PeterDavid.net

I don't get why a bunch of fans (like myself) can get away with saying whatever they want, but a creator gets insulted for forming an opinion of his own.

Honestly, I could see it as a slam, but not much of one. A slamette, perhaps?

My opinion is that Peter David has not been "all too" vocal. He's mentioned it what, once or twice? I think as a long-running writer on the book he's got every right to say what he thinks. If he had publicly decried how crappy the book was, mentioned it evey other blog entry, and put down Bruce Jones whenever he had the chance at conventions and panels, then I'd say that was going too far. But he hasn't.

Hulk fan's have been pretty vocal of Bruce Jones run, but as you can see, we are just labeled as being "Uber-Fanboys" with continuity hang-up's. I always figured we were being vocal because the storytelling is horrible on the title. At least you didn't do any nice-nice-love-what BJ-is-doing stuff and stuck to your gun's, Peter. That get's alot of respect out of the fan's.

Maybe the comments you made made a very strong impression. I know it was what led to me making up my mind and dropping the book.

BTW, didn't Stan say one of your early columns about writing should be in the Library of Congress (or similar institution)?

I'd take it as a compliment. It means that PAD is to Bruce Jones as Stan Lee was to PAD. :p

Personally, this is a molehil. And many fans, naturally, are huffing and puffing to make this into a mountain.

As you say, Stan Lee is a gentleman. Being a gentleman is very much out of fashion. Funny, that those people who have dreams of creating comic books themselves some day have decided to poop in the pond in which they wish to soak.

(Notice that the somewhat childish word "poop" is more polite, and works together with the word "pond." That's called...dare I say it...assonance.)

Well, I didn't think it was a slam, but I did think the syntax odd. I remembered a thread on your blog in which you discussed BJ's Hulk, but couldn't think of any other place I was aware you'd commented -- it's unsurprising for me to learn you haven't been. "All too" seems a bit of an overstatement, especially since, as I recall, your criticism was aimed more at Marvel's management than at Bruce's writing.

PAD's blog about Bruce Jones' Hulk is at:

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/gmlog/00000513.html

That's the only public comments I've seen him make about it, aside from the occasional one-liner about "the Hulk not actually appearing in the HULK" in PAD's BID columns.

Corey

Speaking of BID... are we ever going to see more of those published here? I used to love reading them.

I see Axel's comment as typical Wizard hype. I mean, does "PAD has mildly criticized Bruce Jones' work on the Hulk once or twice" sound like a quote that really grabs the reader and makes them want to read the rest of the article?

I think it was a criticism but not a SLAM.

PAD is a good writer and can turn some nice phrases. When he talks about snails doing windsprints around the plotting is probably where one could say that he was overly critical.

Personally, I don't think he was overly critical but jsut far too entertaining with his critique - which can lead to a bruised ego for a Bruce Jones.

I happen to agree with PAD and others. I wanted to fall in love with this Hulk direction and at times it has alot of promise - but then at other times I feel like I don't know what the heck I am reading.

One problem with comics is that tendency after a month to not exactly remember everything. With the X-files type of storyline Jones was doing it seemed like a constant double cross with no resolution, finality or meaning OR connection to the supporting characters.

And the other critique is simpply that you have a book where the big green guy has been portrayed one dimensionally and we want to change it, so . . .

We take him out of 95% of the story.

Don't get me wrong - there was a lot of good Jones was doing with the Hulk vibe.

But to get back on point - the fact is PAD is a peer of Bruce Jones.

PAD is also a fan and I think that's where the problem comes in.

Who can critique a writer/artist etc?

Well FANS and CRITICS.

But other professional peers usually stay away from criticisng others work - unless your in politics and then it's for your own personal gain.

PAD obviously doesn't have an axe to grind NOR would I think is jealous of the success as PAD has had and has plenty of success in this field. He's simply voicing an opinion.

But possibly it would be better as an opinion on a random message board under a psuedonym. This gets you to vent and relate.

But to do it AS PAD is going to stir up trouble no matter what.

If he had just said that he would've paced the story differently etc - then o.k. - But PAD was witty in his critique and amongst other peers it IS slamming.

I am sure Stan Lee had some thoughts on PAD's vision but kept them to himself out of professional courtesy.

If he wanted to HELP he could have told PAD in private.

To post them publically will do nothing but bruise egos.

It is not wrong what PAD did - but it does underscor the line between fan and professional.

It can't endear yourself to your peers if you are vocally critical of their work.

If you desperatley want to do that - do it anonymously.

I don't blame PAD - but I certainly think the "all too vocal" line is meant as a subtle slam.

Later,

Udog

It is generally considered unprofessional for an artist to criticise the work of another artist in the same medium, particularly when it's on the same book. That's probably what Axel Alonso was getting at with that statement.

I must say I did think it a little odd when you said what you said. I suspect those begging you for your opinion were begging for a negative one from the "Hulk authority" as some strange kind of validation of their own (as if your opinion on the work particularly matters).

But all in all I think it's probably more a matter of your going public with your Marvel gripes instead of taking them straight to Marvel first ;-)

Axel's mistake is the same that fans (everybody - including myself) make when we write or say something in which we presume to know what a person was thinking or the motive behind an act.

Stan Lee is the only person that can answer how he felt about PAD's Hulk and since when does he owe an explanation to us mere mortals?

Who knows what * lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.

The old saying about "If you've got nothing good to say . . ."

It's a good one to live by and is basically the issue here.

BUT - this axiom doesn't apply to CRITICS and/or fans.

A critic is supposed to be CRITICAL!

Fans NEED to be critical so creators get an idea of what they are doing right/wrong.

But PEERS are in a whole different category.

You should NEVER criticize another peers work. Never - nada.

Now like I said b4 - as a psuedonym - FINE.

But just for business reasons you shouldn't.

I mean hurting Bruce Jones' feelings may not be nice - but it can go deeper. You may annoy the editor of Hulk by having a GREAT WRITER of the PAST comment negatively on the current state of the title.

It COULD effect your chances for future freelance work.

Now you might say PAD doesn't have to worry about that - he's big enough as it is.

Well if you are so BIG that you can step on others' toes without a care - than are you much different than other comic book "stars" with primadonna reps like a certain guy who has "Twisted" people's names recently?

I'm not saying PAD is all wrong but it is a lesson in life that I don't think was applied.

You may WANT to comment but it would be more responsible to keep your mouth zipped since he is a peer in your field.

Now it could get crazy b/c one coudl say - "Does that mean PAD can't comment on a TV show story or movie b/c they are also peers in a sense?"

No.

Why?

Well they are in different fields. PAD is known for his comics and I think he's closer with the comics community of professionals and Marvel then random Holllywood screenwriters or regular fiction writers.

You don't poo where you pig out? Know what I mean?

You want open debate on a current comic - go in a chat room/message board under another name.

Do it on your own board under another name to get the debate rolling.

That way you don't damage your rep or unwittingly burn bridges with your peers and/or potential employers.

Doing it anonymously gets you the same feedback and catharsis without doing under the big name and as such creating an ego-war.

Who knows - this could be a famous writer writing this - but what's important is the "thought" and not the "mouthpiece"

Stan Lee says whatever will endear him to the person he's presently talking to.

He's just nice that way. What he really thinks is a mystery. Does he really think Mary Jane should be married to Peter, or was he merely agreeing with the person he was talking to? Does he really think killing off Aunt May was a misstep, or was it Stan not wanting to have a fan upset with him?

There was that photograph of Stan Lee's desk where we saw that he was reading YOUNG JUSTICE, so he must have some good taste...

I don't mind that Marvel decided to take a new approach with the Hulk. As good as the PAD run was (and is), change can be good. The first few issues of Jones's run were quite good.

The problem is that the last few issues have been dull. Once Romita Jr. split, the stories lost their oomph. And it isn't that the art's been poor; the stories are pointless and meandering.

Marvel can push this approach all they want. But could they please consider making it interesting?

"Stan Lee says whatever will endear him to the person he's presently talking to.

He's just nice that way. What he really thinks is a mystery. Does he really think Mary Jane should be married to Peter, or was he merely agreeing with the person he was talking to?"

Well, at the first Chicago Comicon I went to, Stan was answering a question about writing the Spider-man comic strip as opposed to the comic book when he turned to Jim Shooter and said he'd like to have Peter Parker marry Mary Jane.

And I still proudly display the picture taken of Stan and me shortly thereafter.

Tony

Mah Two Cents

There are two issues here. The first one seems to be what PAD said about the Bruce Jones Hulk and what Stan Lee thought of those comments. This issue seems to be, as someone said earlier, a tempest in a teapot. Anyone trying to make this a passionate issue -- PAD hates Bruce Jones' job, Stan Lee hates PAD's thoughts on it -- is reading far too much into simple comments. I think any dislike on PAD's part has been calm and reasonable, and I don't think Stan Lee needs *anyone* speaking for him.

