Mark Evanier's Blog, page 250

Go Read It!

Hey, wanna read a pretty good interview with Birthday Boy Al Jaffee? It was done some time ago but it's a good read and it's right here.

Happy Al Jaffee Day!

Al 'n' me some years back

Al is probably busy today thinking up Snappy Answers to the Stupid Question, "How does it feel to be 102?"

Wrong Answers

A few folks have written to disagree with my position that there's no real proof out there as to the effectiveness of masks against COVID.  As far as they're concerned, there's absolute, definitive proof of whatever they want to believe…and it seems to bother some that (a) I don't think so and/or (b) I might or might not be wearing one when they think I should or should not.  The latter seems to rile some folks who are unlikely to come within fifty miles of me.

The ones who say it's settled that masks are useless all seem to be pointing to the "Cochrane Study" as having settled the issue once and for all.  Cochrane is a widely-respected organization but their findings in this area were extremely limited in scope and they're being so misinterpreted that Cochrane put out a notice that started with these words…

Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that "masks don't work," which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

Could they say it any clearer? Somehow, that didn't persuade a friend of mine. I sent him the link and he wrote back that as far as he was concerned, the study still proved his position — i.e., what he wanted to believe it proved. There's a lot of that around.

I am reminded of a year or two ago when a different friend sent me a draft of an article he was working on about the failure of Charlton Comics' super-hero line in the late sixties. He said he wanted any corrections I had and I sent him what I thought was a big one. In the piece, he cited sales figures for certain comics and he got those out of the Statements of Ownership that ran in some of the Charlton comics in question. Back then, if you published comics sold by subscription, you had to print an annual notice in each book divulging its past sales.

I sent the guy an interview with Dick Giordano, who was the editor of those comics. In it, Dick said that the numbers in those Statements were bogus; that someone just made them up to satisfy the postal authorities who apparently never checked. This friend wrote me back, "I was aware he said that but those numbers are the only ones we have." In other words: Wrong numbers are better than no numbers at all.

But of course, they aren't. Imagine if a policeman said, "Yes, I know the guy we arrested for that murder was probably not the killer but he was the only suspect we had."

To some people, proof of what they want to believe doesn't have to be accurate. It just has to fit into their arguments for the moment, kind of as a placeholder for the real proof they "know" is coming. Look at all the folks who passionately believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Trump and his lawyers, some of whom may be facing disbarment now, got laughed out of court with their "proof" something like eighty times. Even judges Trump appointed saw no merit in any of it.

But die-hard Trumpers fervently believe that solid proof of Donald's landslide is someplace out there and they're not going to let a little thing like not actually having it change their positions. How much "proof" has Mike Lindell touted and then quietly abandoned?

I know I've said this before on this blog but often, I think "I don't know" is the correct answer to a question. We often don't like admitting that we don't know but sometimes — increasingly often in my life — we don't. At least, I don't. What really baffles me about this mask business is that no one discussing it seems to be considering the possibility that the N95 masks that doctors wear and recommend might be more effective than masks made of the cheapest cloth some non-medical company can find.

Common sense tells me that there could be a difference and maybe a huge one. But I don't see anyone doing any real analysis of this…and I'm talking about actual research.

We seem to be getting very lazy with the whole concept of evidence and proof. These days when someone says, "I did the research on this," they just might mean they searched the Internet until they found someone who gave them the answer they wanted to believe. And that someone didn't have to be an expert or have done any real research themselves. Like that Cochrane Review study that didn't say what many people wanted to think it said, all the alleged research just had to be someone saying it online somewhere.

Today's Video Links

Here are two more videos by my new favorite pianist, Lord Vinheteiro. In the first, he plays the Woody Woodpecker theme song the proper way…which is to say, dressed as Woody Woodpecker. If you've been trying to learn this tune and it's not working for you, try putting on your Woody Woodpecker costume. As you can hear for yourself, it helps…

And that's the prelude to this video in which Lord V, turns off the sound on the 1946 Woody Woodpecker/Andy Panda cartoon Musical Moments From Chopin and supplies his own real-time accompaniment. He does a good job but it might have been even better if he'd worn the Woody Woodpecker costume and better still if he'd swapped it out now and then for an Andy Panda suit. (If you want to view the cartoon with the original, full orchestral soundtrack, click here.)

P.S. on the Finger Awards

I repeat: This is an award for a body of work as a comic book writer…someone who is or was unrecognized and/or unrewarded for that body of work. It is not for your favorite artist. It is not for someone who wrote a few stories. It is not for someone whose talents have been honored over and over and who got very, very rich and/or famous writing comics.

We have so far received a lot of interesting nominations for comic book writers who produced a substantial body of work…but almost as many nominations for artists who, if they ever wrote a comic in their lives, didn't write more than a few. Come on, folks.

It's Finger Time Again!

Yes, it's that time of the year again — the time when Evanier, on behalf of the selection committee, solicits nominations for the annual Bill Finger Award for Excellence in Comic Book Writing. This year, we will select someone who is alive for the honor and there will also be a posthumous award. All past nominations will be considered so if you nominated someone in the past, you need not submit them again. Basically, we're asking if any new names have occurred to you.

If so, they will probably not be people who recently joined the industry…and I'd better put the following in boldface: This is an award for a body of work as a comic book writer…someone who is or was unrecognized and/or unrewarded for that body of work. It is not for your favorite artist. It is not for someone who wrote a few stories. It is not for someone whose talents have been honored over and over and who got very, very rich and/or famous writing comics.

And the posthumous one is not for someone who is alive. Look up the word "posthumous," people. Each year, people nominate very-much-alive people and say their nominee should receive the posthumous award. We also have a couple of people who nominate themselves and I'm just waiting for someone to nominate themselves for the posthumous award. It will happen.

It is also not for anyone who has received this award in the past. The full list of such people can be read over on this page.

Here's the address for nominations. They will be accepted until April 15 at which time all reasonable suggestions will be placed before our Blue Ribbon Judging Committee and we'll make our decisions. They'll be announced before this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego and the awards will be presented then and there. Thank you.

Today's Video Link

I don't watch Bill Maher's show very much these days because on certain topics, I think he's being more controversial than insightful. But he and his writers do hit the bullseye at times…

Today's Video Link

I found this interesting. It's a short video about how an awful lot of our food is not really what we might think it is. We all probably know that but some of these examples are a bit surprising…

Recommended Reading

The New York Times has an article today about the effectiveness of masks in warding off COVID or other nasty diseases. It reinforces my belief that none of the studies have settled this question and that the folks who claim it's been definitively proven, one way or the other, are either relying on faulty studies or misinterpreting what they say.

And Still More About Shecky

The Hollywood Reporter notes the passing of our friend.