REVIEW: LNH Comics Presents # 91 (ILC 56)

Tom Russell milos_parker at
Wed Jun 27 22:05:51 PDT 2007

On Jun 28, 12:12 am, Martin <phippsmar... at> wrote:

> It's true that "not very good" is not the same as "bad" but I always
> thought characterisation was a strength of mine.

When did I mention your characterization in my initial review?  And
when did I say that anyone was "not very good"?  I was singling
particular authors out for praise because they did it particularly
well-- not because they were somehow "better" than others whom I
didn't name.  I didn't mention your name at all-- and you shouldn't
take my comments as any kind of slight on your work, or anyone
else's.  If I don't enjoy someone's work, I _do_ let them know
_directly_: or have you never read any of my Jesse Willey reviews? ;-)

And I wouldn't compare someone to an author I value as highly as
Spillane (or Proust) unless I meant it.

> In any case, "Mitchell was really able to deliver with the PC Person
> story-- less-so with the Bad Timing Boy one" is not a very
> constructive criticism of Mitchell's Bad Timing Boy story.

I gave Mitchell feedback on that story previously; I felt that the PC
Person story was a more creative extrapolation of that character, and
what that character would do with the leadership.  It could be,
perhaps, because Bad-Timing Boy is a bit played out as a character.

Look at, for example, Multi-Tasking Man, who is almost always
described as doing multiple things at once.  Generally, the humour
comes from the juxtaposition of serious things (checking security,
programming, whatever) and silly ones (peeling bananas with his
feet).  After awhile, the joke gets pretty stale.

But if you look at McCoskey's Valentine Ball story-- in which MTM is
assigned on three or four different committees-- it's a unique,
different, surprising and appealing use of the character.  And if I
say it's the best use of the character, that's not to say that anyone
else's use is lacking.

Mitchell's PC Person story was really inventive.

>   I would suggest that if you are going to review one of Lalo's
> stories that you refrain from making side remarks about other authors
> and only mention other author's works in the context of an indepth,
> constructive review.

Actually, what I said was not a "side remark", but rather a vital part
of the review itself: I was looking at what I like about the Leader-
for-a-Day stories that I particularly enjoyed, and I was using that as
a litmus test for his story.  And, once he explained it, I could see
that he _did_ deliver on that essential premise-- it just kinda snuck
by me the first couple of times.

> Martin


More information about the racc mailing list