Archive for August, 2008

Lessons from Research/Publishing, 1

August 27, 2008

The real attraction of publishing, at least for me, is the opportunity for contributing to discussions on topics I care about. So in the past 12 months I’ve been heartened to see four of my papers accepted by academic journals and another four accepted by conferences. The four journal articles are:

Ward, M., Sr. (2008). The banality of culture? Reassessing the social science of the Goldhagen Thesis on its own terms. Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History, 14(1), 1-34.

Ward, M., Sr. (in press). The banality of rhetoric? Assessing Steven Katz’s “The ethic of expediency” against current research on the Holocaust. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (scheduled for release November 2008).

Ward, M., Sr. (in press). Squaring the learning circle: Cross-classroom collaborations and the impact of audience on student outcomes in professional writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication (scheduled for release January 2009).

Ward, M., Sr. (in press). Independents’ day: Rhetoric, culture, and the history of gasoline marketing in the United States, 1958-2008. Oil-Industry History (scheduled for release December 2008).

In addition to what our RCID Student Faculty Handbook tells us (all class projects should aim to be publishable, learn about the conversations around you, target specific journals, get your professors’ input), here are some things I’m learning through the publishing process:

1. Put stasis theory to work. How? Learn the conversation around you and its points of consensus, and then search for that one point, that one small opening, which offers a springboard to launch a new twist.

My “Banality of Culture” deconstructed a controversial book about the Holocaust whose historical chapters had been savaged by the academic historians who dominate the field, but whose social science arguments had never been addressed. “Banality of Rhetoric” examines Steve Katz’s canonical essay about technical communication and the Holocaust, an article which is frequently cited in tech comm but had never been critiqued against Holocaust scholarship. “Squaring the Learning Circle” takes a landmark study about the impact of audience effects on writing by middle schoolers and conducts a similar experiment to see if the same effects would be found among college-level writing students.

2. Always be on the lookout for topics. When I read or see things around me, I think to myself, “How might that make a paper topic?” Often I jot down these ideas, write an opening paragraph, and let each idea germinate over time.

The idea for “Banality of Rhetoric” started the first week of class last year when I saw Steve’s “Ethic of Expediency” in the references for another article we had been assigned to read in RCID 810. The subtitle, “Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust,” caught my eye. Similarly, the idea for “Squaring the Learning Circle” also occurred to me the first week of class in RCID 810 as I was doing another assigned reading. And a paper of mine that was accepted for NCA 2008 began four years ago when I took a salaried position with a semiprofessional gospel quartet. Since the group owned a bus and traveled 30 weekends a year to sing at fundamentalist Baptist churches in 20 states, it dawned on me that I was actually doing ethnographic fieldwork. When I retired from the road last summer I had visited some 200 churches and been a participant-observer in more than 250 fundamentalist worship services.

3. Have a hobby. Scholars can benefit, I believe, by having hobbies outside their main discipline. This is the same principle that animates our dissertations, where new insights into our primary research areas are generated by mixing them with secondary areas.

Though my background is in comm studies, Holocaust Studies has long been an interest of mine. Thus “Banality of Culture,” which is drawn from my masters thesis, applies comm theory to the problem of understanding Holocaust perpetrator behavior. “Banality of Rhetoric” is a crosspollination of tech comm, rhetoric, and Holocaust Studies. My opportunity to conduct an experiment for “Squaring the Learning Circle” came about because I’ve been a freelance business journalist for 20 years and was invited to address a writing seminar at another institution. Similarly, I wrote “Independents’ Day” because I have covered the petroleum industry for two decades. And with my fundamentalist ethnography, as a good ol’ Southern boy I’ve been around religious rhetorics since childhood and am now using that life experience to conduct a research agenda.

4. Build a balanced agenda. Through my different activities I’m building a varied research agenda that includes the intersections of (a) comm theory, tech comm, and the Holocaust; (b) religious rhetorics, speech ethnography, and intercultural communication; (c) religion and media; (d) occupational rhetorics and speech ethnography; and (e) composition studies and cognition.

When the day comes to find a job, my traditional M.A. in Communication Studies and my transdisciplinary Ph.D. in RCID will allow me to apply for teaching positions in either comm studies departments or English departments. My goal is to have comm studies articles I can show to comm studies search committees, rhet/comp articles I can show to English search committees, and transdisciplinary research agendas that can appeal to both and demonstrate innovative scholarship.

