August 01, 2003

MORE BYRNE FUN

I used to post on the John Byrne board when he'd go off on another one of his inaccurate rants about me. No point nowadays. Not only does the merest mention of my name cause denizens to cry "Off topic" or tremble in fear that a fight might break out and disturb the peace), but John announced that he now has the power to lock up threads and delete posts to cut down on some of the "twaddle." The hilarious bit was that he announced it in a thread titled "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair." It is gloriously ironic that he quoted the famed Shelley poem "Ozymandias," a cautionary parable about the futility of egomania and the emptiness of self-aggrandization. It's the most unintentionally self-revelatory thing John's said since he used a quote from a fictional Nazi as his sig line.

In any event, John--who never hesitates to castigate others for proclaiming to be mindreaders, but doesn't hesitate to put forward his opinions on my state of mind as fact--claimed, "PAD is evidentally one of those people who cannot separate himself from his work, and so has taken each of my comments as a personal attack, responding with personal attacks, including most unprofessional "commentary" in the comic books he writes."

Well, no. I've pointed out that some of his critiques of my work were wildly inaccurate (for instance, holding up Spidey 2099 #1 as an example of how to do a first issue wrong because the hero never appears in costume...except he does, for eight pages. Later John admitted he hadn't actually read it, but stood by his opinion nonetheless.) And I've taken his personal attacks as personal attacks (for instance, his claiming that I advocated the concept of people standing by and doing nothing while policemen were beaten to death.) But I've written quite a bit more than John has, and separating myself from the work has become pretty easy. Unfortunately, John doesn't quite seem to be able to reciprocate. For instance, he obviously thought the sequence in "Captain Marvel #2" in which Rick Jones laughs at the Hulk Annual was some sort of retaliation directed at John. No. I would have done the same sequence no matter who wrote that idiot annual, presuming the editor let me.

Jeez. Jack Kirby created Funky Flashman and HouseRoy, obvious Stan Lee and Roy Thomas pastiches. What an unprofessional that Jack Kirby was. And hey, how about that story featuring a superpowered character visually based on Jim Shooter, right down to the acne scars as I recall, blowing off his own foot with a blast beam. Who is the unprofessional person who drew that story? I'm trying to remember...

PAD

Posted by Peter David at August 1, 2003 12:33 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Matt Adams at August 1, 2003 12:39 AM

He's going off on Erik Larsen as well, which makes me think that it's not a direct attack at either of you two, but he's dissing me because I like your works and Savage Dragon. =)

Okay, what was that about egomania?

I think it's a sad state of affairs when the most interesting thing about comics is the infighting...Byrne-fans hate PAD, PAD-fans hate Jemas and Quesada, Jemas and Quesada hate quality comics unless they're done by "high profile" creative teams...when will the madness end?

Posted by: Peter David at August 1, 2003 12:59 AM

I think it's a sad state of affairs when the most interesting thing about comics is the infighting...Byrne-fans hate PAD, PAD-fans hate Jemas and Quesada, Jemas and Quesada hate quality comics unless they're done by "high profile" creative teams...when will the madness end?

As a guess? When/if it's covered as a feature piece on "The Daily Show" and everyone involved is made out to look like complete buffoons. That'll probably put a wrap to it.

PAD

Posted by: JasonK at August 1, 2003 01:06 AM

I know this is totally off topic PAD but you may want to find out what is going on with the canadian distribution of One Knight Only I still haven't seen it in a bookstore, I can get it from Amazon, but I really don't want to put anything on my credit card, at the moment.

Posted by: dave golbitz at August 1, 2003 01:25 AM

Never did like that John Byrne. Man couldn't write his way out of a Mad Libs.

Posted by: James Tichy at August 1, 2003 01:40 AM

Infighting is the fan-boys crack. Knowing what writer dislikes what artist, and so on, seems to be personal accomplishments for some.

Posted by: Nicholas Carr at August 1, 2003 03:22 AM

Who's John Byrne? Is he a writer? Whats the beef with you two? Whats a Mad Lib? Otis Jackson? Where's Criss Cross?