A newer issue seems to be whether people can criticize people in their same field, in this case whether PAD can say he doesn't like Bruce Jones's work. Undergod4 said criticism should be left to critics and fans, not peers. He's right that this can be dangerous for business, as well as for one's reputation. That said, criticism is the right of everyone. Lots of authors will discuss works they like and don't like. (And not all criticism is negative. Critics write positive reviews as well.) Plenty of musicians describe their influences, not to mention listing bad trends or bad musicians. And I've heard Harlan Ellison both damning writers and Hollywood folks and praising other writers and Hollywood folks.

As for Underdog4's suggestion that "You want open debate on a current comic - go in a chat room/message board under another name. Do it on your own board under another name to get the debate rolling. That way you don't damage your rep or unwittingly burn bridges with your peers and/or potential employers. Doing it anonymously gets you the same feedback and catharsis without doing under the big name and as such creating an ego-war." Sorry, but this strikes me as cowardice. I have the greatest respect for those people who stand behind their opinions, who will say "This is who I am and this is what I believe" instead of speaking from the relative safety of anonymity. PAD's never thrown his name around like it alone gave his arguments weight. He's said when and why he steers clear of certain topics (like commenting on Star Trek) and has certainly not always played it safe when voicing his opinions. That's part of what make his comments so informative.

Peter certainly has a right to answer a question (a most logical one coming from his fan base concerning the character he has been most associated with) if asked and honestly if he so feels. If Mr. Alonso wants to balance the situation by presenting the avalanche of praise for the Jones run he can reinstitute the letters page (of course that leaves BJ one less page of story tho).

But PEERS are in a whole different category.

You should NEVER criticize another peers work. Never - nada.

That's absurd. Literary tradition stretching back centuries has authors critiquing the work of other authors. It's still SOP in such venues as the New York Times Book Review. And they've done it with far more viciousness than I. I have books that are nothing but quotes of authors throughout the decades shredding the work of other authors...including works that are considered classics.

PAD

Yes - but the question is - should you do it to someone who works at the same company as you AT the same time.

I think it's called common courtesy.

Unrelated writers or writers even under the same novel publisher - okay - there's a degree of distance.

All I am saying is that in the smaller presence of the comic book community that it's probably not a MENSA moment to run down another Marvel writer.

I am not saying there should NEVER be criticism amongst writers.

I just think it's bad for one writer at Marvel to give negative criticism about another writer at Marvel.

That's not cowardice it's just common decency and sense.

BTW

as far as literary criticism. The guys thrashing the classics were probably mostly not their contemporaries.

And even so - I am not getting into an ivory tower discussion about people's "right" to critique others work.

I'm not getting into the academics of such theories or shortcomings of another writer.

They can be valid.

This is a societal behavior issue. Alonso's comments just reflect the point that it's not going to go over well when you publicly critique your publisher's flagship title or new writer.

I am NOT saying you don't have a right.

It's just not smart or considerate.

But if the Marvel "bullpen" is not tight-knit - then I guess it's fine to openly critique the other writers who work for your SAME employer.

But those aren't seeds any rational person would want to reap.

I think Hulk is pretty sub-par right now. But if I worked for Marvel and had a reputation I would reserve comment publicly.

An email from a fan - maybe - but I would steer clear of making negative public statements.

But any statement I guess would be made public with your reputation so I guess you have to say what you feel - but that's not always wise.

Flip it around, if PAD had been saying "Bruce Jones's Hulk is great, it's nothing like what I would do or did, but I'm loving the ride!" no one would've cared. Hell, Alonso probably woulda used the quote to promote the book.

But he said something critical, oooh, suddenly it's a bad thing.

Opinions and sphincters almost everyone's got 'em. And those who don't have the latter often have a lot of the former.

Of course, Udog, if Peter had made the criticism anonymously on a random MB, as you suggested above, then he'd be a hypocrite, since he's criticized others in the past for using that same anonymity as a shield. So sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't, thing.

As for Axel's comment in the Wizard interview, well, my first instinct is to treat it like I do everything else in Wizard and ignore it, but that would defeat the purpose of discussion. Given that, I don't see it as any more than mild territorialism. A raising of the hackles. These people are all professionals, and they know better than to get overemotional about what comes down to a difference of opinion. His territory defended, the male returns to his grooming behavior, or some other Discovery Channel analogy. Nothing to get all brou-ha-ha-ey about.

And I have to wonder about people in general who ask one pro what they think about that thing another pro said. Smacks to me of "Let's you and him fight" behavior.

"Stan Lee says whatever will endear him to the person he's presently talking to.

He's just nice that way. What he really thinks is a mystery. Does he really think Mary Jane should be married to Peter, or was he merely agreeing with the person he was talking to? Does he really think killing off Aunt May was a misstep, or was it Stan not wanting to have a fan upset with him?"

It was Stan who wanted Peter and MJ to marry in the first place and despite what some people might say married Spidey works just fine.

First off there's a difference between refraing from a negative public comment and shilling as a company man.

I think PAD said it best about his time with Stan:

the times I saw Stan (and when we lunched together) he had nothing but nice things to say about what I was doing on the series. Of course, maybe he was just being polite, since Stan is, and was, a gentleman about such things.

Isn't that sort of the point?

It's about being a gentleman.

Now in private I think it's different.

If Stan said . . ."Hey, enough with the grey mobster already. If we're doin' a gamma version of the Sopranos fine - but this is Marvel." Well that's fine - but if he said something like that publicly it's not good for the COMPANY and not good for your own personal and professional relationships.

Sure, we all respect someone who stands up for your opinion - but there's a time and a place and there's appropriate and inappropriate.

I just think that given PAD's relationship with Marvel that it's not a shining sign of practicality or decorum to be untterly dumbfounded at Brucew Jones' success and to openly criticize his writing.

Sure he has a right to do it - but should he do something that any REASONABLE and PRACTICAL person knows is innappropriate.

His name is Peter David not "Larry David"

ok look, it's an opinion of someone else's opinion. it's not like stan said something in print.

Ed Asner ran up against a similar problem when he was playing Lou Grant--when does one stop being a private individual with a protected freedom-of-speech opinion and an employee of a major corporation/company who is playing a character on a nationally broadcast TV show? Should he not then keep his opinions to himself, as least until his employment with said employer terminates? Should Stan Lee have, when dismayed over his share of the profits of the Spider-Man movie, kept quiet? Even Stan (nice guy that he is) hadda holler.

For me it goes beyond the notion of "critiquing."

See, if you go by fan comments on the boards...HULK should have tanked long ago. That's not a critique. That's an observation that I see nothing but almost incessant bitching and people keep saying they're going to drop the book.

And yet the book sells more and more.

I find this curious and would like to understand it, because if nothing else, it calls into question whether anyone in the industry should bother to listen to a single thing people on the boards say because their opinions aren't being reflected in the overall buying habits of the market. I mean, it's one thing to say that the net represents only a small sampling or is even atypical (as many do.) But in the case of this book, it's beyond atypical: It's diametrically opposed.

And by the way, most of my "criticisms" centered on amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month...something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal--and hey, possibly learn from it--than anything else.

PAD

I gave Bruce Jones' first issues a try because I liked the man's work in the past for Warren & Pacific, and his Ka-Zar was good. At first, the noir look and the slow pacing was refreshing, and the move of not showing the main character was intriguing. I gave up on the series about six issues in when I realized THIS IS IT. And it was boring the crap out of me. The thing I liked about PAD's run was that he would shift direction and style (sometimes whole casts of supporting characters!) before staleness started setting in.

"Sure he has a right to do it - but should he do something that any REASONABLE and PRACTICAL person knows is innappropriate."

What Peter said was QUITE reasonable and QUITE practical. It was certainly NOT inappropriate given that it was extremely mild commentary that, for the most part, stuck to objective elements.

I think you have an extremely unrealistic view of what's ethical and what's not ethical in the artistic field; in fact, your entire comment about literary criticism and the NY TIMES BOOK REVIEW just doesn't show much contact with the real world. It DOES show a comic book fan mentality, because of the strong emphasis on the COMPANY as a creative force. That's just not an attitude that seen in studios and TV networks, let areas such as record companies and book publishers.

A writer sticks to the verifiable elements (like, saying that the Hulk doesn't appear for 95% of the book) and they're on pretty solid ground, in public and in private.

It really looks like Marvel (Axel) is trying to stir up controversy. If there's controversy, folks may be more inclined to pick up the book and try it. PAD is a freelancer, and thus isn't beholden to Marvel (or DC, or any other company) for putting a positive spin on anything. I could be wrong, but didn't Marvel cut back on complimentary issues for creators? If so, he actually paid for the books, so he definately can state his opinion. When he was working in the sales dept. (that is, paid employee of the company), it was a different story.