5. Always be on the lookout for spinoffs. The secret to writing a high volume of papers is, rather than writing each paper from scratch as a one-time venture, to build your research agenda and be constantly thinking of ways to extend your past work into new questions. In my case:

— “Banality of Culture” addressed arguments made by another scholar, as I concluded his social science approach was potentially fruitful but his method flawed. So I wrote two more papers to show how the flaws could be overcome and then conducted my own analysis. The second paper in this series was also accepted for NCA 2008, while an amalgamation of the second and third papers has gotten a revise-and-resubmit invitation from a Holocaust Studies journal. (As an aside, readings I did on cognitive dissonance for one of these papers led to another paper I wrote last semester related to consumer research.)

— “Banality of Rhetoric” challenged Steve Katz’s “Ethic of Expediency” on grounds of Holocaust scholarship rather than tech comm scholarship. But my first paper implied two items of unfinished business: What alternate explanations are possible of the Nazi technical memo Steve analyzed? And if Steve analyzed only a single document, would analyses of other Nazi documents lend support to his thesis or to alternate explanations? These questions have led to more papers I will be submitting soon to different journals, as well as to a presentation which has been accepted for CCCC next March, and now to my dissertation topic.

— My fundamentalist ethnography paper, which is under review and also been accepted for NCA 2008, focused on the rhetorics of preaching by professional clergy. Then I wrote a second paper on the speech codes and social dramas of fundamentalist laity (this paper has been submitted to a journal and accepted for presentation in November at the annual International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies conference). A third paper is in prospect on the rhetoric of fundamentalist music and worship performance. And I plan later to treat in detail a phenomenon I have called “reactionary postmodernism” to describe shouted sermons that construct identities through narratival montages rather than sustained argumentation.

— “Squaring the Learning Circle” does some theory development to explain the impact of audience effects on student writing. In the paper I propose a Dynamic Motivational Model for student writers and a second model called the Audience Relevance Continuum. Now I’m looking for opportunities to apply these two models to additional problems in composition. Last spring a publisher called for chapters in a new book on service learning. Chapters are due in October and I’ve begun work on a submission.

— When I was assigned to do an empirical research paper for RCID 803, I drew on my longtime interest in religion and media to conduct a study of how media consolidation has impacted religious radio. This led to not just one paper, but two papers which are now both being reviewed by different journals. The first focuses on the consolidation of radio stations and the second on how consolidation has impacted the radio preachers and independent syndicators who purchase airtime for programs on those stations. My research is addressed not only to religion scholars, but is written as case studies that can be of interest to all those concerned about the effects of media conglomeration.

— “Independents’ Day” is my first attempt to tap into the material I’ve gathered on business-related rhetorics over my nearly 30 years in business journalism. My specialties have been the petroleum, construction, retailing, and foodservice industries. Since I save everything I write, then I have more than 20 years’ worth of trade magazines in these fields. Someday I’d like to mine these resources further and use a recently proposed approach called “ethnographies of rhetoric,” a method suggested especially for “occupational rhetorics.”

6. Be prepared for the review process to take time. The time spent in writing a paper is only the beginning. Though “Banality of Rhetoric” was accepted for publication without revision, my other three publications required revision and resubmittal. And with “Squaring the Learning Circle” I went through two rounds of substantial revisions. Then, even after the article is accepted for publication, comes two rounds of editing. First the editor marks up the manuscript to conform with the journal’s style, sending it back to the author to make the changes and produce a clean electronic file. Then a page proof is produced and sent to the author for final corrections. Both stages can be tedious and time-consuming, although I’ve learned much about style guidelines and editors’ preferences.

Engaging reviewers’ comments has likewise been a highly valuable learning opportunity, offering new insights not only about my topics but also the politics of respective audiences and journals. Comments I received have always been most helpful, prompting me to hone my arguments and resulting in better papers. Reviewers called attention to a tendency I sometimes have of seeing my papers as continuations of larger projects, so that I have learned instead to ensure that my papers are each capable of standing alone, are tightly focused on a problem, and deliver what they promise. Yet since I do multiple articles on related themes, I have also learned lessons about the timing of my submissions. My RCID education would be incomplete without these inputs from scholars outside our institution.

