[Austin-ghetto-list] jaxon's rant, part 7+

[jaxon41]

GRUPO,  In this installment of my EXPANDED rant we shall attempt to answer
several questions about editor Louis Black: Is he a well-meaning boob or
just plain stupid?  Does he act out of serious journalistic principles or is
he a devious Scorpio who buries his head in the sand when presented with a
mountain of evidence that he fucked up?  Let's look at some of the emails he
started getting when Bison Bill put the affair on the Net and how Louis
reacted to the stink he'd created.

On 9 Oct. (same day as Bruce Marshall's letter in the Chron), this went to
Louis Black from a total stranger, one Tom Furtwangler of Seattle:

Hi,  A colleague today pointed me to your review of Lost Cause, written by
Michael Ventura.  I'm writing to chastize you for publishing such an
immature and vidictive piece of writing.

By showing his bias in the first sentence ("this is what they call a graphic
novel"--come on!!), Mr. Ventura  quickly indicates that what follows is more
likely to be a rant than a balanced piece of criticism.  And indeed, this
review almost immediately slips onto ground I would call dangerously close
to slander.

I am not going to defend the novel; that's not the point.  I am writing to
express my amazement that you would publish something so vituperative by
someone so clearly unqualified.

Next time you assign a review of a graphic novel, why not choose a writer
who at least has some context within which to build a coherent critique?
Graphic novels have been around for decades; one of them has even won the
Pulitzer Prize [Art Spiegelman's Maus].  By running this review you reveal
not only the author's ignorance, but your own.  Tom Furtwangler, Seattle

On this printout BB scribbled a note: "Jack, Tom is a publisher of
educational comics in Seattle.  He found the Chronicle's review on their
website, then sent them the above letter.  There will probably be more
reaction to my post over the weekend; don't be surprised if more letters are
sent to the Chronicle from comics professionals around the country."

BB was right.  On the same day one Jeff Williams of the English Dept. at
Texas Tech--a gentleman totally unknown to me--sent this to the editor of
the Chron:

Dear Louis Black,

Michael Ventura's review of Jack Jackson's most recent book, Lost Cause, was
brought to my attention.

First of all, I would suggest that a reviewer take a careful look at the
work and conduct some background research on the medium reviewed before
writing a critique; this would have prevented several errors in Ventura's
piece (e.g., his statement about the visual stereotyping and his
embarrassing comments about the "graphic novel").

Secondly, after a piece that borders on slander and libel, it seems only
fair that Mr. Jackson have the chance for a rebuttal.  Unless your
publication is alternative for the ultra-right crowd.

Jack Jackson is a well established historian and one of the early pioneers
in the underground comix movement of the late 60s.  He was involved in the
liberal press when the terms "liberal" and "alternative" actually meant
something.  By allowing Mr. Jackson a voice, you will, to some degree,
regain credibility as an alternative press that was lost due to Ventura's
uninformed and biased review.  Sincerely, Jeff Williams.

This email, and others like it, were starting to get on Louis Black's
nerves.  Williams' remarks--coming from boondocks Lubbock, of all
places--must have irritated Big City Louis especially.  And it didn't help
for Williams to imply that the Chron was cashing in on something that I had
helped start.  Louis' response to Williams of 10 Oct. 1998 was as follows:

I assume you are a friend of Jackson's (or a friend of a friend) since I got
two or three letters with almost the same wording.  [Strange, eh Louis?]  I
respect Jackson and respect his work but neither of these feelings impacts
on what a reviewer writes about his work in the Chronicle.  You are in an
English Dept. and you attack a reviewer for being biased.  Am I missing
something here.  Is their objective criticism?  [Eh?]  I'm sorry Jackson put
out a really bad book.  [Aha!]  If The Chronicle needs to pretend otherwise
to maintain our credibility, we pass (think how insulting a statement that
is to people who work putting out this paper 52 weeks a year--because we
didn't like your friend's book, we suck).

I read the book and had problems with it, in general agreeing with Ventura's
review.  We asked Jesse Sublett to review it and, because his reaction was
the same as Ventura's and mine, he passed on reviewing and instead wrote a
background piece.  When three people who regularly contribute to this
magazine [newspaper] come to the same conclusions, I am comfortable with
that position.  I almost never respond to letters like this but, damn,
you're in an English Dept and I thought your position was shocking.  LB

Ol' Jeff Williams at upstart Texas Tech fired back an indignant reply, based
on Louis' false (paranoid?) assumption that I was a friend, or a friend of a
friend, of his:

Actually, I'm working on a dissertation that utilizes literary theory to
interpret comics.  One chapter analyzes non-fiction comics.  I am aware of
and have read all of Jackson's series on Texas history in addition to his
earlier work.  I'm also on a comics discussion list where some recent posts
have made mention of the [Ventura] review.