My problem with Hulk, and with the majority of their titles lately, is the distubing lack of continuity. I'm not talking about Iron Man being on the Kree homeworld the same month he's fighting The Mandrin in China. It's like all past history is gone and all titles are unrelated unless Wolverine happens to be in the neighborhood. The serial storytelling means that stories build on themselves, yet the current Hulk has all but abandoned (or ignored) most of the past history.

For a while in Thor, Asgard was a floating island over Manhattan. And Spidey never noticed? Wouldn't the FF have bumped into it at least once? In the Avengers, the UN building and a large part of Washington DC were destroyed, but was it even mentioned in other books? It's almost like all of Marvel's books are becoming Ultimate-ized in their own universes. And remember when DC was the one with their own "Crisis" of histories?

Tony Collett: BTW, didn't Stan say one of your early columns about writing should be in the Library of Congress (or similar institution)?

Luigi Novi: I’m not sure if this is the one you’re talking about, but Stan said that Peter’s Aug. 17, 1990 BID column, “Why Writers Are Scum,” in which he talked about why writers are so devalued in the entertainment industry (a phenomenon that was embodied by the Image-oriented 90’s, when the column was originally written), should’ve been been printed in The New Yorker.

James Lynch: Do it on your own board under another name to get the debate rolling.

Luigi Novi: How can he, when the boards are initiated by him when he makes a blog entry?

Luigi Novi: How can he, when the boards are initiated by him when he makes a blog entry?

Simple: post under Glen's name.

All kidding aside, this is a pretty interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Peter on this issue; what he said was factual information setting up the asking of a question. On the other hand, the notion that it's unwise and damaging to the company to criticize even in such a manner does have its parallels. For example: does the head of the family talk about the alcoholic nephew who's not there at a large family dinner? In all likelyhood, everyone present has said what they think about him, and all are probably champing at the bit to know what the patriarch thinks. That said, it would be a complete breach of decorum for someone at the table to ask him, and it would be decidedly unheard of for the patriarch to actually start the conversation about it, even if every single person at the table will broach the subject with the patriarch in private and get his opinion after dinner -- it simply isn't done.

amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month...something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal--and hey, possibly learn from it

I think the trick is how long he can keep it going.

Bruce Jones was an unknown to most people until his Hulk run, and when you get a brand new writer with a radically different take, it's going to attract attention, and get a bounce out of the novelty.

Peter David attempting this wouldn't be met with the same easy accolades, because Peter David is a known quantity in people's minds, so he has to live up to (or defy) their expectations.

If Jones' work is still selling like it is now in three years, then I would say you could learn something from him, but as it is now, all that can be gathered is that he's the new hot thing, and short of a time machine, there's no way you can be the new hot thing again. But given the choice, I'd rather be the 25 year industry veteran than the new hot thing... the former carries a bit more job security ;)

And let us not forget... Jones' Kingpin ongoing tanked. On only its 7th (and now final) issue, it is ranked 95, whereas CM on its 17th (or 52nd, if you prefer) issue is ranked 89.

And by the way, most of my "criticisms" centered on amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month...something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal--and hey, possibly learn from it--than anything else.

Actually, the past couple of issues have been full of the Hulk smashing shit up. And as someone who has been reading comics for about twenty five years, I can say that after yourself, no other writer has ever made me enjoy the book more than Jones does.

As for the disparity between what people who express an opinion about the book say, and what it's sales are, that's easy:

1) People are much more likey to say they don't like something, than say that they do.

2) Bill Jemas was right, and all comments on the internet are made by the same unrepresentative handful of people.

3) Axel Alonso is right when he says that the people who prefer the Marvel Knights style of book, don't care about stuff like continutiy. In my case, I can definitely say that he's right. While I might have obsessed over nonsense like that when I was younger, these days all I care about is getting a good story, that doesn't force me to buy any other books to understand it.

Underdog4: as far as literary criticism. The guys thrashing the classics were probably mostly not their contemporaries.

Ever read Mark Twain's criticisms of James Fenimore Cooper? Twain absolutely despised Cooper's literary style, and particularly despised the popularity of "Last of the Mohicans" (I found a link to the piece in question, at http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html ). It's a well-known case of one literary giant sharply criticizing another.

Now, while I wouldn't presume to cast PAD as Twain and Alonso as Cooper, go back and re-read PAD's comments after reading the Twain piece. It ought to give you a pretty good operational definition of the phrase "tempest in a teapot." :)

That OTHER John Byrne

Ooop... I wrote "Last of the Mohicans" when I meant "The Deerslayer"... though if memory serves, Twain was particularly spiteful of 'LotM' anyhow, just not in the particular piece I linked to. Chalk it up to having worked all night.

I'll tell you what, though; after staying up all night doing glorified busywork for a bunch of incoming high muckety-mucks (busywork which will likely warrant little more than a cursory glance from said muckety-mucks), there's nobody in the world that's got the right to tell me I can't criticize some of the assinine decisions of my peers.

Also remember that criticism is a two-way street: nobody knows your working conditions better than your peers, and that double-edged sword can damn sure cut both ways.

tOjb

I don't understand Axel Alonso's "too vocal" comment either. I also found his "Uber-fanboy" comment insulting, but that's another story. To my knowledge, Peter, you expressed your opinion of Bruce Jones' run only once or twice. How the hell can that be considered too vocal? If ANYONE is too vocal about the Jones issues of Hulk, it's me. My wife Laura is probably tired of my complaining about what he has done to my favorite Marvel comic book. The reasons I am complaining are the same as yours, Peter. I also see blatant continuity errors from Jones, even on his own run. Axel Alonso has allowed these errors and even some idiotic spelling errors to occur in Hulk. This is something I'm assuming Bobbie Chase, and you yourself for that matter, would never allow. I complain because as a Hulk fan of 27 years, I hate to see what is being done to the characters and the comic book.

After you left the title Peter, we had Joe "I'll make the Hulk lose to a friggin' snake." Casey and John Byrne's second run. His run seemed like a bad sci-fi film that belongs on Mystery Science Theater 3000. The only writer I really liked after you left Hulk was Paul Jenkins because he brought back the psycholofical elements that belong in a Hulk comic book. Now, we have Bruce Jones, Destroyer Of Continuity.

I find Axel Alonso's comments in the interview grossly exaggerated, unfair, and untrue. This is just myn opinion though.

JHL

P.S.

If I remember correctly, Stan Lee has always said that you did great work on Hulk. Mister Alonso should get the facts before he says something.

If memory serves, and it does, PAD's original comment was "I don't get it", and a few other things to support it. Mr. Alonso has mad a comment about that, a bit over exagerated I think, and now the entire debate was whether PAD should have been critical or not. Udog4 taking the lead on that. All of this makes me think that Udog4 is probably Mr. Alonso, or someone in a position similar, due to his insistance that PAD was incorrect for stating what he did when he did.

I personally like knowing what the other opinions are on the book, be it from other fans or previous writers. I don't get that with the book, since they dropped the letters page.

And the thought does occur to me that Udog4 may very well be PAD in disguise, so to speak, trying to stir up controversy about himself to see what people really think. And I might be Stan Lee...

"there's nobody in the world that's got the right to tell me I can't criticize some of the assinine decisions of my peers."

Of course there is. We all have that right. It's assured by the first amendment. You don't have to listen...

UDog is right. And so is PAD. Both have their takes on how to be a gentleman. Neither is "less right" than the other when it comes to something like this.

And the success of Jones is fairly simple: Those who love a "mood" or "style" love the book. PAD's strengths are character and plotting. PAD played with the style thing quite wittily when Betty was trying to write her book on life with the Hulk. He could do it if he wanted to, but I doubt it would be as much fun for him.

I've only read a few of the Jones issues. They were okay. I got into the style thing, but personally I find "style" a bit empty.

And I've thought about PAD's Hulk. I think it's the quintessential Hulk... but really, it's quite the departure from the previous Hulk. Where PAD excelled is to find the threads in the old Hulk stories that made his version seem like a natural outgrowth or evolution of the character (like he did with Aquaman). Jones didn't do that (and likely couldn't, which is a shame. It could be done and done well.) Both were departures, both have their detractors, both appeal to a lot of people.

'sokay, isn't it?

Let's just say that those who don't agree with me are doing so for illogical reasons.

The comment about my not understanding the artistic field and my views on the New York Times authors is rather odd.

I didn't comment on NY Times reviews - PAD did.

And to get into that - it's simple.

MOST (most doesn't mean ALWAYS) of the time the NY Times reveiws are by :

A: CRITICS and CRITICS alone - Like Roger Ebert reviewing a MOVIE.

B:Other Writer

- but when it IS another writer they usually are much lesser known and one could say - not that good.

Is it NEVER another prominent writer - NO - but very rarely would it be a Stephen King running down Anne Rice or Dean Koontz.

And then if they came from the SAME publishing house it would be even more of braniac moment.

Now on to my having a "comics mentality" Well - that's what the comment was about. I was commenting about the appropriateness of PAD's comment in HIS relationship to the WRITER and MARVEL.