At this point I have four papers now under review at different journals, and perhaps another four which are done and I plan to submit soon when the timing is right. And of course, this semester I will be writing new papers for my RCID classes. So I’m hopeful that in the near future I will be using this space again to report on more acceptances.

~ Mark Ward Sr ~

Note: This is the first of what we hope will be a series of reports and discussions by students in the RCID program on their research and publishing endeavors.


Venturing to EGS, 2

August 26, 2008

Josh Abboud and I were privileged to be able to continue the RCID presence at the European Graduate School this June, ’08, in Saas-Fee, Switzerland. Like Justin and Jason, who attended last summer, we also took six seminars in the Media and Communication Division of EGS–a relatively intense means of learning and exchange. Our sessions broke into three unofficial segments that I have affectionately named as follows: Fun with Theorists, Adventures in Psychoanalysis, and Film, Film, Film.

. . . We began with the familiar as we took our first class, “Jean-François Lyotard: Hesitating Thought,” with RCID Director Victor Vitanza (yes, Victor’s class was our “easing in” to the system). While the material challenged us, I did delight in already having had the Vitanza teaching experience, and perhaps a bit in taking note of the dumb-struck looks on the faces of new students to that experience. I well-remember that experience for myself. Of course, the expressions soon changed to delight as we engaged in Lyotard’s/Vitanza’s drama from Just Gaming through Libidinal Economy to the Differend. In stark contrast to this experience, but with equal delight, we next embarked upon Sylvere Lotringer’s “Jean Baudrillard” class. Here, Lotringer shared his vast and colorful knowledge of and experiences with Baudrillard, as well as most other influential French philosophers of the past fifty years or so. Most interesting was Lotringer’s discussion of the whole Forget Foucault affair! I literally could not write fast enough to capture the gold that flowed from Lotringer’s lips.

“Adventures in Psychoanalysis” week offered us “Haunted Thought and Art” with Larry Rickels and Sue de Beer, and “Art, Psychoanalysis, Philosophy: The Matrixial Border-space” with Bracha Ettinger. Here, art–materially in Sue’s films as well as theoretically in Bracha’s notebooks–was both juxtaposed and interspersed with analysis á la Freud and Lacan . . . and, of course, Rickels and Ettinger. (Below are Bracha’s shoes and sketches.)

Finally, . . . in week three, the practice of art pulled even more into focus as we worked with two film-makers, Claire Denis (L’Intrus) & Tom Kalin (Savage Grace).

In addition to classes, we attended evening lectures with a range of artists, philosophers, filmmakers, and the like, including Barbara Hammer, Manuel DeLanda, Paul Miller (aka DJ Spooky aka That Subliminal Kid), Krzysztof Zanussi, and Carl Mitcham, among others. (Below are Paul and Clare.)

But alas, we were not only academic nerds. I ventured a few times into the social scene (though my cold mix well with the didn’t smokey bars), getting the EGS-behind-the-scenes stories, and of course expanding class discussions and the philosophical meanderings often enhanced by wine and the like. Additionally, we enjoyed the beauty of the nature around us, often taking morning walks. Though the weather did not cooperate throughout most of our trip, we lucked out on our second day off–on this gorgeous day, we hit the gondolier and did some serious mountain hiking (well, Josh a bit more successfully than me, as he actually reached the summit. I peaked about half-way up, and reveled in the scenery and the rock-sitting while he climbed).

Overall, EGS inspired, challenged and delighted in countless ways. I think I can speak for both of us when I say that we felt quite honored to be given this opportunity, and what we gained can hardly be put into words. The rare RCID/EGS partnership rewards in more ways than one could imagine, and I look forward to continuing my conversations with the many amazing people I met this summer.

~ Amanda Booher ~

I don’t want to offer another recounting of what was a once in a lifetime opportunity to immerse ourselves almost completely in our academic endeavors for three weeks. Instead, I will offer this small passage that I recorded while in Saas-Fee, Switzerland:

As we draw close to the halfway mark I must say that I am becoming more and more enamored with extending the boundaries of academic learning. The traditional university has its benefits, of course, but it comes with its own risks. Rigid disciplinary fields have territorialized teaching, learning, and research to the point that it has become very difficult to transfer knowledge, even while that knowledge resists this same territorialization. I suppose that is the driving force behind RCID, but that is also the obstacle against RCID. EGS as well has its own risks and benefits; however, it has created a place that allows knowledge to spill over, and even encourages students to spill over themselves.