My main point of contention was not so much the review itself but the fact I
had heard that Jack Jackson was not allowed some kind of response.  It is
very common among professional, academic periodicals to allow an author of a
book or article to defend him/herself against attack (or less than
flattering reviews), either in the form of a short article or at the very
least in a letter to the editor.  In the profession of literary studies,
this is considered common courtesy.

I would not ask for any kind of retraction; Ventura is free to his opinion
and to express his views of the book (which to many comics scholars comes
off as less than informed).  Jack Jackson should also be allowed to exercise
his right to free speech and not [be] subjected to censorship.  JW

I doubt if Louis bothered to reply.  Hey, this guy was saying some pretty
right-on things about freedom of expression; kinda hard to argue with that,
unless one is willing to reveal a despotic mindset.  Another email of 10
Oct. came from some unknown fellow on the West Coast named Jeff Lester.  He
told Bison Bill that he'd read Ventura's review online and then sent a
letter to editor Louis Black:

Although I didn't mention it in my letter because it seemed off-topic, I
find it horribly ironic that Ventura had written an unproduced screenplay
about Hardin but consistently disparages Jackson's work by comparing it to
"old Westerns" and "your average Hollywood screenwriter."  As we say out
here in San Francisco, Mr. Ventura obviously has "issues."  Having not read
the work [Lost Cause], I'm sorry that I didn't present a stronger defense
for Jackson's work, but my hope was to point out that Ventura's review
seemed so obviously biased and wrong-headed as to be useless.  My hope is
that another review will be allowed, or a response from Jackson.  I also
hope that you can convey my sympathies to Mr. Jackson.  Although it is
certainly none of my business, is there any reason apart from Ventura's
review to believe this to be a personal attack?  He didn't steal Ventura's
girl or anything, did he?  JL

No, I didn't steal V's girlfriend (to my knowledge anyway), but this is a
reasonable supposition from the personal spite that laces his review.  Bison
Bill sent the following to comix@ on 14 Oct:

I just spoke with JJ a few minutes ago.  Since it is apparent the Chronicle
editor will not change his mind about publishing Jack's point-by-point
rebuttal, Jack would like it to appear on the Internet.  He feels this is
only fair, since the Chronicle posted its review on the Internet for all the
world to see.  BB

To which West Coast comics collector & dealer Robert Beerbohm, an old
acquaintance of mine, replied:  "You mean to say that the Austin Chron won't
post Jack's rebuttal on their website, which doesn't use up any 'valuable'
paper space at all?  This is even more chicken shit of this paper."

Yeah, Bob, I thought it was chickenshit too, and that's why I got so bent
out of shape about it.  Is this AMERICA, Land of the Free, Home of the
Brave, we live in or AMERIKA, Land of You'll Hear What I Want You To?
Either way, it seems we've got to keep fighting for our freedoms or they'll
vanish--even at the hands of our "alternative/liberal/enlightened" press.
One of my favorite emails sent to Louis came from another total stranger,
Glenn Carnagey of the Chicago Sun-Times, on 12 Oct:

Dear Mr. Black,

It saddens me very much that something like Michael Ventura's review of Jack
Jackson's Lost Cause got past the editors.  It is most unfortunate and
embarrassing, as even the barest amount of research would have revealed that
it is littered with inaccuracies and ad homineum approaching slander; even a
superficial reading of the "review" should have made obvious the bile and
bias which fairly drips from every sentence.  It is painfully apparent that
Mr. Ventura has never encountered a graphic novel before, knows nothing of
the abundant literature concerning them, and is wholly ignorant of three
decades of this man's work.  I should think it would be in your best
interests to refrain from publishing reviews of graphic novels, if you can't
find someone capable of reviewing them.  However, I recognize that these
things do slip by, in a busy world, and that is comprehensible.  But it is
incomprehensible that you are unwilling to let Mr. Jackson defend himself
from such flagrant abuse.  That, I'm afraid, is beyond my ken. GC

Mine too!!!  I don't know who you are, Mr. Carnagey, nor am I familiar with
your work for the Sun-Times of Chicago, but you sound like my kind of
people.  What's going through your mind, Louis, as you're reading these
posts?  Now here's one from a fellow newspaper man in Chicago, instead of
jaxon's "friends" or "friends of friends."  And what does he think of your
editorial standards?  Not much, except to extend you the benefit of the
doubt that this horrible piece of shit might have "slipped by" you in a busy
world.  You're thinking to yourself, "Thank God, he doesn't know that I
masterminded the whole thing!"  And from Chicago, Louis, not stupid Lubbock.