This isn't simply ONE writer commenting on some piece of literature.

It's not that I have a comic book mentality - but rather the whole issue is dealing with Comic Books - so I gave my opinion through that prism.

No if Alonso's comment is ONLY referring to PAD's one comment on his board - I believe "all too vocal" is a little strong - no doubt.

BUT I believe PAD and others are backing off and making it LESS than it is.

You have a former good writer talking about the current writer having "snails do windsprints around his plotting"

As if to say- "Hey my plotting is a little faster and ALL THE FANS bitched about that.

It's egocentric - simple. WIth fame there IS a price. Some of you seem to think that once you make it and you're a celebrity in whatever small pond, that you can do whatever you want and have the same "rights".

Yes - there's no constitutional kick in that limits your rights with fame.

But if you have common sense and decency you realize that discretion is the better part of valor and in some instances you should keep your mouth shut.

The mystery of why the book sells when people bitch all the time is truly a weak excuse for PAD to have posted what he posted.

It seels b/c like someone else pointed out - people generally don't post how much they LOVE something. They usually post what they HATE.

Simple.

Rarely you will get a television personality criticise their own network or an actor criticize another actos in the same movie - are they not standing behind their principals - NO. It's common sense.

If we were talking about BOOKS - which I read far more than comics than PAD is more of an independnat and could get away with it.

All I have simply said was that it was innappropriate given that nature of the comic book community.

That doesn't mean I have a comic book mentality it only mens I recognize that there IS a comic book mentality and with that PAD went against the grain.

SHould he be given a medal for it? No.

Should he be universally condemned by it? Also no.

Does Alonso's comments prove that it wasn't a great idead? Absolutley.

Will it change what PAD will do in the future? Probably not.

Does it make me wrong? No.

Does it make me right? You bet.

It's an observation on how one should act when in a given position.

I think PAD stepped on toes and if you don't believe that you're naive.

Will it hurt his career? No - it was way too mild, but that doesn't mean it was okay or smart.

Sitting on a "what should be mountain" doesn't change the fact that we live on a "What IS" mountain.

My comment only reflect "what IS" not "what should be"

You can want to be a vocal independant - but it won't help you make friends or secure employment in the workplace or get you much farther in life when those things vocalized are negative.

PAD could have simply said that he was surprised on how well the book was doing considering the Hulk is not in most of the issue and how it must be a testament to Jones' Bruce Banner Characterizations etc. and it's something to examine.

Ok.

"snail" "windsprints" and "plotting" are the words that only fed one ego and could bruise another, if he gave a darn.

BTW -

do you think it's smart if PAD was to criticise the artist on his own title?

I wonder.

Why not?

WOuld he be not standing behind his principals?

Does he not have "right" to criticize?

Come on, guys - it's just common sense in this particular situation**.

And yet the book sells more and more.

Paul O'Brien recently posted a new analysis of the figures for Marvel's comics at ICV2.com. (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl564550545d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=LOOE4oCEpJBAFwD2%40esoterica.demon.co.uk&rnum=1) Here are the Hulk figures:

32. INCREDIBLE HULK

Mar Incredible Hulk #51 - 56,220

Apr Incredible Hulk #52 - 57,684 ( +2.6%)

Apr Incredible Hulk #53 - 57,837 ( +0.3%)

May Incredible Hulk #54 - 61,426 ( +6.2%)

Jun Incredible Hulk #55 - ??,???

Jun Incredible Hulk #56 - 68,529 (+11.6%)

Jul Incredible Hulk #57 - 64,959 ( -5.2%)

Jul Incredible Hulk #58 - 62,804 ( -3.3%)

Aug Incredible Hulk #59 - 59,336 ( -5.5%)

Sep Incredible Hulk #60 - 58,584 ( -1.3%)

Sep Incredible Hulk #61 - 57,298 ( -2.2%)

Oct Incredible Hulk #62 - 54,423 ( -5.0%)

Nov Incredible Hulk #63 - 53,357 ( -2.0%)

Dec Incredible Hulk #64 - 51,960 ( -2.6%)

6 mnth (-24.2%)

What loooks like a huge drop really isn't, since the comparison is to the issue immediately following the 25-cent promotional issue, #55. The book has still lost readers to attrition, like every book, but I don't think anyone really liked the arc about the Absorbing Man and his psychic mind-control powers. In general, the book is a pretty decent mid-list Marvel title. It also seems likely that the price will go up from $2.25 to $2.99 after it moves to Marvel Knights.

I find this curious and would like to understand it, because if nothing else, it calls into question whether anyone in the industry should bother to listen to a single thing people on the boards say because their opinions aren't being reflected in the overall buying habits of the market. I mean, it's one thing to say that the net represents only a small sampling or is even atypical (as many do.) But in the case of this book, it's beyond atypical: It's diametrically opposed.

Unfortunately it works the other way around too. Books that everyone raves about like Gotham Central or Sleeper are bought by almost no one. Honestly, I don't see anywhere near the level of criticism for Hulk as I do for books like Uncanny X-Men.

And by the way, most of my "criticisms" centered on amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month...something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal--and hey, possibly learn from it--than anything else.

When his run first started, I thought the decision to have the Hulk only manifest at critical junctures was an interesting one worth trying. I think he and the various artists have been able to make it work well more often than not. The only really disappointing arc, in my opinion, was the completely-out-of-the-blue mind-control Absorbing Man arc, which I can only assume was shoehorned in to create a tenuous link to the movie. I don't buy the issues anymore as this is one book that definitely benefits from being read in chunks.

As for the status quo that people were used to, I figure that the Hulk has been doing his thing for 40 years now and this approach is just one more in the long chain. If a grey mobster Hulk or a smart merged Hulk could take over the book for a while, I don't really have a problem with Bruce Banner being the central character for the duration. I'll enjoy it while it lasts and if the next status quo isn't to my liking, I won't be reading it. If that means I only read a book for spurts of a couple years at a time, that's fine with me. I realize that this is diametrically opposed to the usual inclination of what was once termed marvel zombies.

Paul O'Brien recently posted a new analysis of the figures for Marvel's comics at ICV2.com. (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl564550545d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=LOOE4oCEpJBAFwD2%40esoterica.demon.co.uk&rnum=1) Here are the Hulk figures:

I forgot to note that these figures are not official, they are extrapolations from Diamond's rankings. ICV2's figures always skew lower than reality and are mainly useful in analyzing trends.

A small criticism of the estimable Luigi Novi. LN wrote:

James Lynch: Do it on your own board under another name to get the debate rolling.

Luigi Novi: How can he, when the boards are initiated by him when he makes a blog entry?

Um, the line you attribute to me was me quoting something Underdog4 had said. I actually disagreed with Underdog4 on this. Since I don't know how to make items bold or italicised here, please check for quote marks in the future.

And my impression of everything Underdog4's written is that PAD should play it safe and not criticize anything in his own field. He seems to be operating under a scared pragmitism -- "You can want to be a vocal independant - but it won't help you make friends or secure employment in the workplace or get you much farther in life when those things vocalized are negative" -- that, if PAD followed, would make this whole message board incredibly dull, plus be self-censorship on PAD's part. I think it's safe to say PAD knows the consequences of what he says, and he still puts himself out there, with his name behind his opinions. That's brave, and that's to be respected.

Underdog4 believes "That doesn't mean I have a comic book mentality it only mens I recognize that there IS a comic book mentality and with that PAD went against the grain." Every field has its people who feel any criticism from others within that field is inappropriate. The smart people recognize that criticism is allowed, and they can address it head-on, sometimes disagreeing with it, sometimes learning from it. Too bad Underdog4 would have PAD run away from it.

That's the funny thing here - the book is still doing fine.

I think Bruce Jones needs some time to do his thing.

He had a TV style Hulk with a little X-files etc thrown in. In time I think it will be pretty good.

AS for continuity. Strict continuity is the lifeblood of the pseudo-intellectual elitist comib book nerd. It's taht simple.

You can't have 40 years of history and stick toit or else you are stuck with characteriztions that STan Lee did or others that followed him which may be too limiting.

No one wants to see something DRASTICALLY different about a character that would go against the motives you have learned over the years - but something's got to give if we are to get new blood and better writers.

So many writers who could do great things with characters are scared off by the tremendous historical undertaking involved in writing a flagship iconic character.

I had no problem with Absorbing Man's portrayal.

Of course if Bruce Jones were to pull an Ang Lee and make A-man Bruce's father - Yes I have a problem.

I didn't have a porblem when it was in the movie b/c it's a different universe only taking the elements of the character and putting a fresh spin.

But other inconsisties I take as the lesser evil to get a fresh new story.

I really enjoyed PAD's run on Hulk and it did something different BUT I always thought the character didn't ahve to be the Smart Hulk or the Grey Hulk and could be plain old greenskin if treated more intelligently like Jones has been attempting.