And spill over ourselves we did. For three weeks we were stretched to our scholarly limits, drowning amidst ideas both old and new–the new is made familiar and the old is made strange. This was in no way a place to passively sit at the feet of the masters, but to actively enter the conversations that they have themselves continued from a lifetime of listening. As I said in the above passage RCID and EGS share a vision of breaking down boundaries of knowledge through knowing, doing, and making. Where else but EGS can you spend a day with Victor Vitanza discussing Lyotard’s use of the Moebius strip configuration in Libidinal Economy, chat with Sylvere Lotringer about how he had to talk Michel Foucault from off the street back into a conference in which he had been offended, share a meal listening to Tom Kalin talk about directing Julianne Moore in his new movie Savage Grace, accept an invitation from Krzysztof Zanussi to come visit him at his home in Poland, and then end the day jamming to Paul Miller (aka DJ Spooky, that Subliminal Kid) spinning at the nearby Happy Bar. And it all happens against the surreal backdrop of a small Swiss village.

Here are a few pix (Wolfgang Schirmacher, the Director of EGS, responding to Sylvere in the evening lectures; Barbara Hammer, addressing the faculty and students; and VV signing autographs on his seminar notes!):

This is not so much interdisciplinary but more like synasthesia, and it goes beyond description. I think I speak for Amanda when I thank all those responsible for making this experience possible for RCID students, both present and future. And while we may not have had the best weather Europe can offer (it rained almost every day we were there) we still got to eat the best chocolate in the world, of which both Amanda and I got our fill. Now that’s priceless.

~ Joshua Abboud ~

For more detailed recountings of our experiences, please visit our personal blogs:



More Conference Reflections, July 2008

August 21, 2008

At the IPCC, I shared the analytical study I performed in Summer Taylor’s pedagogy course last fall. My study, conducted in one of John Dinolfo’s nursing writing courses, examined the effectiveness of the Blackboard discussion board as a heuristic genre for writing in the disciplines. Mine was one of many instructional approaches shared under the conference theme Capitalizing on the Knowledge Economy: Lessons from Our Neighbors.

Saul Carliner, associate professor of educational technology at Concordia University in Montreal (in the pic far left), and an author whose works we have reviewed in Sean William’s and Tharon Howard’s information design and technology courses, was the keynote speaker at the IEEE IPCC, July 13-16, 2008 at Concordia.

In his address, Saul spoke to the concerns of communications professionals about their unfolding roles in a knowledge-based economy. He suggested that we look for insight to fields outside of technical and professional communications such as human factors, instructional design (i.e. corporate training), software engineering, and translation services. One of the main lessons to be learned from these fields is to create opportunities for maximizing productivity and effectiveness while minimizing communications barriers. This is especially challenging, according to Saul, as we come to understand more about the wide net cast by transdisciplinary communications, and the myriad applications it affords us.

But there’s more: For I also attended, with Dev Bose, the Third International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, hosted by Common Ground on July 22-25, 2008 at Monash University in Prato, Tuscany, Italy. This was the occasion for my first trip to Europe. (Shhhhhhh–participating in the conference was a bonus; spending days in and around the Italian countryside, with a 13 hour layover in Paris on the return flight, was the main attraction–but I know I can trust you to keep that secret.)

Aside from visiting Florence, Milan, and Venice (I heart the Eurorail!), some highlights of the conference included befriending two scholars from Malaysia, Wan and Norain, and learning about their culture and some of their academic priorities. In their sessions I learned about their uses of technology–how, for example, they are incorporating email (Norain) as a method for peer review in composition courses. I was even more intrigued by Wan’s involvement as an advocate for amending the Malaysian Domestic Violence Act. In fact, several of the European presenters emphasized, as did Wan, their dependence upon NGO’s (parallels to our charitable non-profits) to effect change outside of governmental hierarchies. Sadly, but also similarly, they referred to their disappointments in the ways these agencies often emulate the very governments they are meant to challenge and critique.