Then, on 19 Oct, Bison Bill posted the response I wrote about V's review,
already given in Part 3 of my rant.  When Bob Beerbohm out in the Bay Area
saw it, he emailed BB:  "Just read Jack's rebuttal.  The Austin Chron's
'review' ran three full pages?  And they want to hide Jack's response in the
Ed letter page??  I just sent Louis Black another letter."

This barrage of unwanted emails from all over the country was beginning to
take its toll on Louis.  How many "friends" could this fuckin' jaxon have?
One of them (an artist known to all of you Listers but who shall remain
unnamed here) ran into Louis at Antone's while he was drowning his sorrows
in suds.  What's wrong Louis?  Why do you look so down in the dumps? he
asked.  Louis confessed that he'd "really fucked up" on his handling of the
review of my book; felt terrible about it, blah blah.  Yeah Louis, I know
why you felt terrible: not because of your slam, but because so many people
were calling your hand on it and recognizing how chickenshit you are!

Anyway, the Chron ran the following three letters on 23 Oct, I suppose out
of guilt at how they had been stacking the deck against me by keeping
silent.  The 1st came from some character named Tary Kelly Owens.  Anybody
know him?  Sounds like a nice guy...

JACKSON SETS THE STANDARDS  Editor:  It was with great sadness that I read
Michael Ventura's outrageously wrong-headed and hateful review of Jack
Jackson's comic-history, Lost Cause.  I had a higher opinion of Mr. Ventura.
I didn't know he would stoop to such bile.  JJ is a serious artist; his
classic God Nose set the standard for all underground comics from Shelton to
Crumb to Trudeau, and his illustrated histories have received the highest
praise from such important writers as Larry McMurtry.  I have known JJ for
35 years.  To call him a racist is not only morally wrong but is the lowest
form of indignity.  That the Chronicle stands behind such vile garbage
lowers the credibility of your newspaper.  For shame!  TKO

Thanks Tary, even if you have overestimated my importance as a cartoonist.
Shelton & Crumb were already masters of the artform when I began seeking,
groupie-like, their company.  I've always been a second-stringer, but like I
said in my rebuttal, I try to make the best of my limited talent.

Then a local cartoonist named Mack White had his letter printed beneath
Tary's.  Yall probably have seen Mack's bizarre strips (usually given in
installments) in XLent, a venue which--unlike the Chron--appreciates comix
and supports the Austin graphic arts scene.  No wonder that so many good
local artists--Guy Juke, Sam Hurt, Shannon Wheeler, Mack White, and others
(I boldly place myself in their company)--have given up on the Chron and
gone over to XLent as their "alternative" choice.  Ironic, isn't it, that
the Establishment/Mainstream organ is now hipper than the Chron?  Wonder why
the CAUSE of this shift of creative energy hasn't dawned on Louis Black?
Could there be some reason why it hasn't?  YOU BETCHA: the Austin Chronicle
has been hostile to cartoonists since the git-go!  That's why there never
was a "Chapter 2" of my strip in their 1st issue.  I wanted to be a regular
contributor, but they said they were "too broke" to pay me for a strip each
issue.  It might have been true then, but it's not true now and hasn't been
for a long time.  They're ROLLING IN DOUGH but don't want the Austin
artistic community to have any of it!  Tight bastards.  Worse, they have
exhibited a hostile attitude toward comics that was almost universally
unknown in "alternative" pubs on the Austin Scene prior to their arrival and
co-opting of the medium.  They think they're too classy for comics, and that
their pub--a "magazine" Louis calls it--is sorta like Rolling Stone; photos
are almost their total visuals (no offense intended to the many excellent
photographers on the scene, I assure you)

Louis, with all his high-flown editorial pretensions, would probably say:
"Jaxon, you FUCKIN' KNOW-IT-ALL!  Why don't you shut up about how we ain't
as good as the Rolling Stone??"  Well, yes, I do tend to ramble and do come
off as a know-it-all at times.  But in this case I know what I'm talking
about.  I (like many of you Listers) read RS from the git-go and kept
reading it during my days on the West Coast while the mag was setting
standards for the New Journalism.  I was art director for the Family Dog at
the time, and whatever Rolling Stone said about the Avalon Ballroom & the
music scene in general was of keen interest to me.   Hell, one of the Dog's
regular poster artists (Rick Griffin) did the logo for the Stone!  Rick also
did the lettering on the only, terrible Avalon dance poster that I drew
after I stepped down as art director and turned the job over to my old
grade-school buddy from Stockdale, Mac McGrew, and fellow ghettoites.