The grey hulk/smart Hulk were still great stories and to my knowledge, which I could be wrong, but PAD defined Bruce's back history and the whole father killing mother/Bruce's abuse etc . . . which really shocked non comic reading friends when I would tell them. They didn't think the jolly green giant had such a complexity - and of course they saw it in the movie.

AT the time, one of my uber-geek comic freinds loved the grey mobster hulk etc b/c he said that you just simply ran out of rampaging Green Hulk tales.

Well Bruce Jones has proved that wrong and it's a interesting new twist - but some issues fall much shorter than others. But no one's perfect.

Too bad Underdog4 would have PAD run away from it.

Posted by James Lynch

How difficult is it to understand that it's not about RUNNING away from criticism. It's about knowing when and where it's appropriate.

It's not polite to run down another Marvel writers work on a flagship character when:

A> YOU STILL work for MARVEL

B You are a former writer of the sam property./

It only comes off as petty, jealous and stupid. And PAD also compared his Hulk:The End to the sales of Jones Hulk. THe comparison aren't isolated and more importantly they contain:

!snails doing windsprints around Jones' plotting!

It's petty and can only cause tension which is PROVED by ALonso's comments.

I merely stated that it wasn't very professional. Sorry, but that's a pretty reasonable statement. I don't get why PAD should get a medal for this.

He's so great with words and yet there were an infinite amount of ways that he could have phrased this to not sound so negative.

To be in shock and awe over the books sales despite it's snail's pace plotting etc. is just petty bologna.

and once and for all - YES he has a right to do it - but by choosing less volatile words or being quiet wouldn't make him some literary wuss.

It doesn't show his enormous self esteem by bravely critiquing Jones'. INstead, it may show quite the opposite and simply throwing some considerable weight on an anti-bandwagon.

It's not a team player mentality at all and sorry - I DO think if you have fellow writers at Marvel you should be more of a team player.

Take your gripes to Marvel or to Jones and try and improve the title.

Instead you have a former established writer not only critiquing, but doing so in patronizing fashion. (i.e. SNAIL!)

If a teacher wrote such comments on a paper, you wouldn't be helped, but instead probably quite hurt.

So stop putting PAD on your shoulders and loving the fact that he's running down someone you think isn't doing a good job.

His weight could be put to better use.

Adn ALL I ever was saying was that IF you are going to make those comments it's never going to go over well. Never, nada.

Not that you CAN'T do it.

But just in certain situation's you SHOULDN'T.

This was one of 'em.

I'm not disagreeing with WHAT PAD said - just HOW he said it and WHERE he said it.

BTW - if you choose to say something - it could have gone like this:

"I'm pleasantly puzzled by the Bruce Jones' run. Comics have for years been plagued by villain of the month - fight of the issue.

Any attempt to devle more into the character at the expense of the iconic hereo's appearance might be met with disdain and low sales.

I initially thought that the slower plotting of the recent Hulk and the fact that he wasn't in alot of the issues might backfire. I know when I did some slower plotting I got alot of flack.

But Jones has seemed to pull this off given the recent sales. There has of course been alot of criticism - but the numbers do speak for themselves.

As a writer I would like to know what you guys think of what Jones is doing.

Some of the issues have the Hulk appear and not directly be involved in the resolution. Sort of a God in teh Machine approach like the old TV series.

His run is showing that there are other ways to portray a hero than have been attempted before. It's not the way I handled the character and yet it seems to be resonating.

What do you guys think about all this and tell me what you like or don't like?"

That would be how I would've gotten the same points across without being a smartass and saying that snails can do windsprints around Bruce Jones plotting.

Appropriate crticism could be accomplished and PAD's weight used better.

Instead he made flippant remarks that obviously annoyed the current editor of Hulk and I'm sure didn't make Bruce Jones feel "oh so pretty, so pretty, so pretty and . . ."

okay, I watched Anger Management recently NOT the actual play . . .

Underdog4 wrote:

Yes - but the question is - should you do it [offer criticism] to someone who works at the same company as you AT the same time.

I think it's called common courtesy.

Funny, but from where I'm sitting, offering criticism of your peers while working at the same company at the same time is part of the job. Heck, we have peer review meetings where the whole point is to offer criticism of each other's works, to make it better as a result.

Criticism of your peers' work is not a problem as long as you keep the comments focused on the work. And AFAIK, PAD has never said anything disparaging about Bruce Jones -- just his writing. I mean, it's not like PAD wrote that Bruce Jones murders kittens and boils puppies alive in vats of acid or anything.

I'm sorry, Underdog4, but you keep going around and around this same point, and I still have to disagree with it. Anyone who creates anything should welcome constructive criticism of their work, in the hopes that it will help them improve their work. As long as PAD isn't taking personal attacks on BJ (and vice-versa), I don't see any problems with it.

Why should Peter have to put his thoughts on the book that way? He said he didn't like it that much, though he'd liked other work by Jones. To me, this makes it clear he's criticizing the man's work, not the man itself, and assuming Jones isn't a prodigy working for Marvel while still in his preteen years, he should be adult enough to understand the difference. Saying he didn't enjoy the book as much as others seemed to is hardly inappropriate, I think.

Also, I didn't see any of his comments as FLIPPANT by any stretch of the imagination. Could you please explain how Peter was flippant (on this topic. I've seen him be flippant about other topics)?

Wow - you say it in your own post Robert.

It's part of your job and you have peer revie meetings at your work.

YES - AT WORK! AND it is CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

that's a world apart from posting publically on a message board that snails do windsprints around Bruce Jone's plotting.

He doesn't have to attack the man for it to be insulting. Saying the plot is slow is also differnt from the SNAIL comment.

It's all about appropriateness and not about WHAT you say but also HOW you say it.

When comparing your PEER REVIEW MEETINGS to what PAD did is comparing apples and oranges.

It's odd how I can agree with your entire post but STILL be in disagreement with the PAD situation.

It's becuase your post is NOT on point with the PAD situation.

If PAD had went to a MARVEL meeting and gave the criticism this wouldn't be an issue.

And if it somehow leaked and someone screamed foul play naughty naughty on PAD then THEY would be overly sensitive and wrong b/c they would be attempting to sterilize ALL criticism and therefore hurting the writers from getting good feedback.

I would think a writer would appreciate private constructive criticism then all but saying someone's current work stinks - and no matter how you slice it - THAT'S what PAD did.

YOu can start off and stroke Kazar work but he bashed the Hulk work.

The snail comment is also NOT constructive but instead inflammatory.

You can tell a friend they should be more concerned about their health - maybe dedicate some time to toning and conditioning and NOT say:

you are a fat %$&! Elephants will look to mate with you.

Yes it's far mor clever and funny - but it's inflammatory.

THAT"s the problem with what PAD did.

If you can't see that it's b/c you don't want to.

flippant would be the snail comment mor eor less.

Not just flippant - inflammatory and not the smartest way to handle the critique.

I fyou are some fanboy on a board - fine.

If you are PAD and work for Marvel - you should have some self restraint in HOW you critique.

That's all.

You can talk about the plotting - but the snail comment is probably directly proportionate to the "all too vocal" comment by someone else.

Underdog4.

Two Questions.

1. Are you Bruce Jones and venting here?

2. Were you attacked by rabid snails as a child?

That's really the issue sin't it?

You want to know WHO I am.

Does it really matter?

If I WAS a certain editor and I am NOT syaing I am or if I WAS a certain writier and I am not saying I am - than the view I have written here would be judged and filtered through that lens.

Suddenly what WOULD be decent critiques on how to behave would be overshadowed by the motives any number of fanboys would attribute to the speaker.

Oh he's disgrunteled - he's protecting the company line etc.

Or if I wasn't the editor and writer in question and another writer or editor - the same slanting could occur when viewing my point.

And THAT"S very much the center of all of this.

PAD claims he just wanted to see what all the hub-bub was about - to paraphrase.

Well SNAILS and PACING go beyond that.

Some of you defintiely get what I am saying and have moved on - but SO many have gone nutty with examples that do NOT apply.

Like Peer review at work? - not public and the purpose IS to have the criticism.

The post about the patririach of a family not talking about the alcoholic nephew is pretty on point in the sense that decorum is evaluated.

So many have harped on how you NEED critiques and you are NOT smart if you want to suppress them.

Well I never said we should.

It was about WHO was speaking and HOW wise it was considering WHAT was said and HOW it was said.

If you are a big-time writer such as PAD you do NOT have less rights, but it may be more gentlemanly to practice more restraint OR choose your words and phrases more carefully.

(i.e. SNAILS!)

For PAD to try and claim he was just curious about the allure of the book is a little disingenious at this point. You could have done that with the MOCK comments I posted earlier.

The real issue might be the purpose of PAD's comments.

Were they part of this altruistic literary movement to offer the best criticism and therefore eventually improve the writers quality?