My presentation was titled “Barak Obama and the Politics of Technology” and addressed the rhetorical dimensions of new media and society. I focused on Obama’s extensive use of technologies to engage typically apolitical demographics–younger and minority voters, many of whom registered for the first time in order to be able to support Obama. His campaign’s enlistment of experts in the field: David Plouffe, Jon Carson, and Chris Hughes of Facebook for example, demonstrate his commitment to interactivity as part of his vision for a more progressive government, and as a paradigm for disseminating what Debra Atwater has called his “rhetoric of hope.” At the conclusion of the panel, I teamed up with Dev Bose to dialogue with our spirited audience, and that went very well. By any measure, we got as good as we gave!

~ Michelle Dacus Carr ~

Conference reflections: July 2008

August 20, 2008

I had the pleasure of representing RCID and Clemson University during two conferences this summer, one in the peaceful Tuscan countryside city of Prato and the other in the fast-paced urban hub of Helsinki (Helsingin). My presentations at these conferences represented the four letters of RCID; while Prato and Helsinki are two vastly different worlds, the international nature of both conferences was truly representative of McLuhan’s concept of the “global village.”

Information Design

Monash University Centre hosted the Third International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. The goal of this annual conference is to examine the nature of disciplinary social sciences in light of interdisciplinary practices. My presentation, “Coping with Multimodal Environments: Conceptions of the Digital Marketplace,” fit perfectly into the practical and dynamic aim of the conference. I presented on the often-neglected affective aspect of information design, arguing that information designers need to keep the multimodal appeal of users in mind as they design products in the digital marketplace.

While my presentation helped to determine the functionality of information design, it was my collaboration with other RCID presenters that helped to make this panel a tour de force–including Michelle Dacus-Carr’s presentation on the social rhetoric of the Barack Obama campaign. In the extensive Q & A that followed, we were able to work together as a team to discuss the impact of information design on various products. My stay in nearby Florence (Firenze) was marked by visits to the Uffizi and Accademia d’Arte, and all I could think of after the conference was the way that information design is reflected in the elegance of these incredible museums.

Rhetorics and Communication

The journey from Italy to Finland consisted of a quick economy jet ride to Stockholm followed by a lumbering boat voyage across the chilly waves of the Baltic. Upon landing in the port at Helsinki and taking a tram to my hotel, blaring trumpets and a large crowd in Senate Square greeted me–well, not me, exactly, but rather the army troops that reenact the liberation of Finland on a given basis.

And with that, the 11th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas (ISSEI), hosted by the University of Helsinki, was underway. The first day of the conference was tiring yet fascinating, with a 9:30am workshop (“Language and Power: Political Discourse, Identity, and Politics” followed by my 1:30pm workshop (“Technics, Technology, and the Post-Human”). I should briefly add that all conference attendees were invited to a reception at City Hall hosted by the mayor of Helsinki; at this elegant yet relaxed gala, I was able to personally engage with presenters from the first panel, including one political scientist at the Nicholas Copernicus University in Turin, Poland.

Given the highly current nature of technics, it made sense to argue the importance of postmodernist approaches to studies of the post-human during my presentation. This panel, as well as others, was enlightening in that I was able to interact with other researchers in an interactive workshop. Technics proved to be a vital part of the discussion that followed, as all of our presentations focused on answering the question, “what is the role of the post-human in contemporary, postmodern society?” Together, we pondered the work of Stiegler, Haraway, and Levinas–all names that have come up continuously in RCID colloquia and seminars.

The next morning greeted me with my second presentation, “Sophistic Impressions of the Hermaphrodite as Dissident Intellectual through Danilo Kis.” Noting that the topic of my second panel (Primvm Graivs Homo Mortalis: The Greek and Roman Invention of European Arts and Sciences) would deal with the contributions of the ancients, I had something in mind early last November as I began preparing for this workshop. This “something” would develop into my dissertation focus, which I presented at this workshop. The turnout was higher than expected, and I received many questions and compliments during the Q & A and the break. The day finished with a refreshing hike through the lakes and forests of nearby Nuuksio National Park.