If you don't believe me Louis, check out page 82 of the giant, slick 1987
Abbeville Press book, The Art of Rock (I'm quoted at length on page before).
There you'll see a photo of a very worried jaxon behind his desk at the
Dog's poster office, in polka-dot pants, wondering where the money's gonna
come from to pay the latest fantastic gig we've booked, to pay the printer
for our posters that we're way behind on, etc.  Yeah, my accounting degree
from lowly A&I wasn't such a waste of time after all--even if you did get
ulcers from this type of work.  And who was my staff?  Old Austinites like
Porterfield, Gronewegen, McGrew, and whoever else was passing thru San
Francisco needing a job.  We stuck together like glue.  This
take-care-of-our-own mentality also motivated operations at Rip Off Press.
No wonder people on the scene from other places called us the "Texas Mafia."

I won't get into the days after Dog jefe Chet Helms lost his lease when
fellow ghettoites Bob Simmons and Gary Maxwell/Scanlon took over operations
at the Avalon under the name Soundproof Prod, except to say that their dance
posters were colorful splashy things with a definite CARTOONY flavor.  Most
of them were drawn by us Texas guys or artists who had fallen into our
circle, such as Griffin, Greg Irons, R. Crumb, Bob Freid, etc.  These
posters were among the earliest printing jobs done by ROP, the history of
which you Listers are well aware.  If not, see my comic strip "Rip Off
Press, The Golden Years," reprinted in God's Bosom (along with some of my
strips done for the Austin Sun after I bailed out of the West Coast scene).
This collection of my "historical" strips was put out by Gary Groth's
Fantagraphics Books in 1995; see my rant, part 9.  COMIX, By God!

Does this mean that we Texan "Mafia" guys at the Dog & later at ROP ran a
closed shop, that we were a snooty in-group hostile to "outsiders"?  You'd
probably like to think so, Louis Black; might make you feel more
self-righteous about your New Jerseyitis if we were.  Well dream on, cause
that weren't the case at all.  Both outfits were OPEN shops, and we welcomed
talented folks who happened to fall within our creative sphere.  Look at old
photos of FD/ROP staffers, musicians, artists, parties, and you'll find many
smiling non-Texan faces among us.  Most are still our friends and we're
lucky to have them.  True, being from the Austintacious network when they
arrived--folks like Dicky Sparks, Perry Lorenz, Don Taylor, etc--gave them a
leg up, in terms of how warmly we welcomed them.  Nothing wrong with that:
Texans have always been a proud, clannish folk when they're out & about in
the wide world.  Still are, and I hope we'll always be...

Furthermore, Louis, I was at the meeting that Jann Wenner called in Marin
County (just before the Monterey Pop Festival that jolted the world and
launched Janis Joplin as a Big-Time act) to pitch the idea for a radical,
hip-oriented new pub to the Bay Area creative community.  It was a
well-attended affair with reps from the FM radio crowd, dance hall
empresarios, writers/poets of every description, musicians, photographers,
poster artists, etc., with plenty of hash, weed, toot, vino, bourbon &
branch, and snacks to go around.  Can't remember (wonder WHY?) if Jann
already had the name Rolling Stone picked out, or if some other Texan (like
Chester H.) suggested it to him.  Travis, were you there, maybe as an Oracle
person?  Or you telebob, as a member of the KSAN team??  If so chim in, as
this meeting--like so many other "important" brainstorming sessions I
attended in those days--are now a blur.