Well if that's the case it could've been done much more gentlemanly than how PAD did it; i.e. TO BRUCE JONE or TO ALONSO.

Or was it a true plea to understand why the book was doing so well and PAD could then improve himself as a writer as he earlier claimed?

Well, that too could have been done without the SNAILS and other deragatory commentary. (i.e SNAILS!!) It could have been done like my mock post.

But to do it as the patriarch of Hulk - as the quintessential HULK writer - as writer of fifty odd novels and a known quantity and freelance in the comics field ONLY overshadowed your intellectual journey by basically just running down a fellow professional.

Don't start in with the mark Twain writings etc...

YES - writers critique other writers - but looking at this unique industry called comic books - all that is being said is that it wasn't a good idea.

SO many want to sound the trunpet that PAD was speaking his mind - he's our savior.

Well - be vocal about all the other writers and artists in your SMALL field and see how much more work comes your way.

That's the issue.

It's not about the essence of the commentary or one's RIGHT to say it.

Next time your sister/girlfriend/ whoever asks if they look nice or if they look fat - what do you do?

You look fine.

You look good, but we can all lose some weight.

OR

COuld you move a little to the left - you're blocking the sun and I think shifting the entire sidewalk.

So when you post under your REAL name as an established pro USING inflammatory language it's just not going to bring you happy times - that's all I ever said.

So to question who I am BEGS the question of WHY did PAD write it.

What was his REAL intent and by writing it as himself it agrnered alot more attnetion and conspiracy theories about why he would say such a thing.

it detracted from the point.

But to post a blog less inflammatory and THEN post under a different name on the message board would relegate his opinion to something less than the mini-celebrity he is.

SO it doesn't matter WHO I am - but what I am saying.

P.S.

Yes, i had an incident with a snail . . a very FAST snail and a sadistic clown - but it's none of your business and I'll never share!

I don't see anything "inflammatory" or "bashing" about the "snail's pace" comment. Peter was just using a humorous metaphor, which to me, didn't read as pejorative at all. That's just me.

James, sorry about the misattributed quote. :-)

Well - be vocal about all the other writers and artists in your SMALL field and see how more much work comes your way.

Given that this post followed the one where Peter mentioned his two major upcoming projects at Marvel, I can't see where the comment has hurt his career all that much...

no one said it DID or it WILL.

The comment is only saying that if you make a HABIT of bashing others you work with - you may not be so sought after etc. . .

Gee, how literal minded can you be?

you honestly can't see the value in that logic?

And I'm at a loss on the meaning of pejorative now.

Saying a snail can do windsprints around so and so's plotting is not pejorative.

It's not uncomplimentary?

Okay and alrighty then.

That's a perfect way to tell someone they're pacing could be a little faster to imrove the story without hurting someone's feelings or being patronizing etc.

I'm sure Bruce Jones hasn't made it this far with such thin skin - but to turn around and say it wasn't pejorative is just such inane colored thinking.

you honestly can't see the value in that logic?

No, I just agree with Terry Pratchett: "Logic is all very well, but sometimes it's not substitute for actual thought."

Since I've yet to even see any direct evidence that Alonso was thinking specifically of the snails comment, all your commentary has been entirely within the realm of the hypothetical. I agree that making a habit of being obnoxious won't win you many friends--I just don't see any direct chain of connection to the situation.

(And if you read Peter's comments in context, it's clear that he's trying to establish a logical chain himself--"This is slow paced. People complain about my work being slow-paced, so why do they continue to buy this?")

-"This is slow paced. People complain about my work being slow-paced, so why do they continue to buy this?")

I don't know - maybe it's better - maybe it's not.

And now logic is a substitute for actual thought because Terry Pratchet said so?

Oy vey!

Of course everything I said is all conjecture b/c we are in NOBODY'S head.

It still doesn't negate the point I was making and you Doug Atkinson reiterated in a way:

I agree that making a habit of being obnoxious won't win you many friends--I just don't see any direct chain of connection to the situation.

well the direct chain would be the SNAIL comment.

It is not unreasonable to characterize that as obnoxious - and there's the logic - which of ocurse doesn't mean anything - but last I checked we weren't living on Discworld.

ANd so many defend because it's just PAD being witty.

I can say there are lobotomized Pelicans who are less annoying than some of the poster here - yet just because someone might find that coin of a phrase witty doesn't instantly strip it off its obnoxious content.

But wait - that's me being logical.

There's no place for THAT!

Hey! Simon Cooper's still alive. Who knew?!?

I find it interesting that there's a lot of focus (elsewhere) on the comment Alonso made about PAD, but almost none on the direct swipe he throws at Tom Breevort.

If the phrase "snail's pace" wasn't so commonplace, I might agree that it seemed flippant, but it's so widely used that it just seems... harmless. I see no difference in the connotations of "The plot is moving slowly," and "The plot moves at a snail's pace."

YMMV, though.

Let's just say that those who don't agree with me are doing so for illogical reasons.

Ahh, you've got to love the "I'm right, you're wrong if you don't agree with me" spiel.

Makes one's arguments hold up so much better.

I find it interesting that there's a lot of focus (elsewhere) on the comment Alonso made about PAD, but almost none on the direct swipe he throws at Tom Breevort.

I saw him make a lot of swipes at traditional fans but none directly at Brevoort.

well when one starts comparing peer review meetings AT work it defintiely IS illogical. Sorry.

It seems that some people here take what I say as meaning you can't EVER criticize another peer.

No - what I meant and throghouly explained later was that I'm talking about the comics industry and someone in the relative positions of Alonso Jones and David.

I was saying those that are disagreeing with me are not being logical when they compare workplace peer reviews etc...

That says nothing of those that simply disagree b/c they don't think PAD went over the line or was obnoxious etc b/c then that's a disagreement on the fundamental issue.

They are entitled to their opinion.

But when I say I am cold and someone responds with "but the sky isn't blue" it sort of forces me to say my detractors aren't presenting cogent logical disagreements.

Not really relevant to this thread but I just had to mention it.

Talk about Irony. As I was coming into this thread, I noticed teh google add on the right part of the screen and it said McFarlane and then I just got enough time to see that it was indeed referring to Todd (toys).

That's just... weird.

Underdog4 posts:

I think Bruce Jones needs some time to do his thing.

It's been over 2 years and over 30 issues. If he hasn't "done his thing" by now, when?

I just read issue 65, which has left me wondering if the X-Files story is over or will continue to linger. There was no sense of resolution at all. I read it, like so many of his issues, without appreciating the qualities that so many seem to attribute his success. When I read a bad PAD issue, I at least knew it had to potintial to be better next issue. But Jones does the same thing month after month and people lap it up. I think PAD is right to wonder why and look to emulate his success. It's a mystery to me certainly.

Brian C. Saunders

So Shoeshine Boy, what do you think should be done with PAD because he had the nerve not to be a cheerleader for something he doesn't like? Should Marvel cancel Capt. Marvel out of spite? Should they give the book to Jones, or even Byrne just to get even with PAD?

Get this thru your head. Peter doesn't work for Marvel! He's a freelancer that writes for whomever pays the bills (unless there's been some kind of exclusive contract signed recently). He doesn't have to toe the company line. This doesn't mean that it would be in his best interest to delibertly slam the company, but he is entitled to his opinion. Especially in his own blog! PAD isn't the one that went to Wizard complaining.

"PAD isn't the one that went to Wizard complaining."

Ding ding ding! We have a winner

no one said he HAD to tow the company's line.

You don't have to be a W@ employee to still use good business sense and common decency.

YES - we have a winner - you have now proven that everyone has a right to be obnoxious and arrogant and petty and it will piss off an editor and NO PAD still gets projects at Marvel - so guess what?

Let's hear how awful Paul Jenkins may be or how so and sos art looks like it should be hanging on some parent's refridgerator.

YAY! We've all realized we have a constitutional RIGHT to be acerbic!

Something somewhat relevant, and a little bit of media "sensationalism" to boot:

There is a report on Cinescape.com yesterday (via TheForce.net) that there's a clause in Peter Mayhew's contract for Episodes 7-9.

Of course, the Cinescape writer goes on to say (as a semi-question) that this would invalidate what happened in the novels.

And I'm thinking: how so? If the movies fall short of when the NJO takes place, who knows.

But then, Star Wars is one universe where the books, comics, etc are as close to "canon" as one will ever get next to the films.

I just wonder if such a comment was really necessary, since it's sad speculation anyways.

No he WASN'T the one that WENT to Wizard complaing - it got into Wizard b/c he COMPLAINED on his public BLOG about Bruce Jones' writing!

Um - I think the correct word here is:

DER!

No he WASN'T the one that WENT to Wizard complaing - it got into Wizard b/c he COMPLAINED on his public BLOG about Bruce Jones' writing!

Saying that he (PAD) didn't "get the appeal" of the current storytelling in Hulk is not complaining about it. Nothing was insulting, unless someone has a really thin skin and can't take anything critical said about them.