Both conferences were huge successes. It is difficult to determine the highlights of each city, but the graceful strength of the Statue of David and the 13 onion domes of Uspenski Cathedral (the largest Byzantine church in Western Europe) are definitive touristic highlights. And of course the interdisciplinary nature of these international conferences was undeniably great (I presented at a conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia in March that was also helpful in terms of learning about world politics and rhetorics). It is my hope that opportunities like this are open to all of us in the RCID community

~ Dev Kumar Bose ~

Jason Helms @ Comic-Con, San Diego

August 6, 2008

Comics and academics make strange bedfellows, leading more often than not to the entanglements of retainers and pocket-protectors in the heat of passion. The Comic Arts Conference seems to blend theory and practice more effortlessly than any other popular culture conference. At PCA/ACA academics meet behind closed doors, far from the creators they study. CAC, on the other hand, meets in the belly of the beast, comic-con international, A.K.A. the San Diego Comic-Con, A.K.A. Comic-Con. It’s worth ruminating over that last nickname. With dozens of comic-cons nation (and world) wide—we even have our very own in Greenville—for one to be known simply as comic-con, it must stand out. It’s a bit like referring to four C’s as “the conference.” With over a hundred thousand attendees, massive media coverage, and various upcoming comics, video games, and films being unveiled and plugged, it’s well deserved its prestige. Hell, they did an episode of Entourage about it. ENTOURAGE!

Not only does CAC have the unmitigated gall to meet during such a bacchanalia fatigacia (that’s Latin for geek orgy), but they have integrated themselves so well that their panels are actually listed on the main schedule. There are some major advantages and disadvantages to opening an academic conference to the public. I believe I saw someone dressed up as an anime character at Douglas Wolk’s presentation.

On the other hand, some of the lower audience turn-outs were 50 people, high for a panel at any academic conference. Academia is so well connected to their source in the world of comics scholarship, that the industry even gives awards for best books on comics. Douglas Wolk won an Eisner this year. That’s like Christian Metz getting an Oscar.

Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow. Zack Snyder, and Frank Miller.

Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow, Zack Snyder, and Frank Miller

I was there wearing two hats. First off, I was an academic trying to network and find out whether or not my dissertation is really anything exciting for comics studies. This went very well. I generated a lot of excitement about making comics about comics and was able to meet a few colleagues who are interested in my work as well as two artists who are interested in partnering with academics to create such articles.

Pineapple Express and Zack and Miri Make a Porno.
Seth Rogan was there plugging two upcoming films: ~Pineapple Express~ and ~Zack and Miri Make a Porno~.

While the academic hat pays my bills, my other hat got me behind closed doors. In my spare time I write for RedFence, a magazine out of LA (The first issue printed a few hours ago! Go buy a copy!). Somehow they managed to get me a press pass and I used this new found ethos to get face to face interviews with two of my all time favorite creators, Steve Purcell (Sam and Max, most of the LucasArts games, Cars, etc.) and Rob Schrab (Scud the Disposable Assassin, The Sarah Silverman Show, that internet meme with the dungeons and dragons guys. You know the one, “I shoot lightning into the darkness” “Where’s the Mountain Dew?”). Not impressive enough for you? Fine, I’ll see my fan-boy wet dream and raise you an actual professional encounter as I was allowed into the press briefing for the Watchmen movie. I was able to ask Zack Snyder a question, joke with Dave Gibbons, and get creeped out by Jackie Earle Haley, the actorplaying Rorschach, sitting right next to me. Seriously, he’s going to be fantastic. Jackie’s greatest line was,“More so than my previous work, some scenes were disturbing and stuck with me. Sometimes Rorschach followed me home.”

Robert Kirkman (Walking Dead), Mike Mignola (Hellboy), Matt Fraction (Immortal Ironfist), and John Cassaday (Astonishing X-Men).

Robert Kirkman (Walking Dead), Mike Mignola (Hellboy), Matt Fraction (Immortal Ironfist), and John Cassaday (Astonishing X-Men).

All of this doesn’t even begin to touch upon the sensory overload that is comic-con. I had to constantly choose between being an academe, a journalist and a fan-boy. Do I go to a panel on Scott McCloud or a panel featuring Frank Miller (along with Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow, and Zack Snyder)? Hopefully some of the pictures will tell the story a bit better than my fame addled brain can muster right now. Soon to come: RedFence articles on Watchmen and the two interviews. For now, watch this clip of Mike Mignola’s discussion of translating a comic into a film and the effect that has had upon comics.

~ Jason Helms ~