On the drive back to San Francisco, we expressed skepticism that this chubby
clean-looking kid (who'd grown up in the Dallas area with a gold spoon in
his pudgy/pouting little mouth) could pull it off.  Hell, he'd never paid
any "dues" like the rest of us hand-to-mouth guys.  What did this rich
wanna-be know about the friggin' Counterculture??  Boy, were we Family Dog
hipsters ever wrong!!  But at least Jann, dues-payer or not, was smart enuff
to know he needed the support of local artists to be successful--something
the Chron brain trust hasn't figured out to this day.  For I would argue
that being "successful" money-wise with a publication doesn't always mean
that you've been successful in an artistic sense.  Rolling Stone managed to
score on both levels, while the Austin Chron has only managed to make its
owner(s) richer than their parents ever imagined it would.  While it is true
that RS didn't run many comix (they should have immediately picked up on Ron
Cobb, whose panels appeared in the LA Free Press), seems like they launched
the career of some Trudeau fellow.  More importantly, they published--under
the name of Straight Arrow Books--Mark Estren's A History of Underground
Comics in 1974.  It was packed with sex/dope/blood/gore/anti-Establishment
illos and brought our work to a national audience in a slick format at a
time when we were all worried about being busted for drawing such things.
Every bit of "credibility" we counterculture guys could get helped keep us
out of jail, or so we imagined.  Jann's mag put it all on center stage...

I apologize for this long-winded digression, but here's my point: when we
ghettoites left SF and returned home, we brought with us our talent and a
lot of experience with alternative pubs that Louis Black could have put to
good use.  The Austin Sun did, but the Austin Chronicle didn't.  Because of
this decision the quality & long-term significance of the Chron suffered,
along with us starving artists.  To the Chron's Lasting Disgrace.

So wake up, Chronicle boys, & take it from somebody who knows: you ain't
even close to the Rolling Stone--except maybe in your ability to drum up
revenue from advertisers.  Here's Mack White's letter:

MORE SUPPORT FOR JACKSON  Dear Mr. Black:

I have some objections to MV's review of JJ's Lost Cause.  First, it reveals
a complete ignorance of the graphic novel medium.  To dismiss the book
simply because "without pictures, the 148-page story would shrink to maybe
25 pages, if that" is to completely miss the point of the graphic
novel--that pictures can be used to tell an intelligent story and that the
graphic novelist's task is to tell the story in as few words as possible.

Also, V's review reads more like a personal attack than a review.  V. is
certainly entitled to his opinion that J. is  "racist"; however, to use a
critical forum to smear J's character in this way is inappropriate, if not
downright uncivilized.

Furthermore, your readers should know that V's opinion is not shared by
everyone who has read the book.  I have read it, and so have a number of my
colleagues in the comics community.  No one has found the book to be at all
racist.  The book is, in fact, a gripping, realistic depiction of
Reconstruction-era Texas; it is beautifully drawn, excitingly written, and
excellent history.

It would be nice if there were space in this letter to refute all of V's
claims with regard to the book's "racism."  But the claims are so many, and
the issues raised so complex, it cannot be done in a letter.

That is why JJ should be allowed equal space to respond to this unfounded
attack.  MW

Then, another member of the Marshall clan(?), named Lytton, rounded out the
list of protestors on my behalf:

VENTURA WRONG  Dear Sir:

In his mean-spirited attack on JJ's Lost Cause, reviewer MV makes an
historical gaffe in falsely accusing J. of making one.  According to V. "on
page 13, in a scene set in 1857, his riders are armed with what looks like
Winchester-style repeating rifles...There were no such rifles in 1857.
Until the Civil War ended in 1865, rifles were long-muzzled and had to be
reloaded after each shot, which usually meant ramming a rod down the inside
of the barrel."  ALL WRONG.  Send V. back to New York.

The weapon shown in J's artwork is a HENRY.  According to the catalog of
Navy Arms (which makes replicas of the Henry and other historic arms), the
Henry was produced "between 1850 and 1866."  Thus it was well within the
time frame depicted by the author-artist.  The Henry was used during the
Civil War, and also the Spencer, incidentally, another breach-loading
repeating rifle.  Your reviewer has done a disservice to both author-artist
J. and to the Chronicle as well, in claiming J's "goof" shakes faith in his
work--when in truth it is V. who is the historical ignoramus.  He owes Jack
Jackson an apology, and if he is not man enough to do it, the Chron should
make their own apology for using a vicious-mouthed Yankee boob to defame a
truly fine and multitalented Texas historian.  LM


Louis put the following ED. note in brackets with these letters: "An online
comic art discussion group took up the JJ issue.  The Chron received 4
similar letters from that group.  They are available online."  Yes, but you
didn't bother to give the address, did you Louis?  So much for your belief
in the free exchange of ideas.

Alright Gang--The next post will be QUICK & DIRTY, short & simple.  Then
will come my interview in The Comics Journal--with pictures!  I'll wind up
my rant in the 10th installment with a brief assessment of where the Chron
stands in a long line of Austintacious pubs that thought cartoons were
essential to their Reason for Being.