But Shoeshine boy, I'm curious. Do you think that Jim Lee should have been banished from working for DC after being part of the formation of Image? Or Leifeld from Marvel? Or Larson from either? I seem to remember lots of bad statements coming from Image in those early days about both companies.

Shoeshine boy?

ANyhow - it appears that no gets it.

I NEVER said someone should be banished.

It's not 2 plus 2 equals 4.

It's about saying something insulting (like the snail comment) and it ruffling the feathers of the company - which it obviously did.

I just said when you do A then it likely that B will follow.

If you do A enough than you may have more problems.

Nothing I said was disproved - in fact it's PROVEN though the whole Wizard thing.

But I NEVER said PAD should be banished.

You guys are totally distorting a simple observation:

If you are negativey critiquing the company you do work for (W2 employee or 1099 freelance - no difference) you WILL ruffle feathers.

So when doing this you should do it with subtelty and not be over the top out of consideration.

The snail comment was obnoxious and obnviously ruffled feathers.

Because someone makes this observation doesn't mean you hold me responsible for censroship or try and prove me wrong becasue PAD wasn't publically put in the stock and subject to rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at him.

If you are ballsy enough to say a fellow writer has snails doing windspritns around his pacing and then compare sales of your one shot to his regular series and so on and so forth - DON'T be surprised when the editor makes his "all too vocal" comment.

Don't act all innocent - I was just intellectually wondering.

Yes, you may have been - yet you also threw in jokes at Jones' expense.

That's fine - that's not a crime, but DON'T be surprised if someone comes back and appears to be annoyed.

Liek PAD himself said - Stan Lee never said anything - but maybe he was too much of a gentlemen.

ANd so therefore maybe PAD is not ENOUGH of a gentlemen and needs to put barbs into his critiques.

And many of you are so literal minded and rabid fanboys that you take this as an assault on the first amendment.

its not.

In fact I was guilty of stating the obvious that any lowbrow could've done.

If you poo where you eat, eventually dinner won't smell so good.

It's simple and it happened.

The banishment issues are not for me to decide, nor do I think the comments warrant such.

But they certainly weren't as mild as PAD and some of the rabid lapdog fanboys would like to believe or elses Alonso wouldn't have said what he said.

I think underdog4 has a bit of a point but I do tend to see it a little differently u-dog4 does.

I think that writing an opinion of someone's work on your own Blog is fine, even if it is worded in an inflammatory way.

There could be a better way to word the same opinion but we don't always do things the best way possible, all of the time.

Now if Bruce Jone's wanted to respond in an inflammatory way that PAD's opinion was horse-shit on Mr. Jone's own Blog then that is perfectly fair to me.

If I understand it correctly, Bruce Johnes hasn't commented/responded at all, so he is not really the issue here.

However, the current Hulk editor, Mr. Alonso took his response to a much more public forum (i.e. Wizard Magazine) so it seems to me that he should be more heavilly critisized by u-dog4 for making this whole affair far more available for public consumption.

If PAD had first expressed his opinion to Wizard I think that would have been a far more publicly known forum and therefore a more controversial move.

Mr. Alonso, to my way of thinking should have responded in a Blog of his own (or something similar)and then I would have considered everything to be even.

I think that the "toeing the company line" mentality is stupid and allows others to receive accolades for work they had very little influence over or direct input into.

Constructive criticism should always be allowed and welcomed and if the critic makes his

view(s) public then he should have a "let the chips fall where they may" attitude towards any possible fallout.

Something I think PAD does have, so to me this whole incident has mostly evened-out and is not something of great importantance.

Just a request of "Underdog4":

Please avoid the temptation to hit "enter" after every sentence.

It gets incredibly annoying.

Each post winds up running six to twelve inches (or more) of column space.

And all you've done is to post a series of sentences.

About my previous post--I had intended to preview it before posting (of course, that didn't work out). It seems "Underdog4" doesn't simply hit "enter" after a sentence, but hits "enter" twice.

My prior post had been intended to be a bit satirical (which it could have been by previewing before posting) though the message was heartfelt. Please avoid the need to enter after every sentence.

Thank you.

Underdog:

Shoeshine Boy is Underdog's secret identity.

Jago

Underdog4 wrote: "The snail comment was obnoxious and obnviously [sic] ruffled feathers."

Was there more to this article than PAD is saying? I've refused to even flip through a Wizard magazine since they declared their 'Mort of the Millenium' a few years ago, so I've not read it myself.

As I've said, mentioning that the plot moves at a "snail's pace" doesn't seem like such a horrible offense to me, and likewise, the "all too vocal" comment doesn't provide evidence of ruffled feathers to me, either. Seemed like 'mild annoyance' at worst.

That said, neither PAD nor anyone else should have reason to pull their punches on giving a personal opinion about a product that has been released to the public. If I worked at Microsoft, I should feel free to say "After trying Linux, I don't think Windows is my cup of tea." There's nothing personal in it.

Now, if I were to say "Windows sucks because Jim Smith, one of the programmers, is a big jerk," that's a bit different. But the point that Underdog4 seems to be missing is that PAD didn't comment on the person in question, he said, as a comic reader, he didn't enjoy Jones' Hulk.

Which is not only within his rights, he should have no fear of any kind of retribution for making known his opinions on a product that has already been released* and was produced by a company that sometimes helps to pay his bills.

*Now, if he were to tell us that he thought that an upcoming series was bad, I could see why they'd have an issue with that, too.

Underdog4: If I WAS a certain editor...or if I WAS a certain writier...than the view I have written here would be judged and filtered through that lens. Well, it's obvious that you're not a professional writer, because your spelling is not up to professional standards. That, and professional writers usually temper the urge to punctuate every sentence with (i.e. SNAIL!!).

So to question who I am BEGS the question of WHY did PAD write it. No, it doesn't; neither has anything to do with the other. PAD said that he doesn't understand the success of Jones' run. His criticisms of Jones' work were hardly "run downs," as you call it-- he never attacked Jones personally, or even criticized his work beyond the relatively benign "snail's pace" comment. I don't see how you can maintain his remarks were unprofessional. Did anyone else in the profession say, "wow, PAD was unprofessional in saying that"? Does the comics industry even have a set standard defining what is and isn't 'professional'? Given the many personal and company feuds I've seen in the comic industry, I don't think there's anyone innocent enough to throw stones.

Don't start in with the mark Twain writings etc... Okay, so a classic example of one literary giant criticizing another is given to refute your claim that "other professional peers usually stay away from criticisng others work," and that's somehow totally irrelevant?

YES - writers critique other writers - looking at this unique industry called comic books - all that is being said is that it wasn't a good idea. Have you been to a fan site lately? Have you ever witnessed the amount of bile and vitriol generated by hardcore fans when somebody misuses one of their sacred cows? The fans of "this unique industry" have a well-known (if oft misrepresented, exaggerated or parodied) reputation for going into screaming fits over minutiae at the drop of a hat. How is what PAD wrote any worse than the screaming fit of a rabid fan? By your standards, how unprofessional was it for Axel Alonso to state in a nationally-circulated publication that PAD was being "all too vocal" about Jones' Hulk run (leaving aside for a moment the fact that the sole "vocal" comment at issue seems to be one entry on PAD's personal and relatively-obscure-compared-to-Wizard blog)? What about the other comments Alonso made in that interview which some are taking as overly critical, like the aforementioned Brevort thing? By the standards of criticism you espouse, then Alonso carries as much blame as PAD... why, then, are you so intent on labeling PAD as the 'unprofessional' one? To my eyes (and the eyes of just about everyone else who's sounded off on the subject), both sides leveled at worst mild criticisms toward the other.

The comment about my not understanding the artistic field and my views on the New York Times authors is rather odd. So is saying that people who don't agree with you are doing so because they're "illogical." That in mind, can you see how people might come to the conclusion that your understanding of how criticism should work just might be a little skewed?

I was saying those that are disagreeing with me are not being logical when they compare workplace peer reviews etc... Well, what would you have us compare it to? First you make the argument that professionals working for the same company shouldn't criticize each other, but then you turn around and say it's illogical to compare necessary and commonplace workplace peer reviews to a comic writer criticizing a fellow comic writer. You say that writers shouldn't and don't criticize their peer writers, but when necessary and commonplace examples of such are introduced, you go 'of course they can and should criticize each other, but that's not what I'm talking about.' Well, what are you talking about? Are you dizzy from all the hasty retractions you're making?

I think PAD stepped on toes and if you don't believe that you're naive. And if you think that a sole negative comment as innocuous as the "snail's pace" thing is stepping on toes, well, I hope you're wearing really thick sneakers, because you’re going to live a life of taking constant inadvertent offense from others with such a low threshold for criticism.

