The Four Color Media Monitor

Depends on what comics their budget can afford.

They don't buy comics that are on the best seller list; they tabulate reports from book stores on what the stores have sold. And they don't pay for review copies; the publishers send them complimentary copies for review, like they do with any other book reviewing publications.

"They don't buy comics that are on the best seller list; they tabulate reports from book stores on what the stores have sold. And they don't pay for review copies; the publishers send them complimentary copies for review, like they do with any other book reviewing publications."

liar
the kinds of people who work for the publishers and the critics are pretty much the same kind of people.

as with comics, creators are constantly going from author to reviewer and back again, making sure the industry is a clique where they can support their friends and keep their enemies out.

so take that thinly veiled PR statement and shove it, liar.

Authors and reviewers often travel in the same circles, sometimes as friends, sometimes as enemies; but bestseller lists are not reviews. They are ranked sales charts.

The industry used to be more cliquish, back in the 70s, before fed express and the Internet,when everybody knew each other and partied together. But now? Comics writers and artists are international, many artists need translators just to read the scripts. How do artists in Quebec City, Tokyo and Yugoslavia all fit into the same clique?

". How do artists and critics in Quebec City, Tokyo and Yugoslavia all fit into the same clique?"

Education.
Most of the artists went to highly selective schools, where they were taught very similar things.
Contemporary art in Tokyo, Quebec City, and Yugoslavia is exactly the same.
The artists tend to have the same exact philosophical approaches to art and political opinions.
This is all coincidence, I'm sure.
Just "osmosis", or practicality, I'm sure.


"They are ranked sales charts. "
The New York Times does not consider sales as the only factor when putting a book on a best seller's list. What is on the best sellers list and books their reviewers recommend are often one and the same, which is why their ranked sale charts are used as marketing tools.
Their best sellers list, is more about what is hot and trendy. If someone wants to be fashionable, seem worldly, informed, and sophisticated, they will read what they recommend.
Best sellers' lists are not about what books were widely bought and read by the general public.
In NYT's own words ""The list did not purport to be an objective compilation of information but instead was an editorial product."
The goal of editorials is self-expression, but to tell people , what opinions are acceptable, much like a sermon.

Mike, is that you?

That is not the way the Times describes their list and their ranking system:

https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/methodology/

they try to be objective, and to prevent gaming of the system. Stephen King is at the top of the list right now; he is bought by the general public and not by people trying to show off their sophistication.

"Anonymous Anonymous, said...
". How do artists and critics in Quebec City, Tokyo and Yugoslavia all fit into the same clique?"

Education.
Most of the artists went to highly selective schools, where they were taught very similar things.
Contemporary art in Tokyo, Quebec City, and Yugoslavia is exactly the same.
The artists tend to have the same exact philosophical approaches to art and political opinions.
This is all coincidence, I'm sure.
Just "osmosis", or practicality, I'm sure"

Sounds like you don't know what a clique means. It is a closed social circle, not a bunch of people who don't know each other but share similar training.

As for shared approaches - guruhiru draw nothing like Niko Henrichon. Tokyo and Quebec at very different. Neither of them draw anything like Russel Dauterman. Where do you get this dogma from?

It's not about people gaming the system, it's about people who compile the list using factors other than raw sales to place books on the list.

There's a reason why they do not list numbers They do not release numbers because the list is not based on numbers.


Stephen King is culturally important, given the high amount of awards he has received. He would be on that list, no matter what.

"Sounds like you don't know what a clique means. It is a closed social circle, not a bunch of people who don't know each other but share similar training. "

Sounds you don't know what the word clique means.

"Definition of clique
: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons
especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes"


By looking art contemporary art exhibitions from around the world it very obvious the artists chosen exhibition all have the same exact philosophical approaches to art and political opinions.

"- guruhiru draw nothing like Niko Henrichon. " you're really f-ing stupid. You really need to learn how to use good examples to make a case. Both of those artists work in a similar, manga-influenced style.

Gurihiru are manga style artists of course, with clean lines, open for color, a certain cutesiness to their drawing. But Henrichon is nothing like that - scratchy, impressionistic line work, lots of blacks and shadows, nothing cute about him. I don’t see the manga influence at all.

I am amazed at your ability to figure out an artist's political views from looking at his paintings. Jackson Pollock, for example - are those socialist splatters, liberal splatters or jeeopee splatters? Are Edward Weston's peppers left wing or right wing? I suppose if they were in color we could tell if the peppers were red or not, but in black and white?

The key words in that definition of clique were narrow and exclusive. The art world you are critiquing is broad,international and far from exclusive.

How many of these awards are awarded honestly with no tricks or bribes involved?

https://fortressofserenity.tumblr.com/post/68254832456/fandumb

"the "Gray Lady", that notorious colossus of propaganda"

What is your definition of propaganda? Is it just having opinions you disagree with, or is it something more than that? The NYT has editorial opinions (and of course no New Yorker is going to have a good opinion of Trump, who has been a joke in that state for decades), but they generally play fair in their reporting and clean house when they make a mistake.

Since Gray Lady doesn't cater to conservatives of Avi's type exclusivly, then of course its considered propaganda.