters worse is how the writer sets out to paint all right-wingers as inherently stupid, literally don't examine the inner content of the GNs in question, and appears to be insinuating they're the sole ones who led all these campaigns to get the comics out of the schools. And the part about comicdom needing a unique literacy to comprehend is also stupid. Whatever they contain is no different from what a plain-text book could in terms of premise and plot.

A look at PEN’s report is a look at where and how comics have been rising in their profile as among the most banned books. While the top nine most banned books did not include comics, the list of most frequently banned authors includes not one, but two comics creators: Yūsei Matsui and Atsushi Ohkubo. Matsui, creator of Assassination Classroom, saw 54 instances of his manga banned. Ohkubo, creator of Soul Eater and Fire Force, saw his manga banned 45 times. Were these one-shot manga, rather than series with numerous entries, Matsui would be the most banned author in America, with Ohkubo coming in at number two. Both would have had their manga banned twice as much as the number one most banned book in American schools for the 2024-2025 school year.

It should also be noted that if these comics/manga books are available in stores, then they're not censored, they're just not allowed in school libraries, that's all. I guess old horror films like Friday The 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street should be pushed into classrooms at all costs too, huh? The title of Assassination Classroom alone can strongly hint it's a violent affair, and we could honestly do with far less of that. Certainly if it's not a comic dealing with a serious real life issue viewed objectively, something Book Riot's writers seem otherwise disinterested in recommending as a subject for comicdom.

There's really nothing educational in what they're serving as apologists for, and if they really care, maybe they should build their own schools and libraries and then see who's interested in sending their children there to read the comics/manga they're sugarcoating. Unfortunately, when their apologia is as unintelligable as it is, you can't expect them to consider trying out such ideas.