Strict continuity is the lifeblood of the pseudo-intellectual elitist comib book nerd. It's taht simple. Ouch. Your criticism of me as a strict-continuitist struck me as unduly harsh, and I demand you retract your criticism and apologize. How do you expect to make any friends among your peers in the fandom community if you step on people's toes like that?

Bottom line: Neither PAD’s ‘snail’s pace’ comment nor Alonso’s ‘all too vocal’ comment were anything other than mildly critical at the very worst, let alone completely out of line. I don’t understand Underdog4’s insistence on making this an issue, especially when the vast majority of responders to his argument have laid down their thoughts in a coherent and consistent manner; those thoughts boiling down to the whole ‘PAD said/Alonso said’ shebang being a molehill and not a mountain. Heck, PAD himself said up front he's got no ill-will toward the guy!

As a writer whose work on the Hulk is often remembered in the same breath with the character's creators, and whose run on the Hulk is considered some of the character's best works, I would imagine PAD gets asked his opinions of all things Hulk-related a lot. That has to be frustrating for him, because anything he says has the potential of being misconstrued as a condemnation, and when a mildly critical remark is made, well, we all can see where this gets him.

Is it not ironic that his attempt to defuse the situation results in a vocal minority taking PAD to task for being "egocentric" enough to voice his opinion in the first place?

tOjb

um - peer reviews where the purpose is to REVIEW your PEERS is a little different from one writer at a company throwing out a barb at another on a sacred cow they both worked on.

if you can't see that - then you are the one who's 'dizzy'.

COmparing what PAD did to what a run of the mill rabid fanboy does on the net is exactly my point. . . PAD should be a little above that.

And for everyone's blind devotion to PAD - well PAD proved my point when he said, and I'm paraphrasing - that if STAN LEE didn't have a problem with his HULK he was a gentleman enough to keep it to himself. - well that's exaclty what PAD did NOT do.

Construcive critique is a MUST - I just thought that PAD's comments - given who he is - COULD be construed as petty, jealous, arragont and/or obnxoious - and guess what? To at lest the HULK editor - it appears as though they did.

That's all I ever said - yet everyone tries to make this a point that I think NOONE should EVER criticize ANYONE ELSE.

Never said that.

Just given PAD's position with the character it might've been better to not say anything negative and be the gentleman than STan Lee might have been with him.

3) Axel Alonso is right when he says that the people who prefer the Marvel Knights style of book, don't care about stuff like continutiy. In my case, I can definitely say that he's right. While I might have obsessed over nonsense like that when I was younger, these days all I care about is getting a good story, that doesn't force me to buy any other books to understand it.

In the early 90s when I got back into comics, I found myself attracted to the pre-Vertigo line for much the same reason. At the time, DC had a reasonably tight continuity (which I enjoyed), but I loved that there were these little books on the side which had absolutely nothing to do with the latest mega-cross-over event happening in the main DCU. And if you could survive Grant Morrison's ANIMAL MAN with your continuity gene intact, then you're a better man than I... there's simply no way to reconsile that story with A-Man's appearances in JLE.

There's long been an element of reverse-snobbery in comic fandom that finds these escapes from rigid continuity an affront to their sensibilities, and, oddly enough, it's usually this attitude that leads to things like CRISIS, not the continuity glitches themselves. The notion that all these stories *must* be explained, or else the whole continium will fall apart. Despite the simple fact that it doesn't... unless continuity is harped on until even the most casual of readers can no longer accept the status quo (HAWKWORLD).

Unfortunately it works the other way around too. Books that everyone raves about like Gotham Central or Sleeper are bought by almost no one.

If the Internet was the decided factor, then UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN would be the best selling title of all-time :)

But, really, Gotham Central and Sleeper are those sorts of books that should, theoretically, appeal to both super-hero fans and Vertigo fans... but somehow seems to appeal to neither.

For me, I like such hybrid mixes *if* they use the super-hero element to good affect. Take TOP TEN, which is also a gritty crime drama with super-powers, which makes liberal use of super-powers. Instead of The Joker with a sniper rifle (critiqing the idea, not the story which I haven't read), it's giant Japanese monsters passing out drunk. One's mad and absurd and could happen no place other than comics, the other sounds like a Law & Order episode.

**And by the way, most of my "criticisms" centered on amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month...something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal--and hey, possibly learn from it--than anything else.

PAD **

I think it was because you wrote the comic in a vastly different time, and it sold to a different audience. In the late 80's, early 90's, comics still had a casual audience, but it was mixed in with a hard core super-hero only audience. Think about how people were so shocked that you changed the status quo of the comic every few years, and wrote "When will you go back to the REAL Hulk?" because that's what comics did. They would shake things up and then everything would go back to normal with an issue ending in 2 zeros.

Trade paperbacks were rare, and trades from mainline superhero books pretty much unheard of. Alan Moore was still writing "Swamp Thing" and then left comics for the most part after Watchmen. Art that didn't tell stories but instead could sell for big bucks a page was big because artists were "hot". People actually INVESTED in comics.

All of those things are gone now. Comic writing is far more sophisticated and geared toward an audience used to story arcs instead of never-ending soap operas. The casual reader is completely gone. The poster style art, with rare exceptions, doesn't sell.

So, when you take all of that into consideration, Bruce Jones's work on the Hulk can work because people don't expect a single issue to be a single issue, but a chapter in a larger story. Jones also (in his early stories) used the Hulk the same way a good horror movie uses its monster, rarely and for effect. I think he's run out of gas on the book and needs a new approach, but in a way, he took Hulk back to the "Frankenstein" roots. Then again, it also means that you can do a story that arcs over 20+ issues (Captain Marvel) because it's a chapter in a novel and not a short story.

So, what I learn from it as a writer is that you can now use novel techniques in comics, and the "slow build" style if you win over the reader and let them know the story is going somewhere. You don't HAVE to have to show your hand every issue, but can build for 5 issues as long as the sixth delivers.

I can say there are lobotomized Pelicans who are less annoying than some of the poster here - yet just because someone might find that coin of a phrase witty doesn't instantly strip it off its obnoxious content.

Stop being so hard on yourself, Underdog.

I think it was because you wrote the comic in a vastly different time, and it sold to a different audience. In the late 80's, early 90's, comics still had a casual audience, but it was mixed in with a hard core super-hero only audience. Think about how people were so shocked that you changed the status quo of the comic every few years, and wrote "When will you go back to the REAL Hulk?" because that's what comics did. They would shake things up and then everything would go back to normal with an issue ending in 2 zeros.

I think Cory Strode is on to something here. There was a long period where comics tended to be structurally like "Simpsons" episodes-- you'd write whatever dramatic twist you needed into the individual comic but by the end of the story the comic universe would snap back into its original configuration like an elastic band. The benefit of having a series devoid of consequences was that it made the continuity issue fairly easy to handle.

I do think continuity is important. I'm not a fanboy by any stretch of the imagination-- I haven't regularly collected comic books in several years, primarily because I spend the entire decade of the 90s in school and I was at risk of going bankrupt if I wanted to keep track of what was going on with all of the X-crossovers and Bat-crossovers. SInce continuity nightmares kept me running screaming away from the comics industry I might be an odd champion of continuity, but even for a casual fan it's important. Continuity is like plumbing; it should be there as part of the structure even if you don't feel a need to use it.

The important trait of continuity is the one PAD referred to in his critique of the Absorbing Man treatment. The very premise of comic book universes is that it's a shared world. For that world to have any feel of reality enough for the reader to suspend disbelief, then it must act like a real world. Absent some trauma or life-changing experience (or bipolar disorder or MPD if it exists) characters and personalities tend to be relatively stable over time. By all means have character development, but make it a coherent and logical development. I can believe this is a bitch of a problem for comics writers faced with established characters, who are stuck with 400 issues of back history and consumers who have been reading the series for years and have a reasonable expectation that their emotional investemnt in following that series won't be abused. I firmly believe that when a writer takes over creative control of an existing character or series, he has an obligation not to disregard what came before him. Underdog is right-- a writer under my theory might be chained to a history that dates back to Stan Lee. My point is that nobody's being compelled to write an existing character, and that agreeing to show respect for that legacy is a reasonable precondition to being handed the keys to a cultural icon.

Change is a part of life and it should be a part of fiction. But when change exists for change's sake or because a writer is unwilling to honor the characters he's inherited, we have a term for that: soap opera. If you want to take a series in a different direction, be a man about it. Create a new series where there's no back story hobbling you. Do something unexpected but believeable with the series, like Marz did with Green Lantern a few years ago. Hal Jordan's move toward fascism was completely believable and allowed the comic to move in radically different directions with the Kyle character, and it was perfectly consistent with existing continuity. That's the right way to do it. Whatever Jones is doing may or may not be. (Here we get into Hulk-specific issues about which I know little.)

Construcive critique is a MUST

Unfortunately, you haven't figured out the difference between constructive criticisms and negative criticisms.

Yes I have - my opinion is that it was NEGATIVE more than CONSTRUCTIVE