Posted by: Matthew Hawes at August 1, 2003 03:22 AM

Can't we all just get along? ;)

Matthew Hawes

COMICS UNLIMITED

654-B E. Diamond Avenue

Evansville, IN. 47711

Posted by: James at August 1, 2003 04:07 AM

If you don't mind me asking, what was the line from the fictional nazi he used in his sig?

Posted by: Charlie at August 1, 2003 05:06 AM

I'm bizzarely curious as to what goes on at this board... does any one have link they can post? Thanks...

Posted by: Charlie at August 1, 2003 05:12 AM

Sorry have just found it!

Oh my good grief though...

Do we sound/read like that? It's like a little-pat-yourself-on-the back-JB-club-over-there...

Even more bizzarely am reminded of the Simpson's episode where Stan Lee is in the comic shop convinced he can turn the Hulk ;-)

Posted by: JB at August 1, 2003 05:59 AM

It took me... hmmm... 15 years after my first read of Byrne's tenure on Star Brand to Get It, and when I did, I wasn't impressed. It might've been transparent to 12-year-olds, but certainly wasn't to the grownups.

Posted by: Hob at August 1, 2003 07:23 AM

PAD you've wrote a lot and continue to write good comics. Byrne put out Lab Rats. He's had a great career, but he's cooked. I'd ignore him like comic book readers do.

Posted by: Thomas E. Reed at August 1, 2003 07:31 AM

Okay, I gotta know. What quote from what fictional Nazi did Byrne use? Could it be....

"I know...NOTH-ing!" (Sergeant Schultz, "Hogan's Heroes")

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 1, 2003 07:46 AM

"Do we sound/read like that? It's like a little-pat-yourself-on-the back-JB-club-over-there..."

It is the same here exept that it's the "mega-pat-yourself-on-the-back-PAD-club-over-here". Other then that, "it's the same difference as Jimbo" would say.

Although unlike Peter, John does not start threads to bash other creators, but he does jump in the fray once in a while when there is some bashing going on.

Threads like this one sadly shows that no matter how old some creators are, too often they will always remain big babies.

In an ideal world, Peter and John would leave each other alone. But it the real world, it will never happen.

John seems to be willing to make the first step by asking his fans not to post your comments or threads concerning you on his fan site.

So the question is... are you willing to make a first step too??

Starting this thread is an indication that you probably are not. But maybe.... maybe you might decide to make just a small effort and give it a shot.

We shall see.

Posted by: Matt Adler at August 1, 2003 07:57 AM

I used to post on the John Byrne board when he'd go off on another one of his inaccurate rants about me. No point nowadays. Not only does the merest mention of my name cause denizens to cry "Off topic" or tremble in fear that a fight might break out and disturb the peace), but John announced that he now has the power to lock up threads and delete posts to cut down on some of the "twaddle."

You should post occasionally on the Quesada board. It's sort of the unoffical Marvel board. You've got quite a bit of fans there, a lot of other creators make appearances, and Quesada himself is a relatively sporadic presence and enforces moderation only on the occasion that there are complaints about trolls. Heck, I expect he wouldn't even have a problem with Byrne popping in...

Posted by: Noble at August 1, 2003 08:42 AM

"I've pointed out that some of his critiques of my work were wildly inaccurate (for instance, holding up Spidey 2099 #1 as an example of how to do a first issue wrong because the hero never appears in costume...except he does, for eight pages."

With that statement right there, JB proves that he's out of touch with what fans want now days. Or what constitutes a best selling book for that matter. Ultimate Spider Man, one of Marvel's best renditions of a young Peter Parker, didn't have the costume appear for three or four issues.

The only thing it had going for it was dead on writing and characterization. Something Byrne is no longer familiar with.

Don't get me wrong, I loved his FF, Superman, Alpha Flight, hell even Namor. Course I was twelve at the time. I admit he had a good run, but the man didn't know when to quit.

He's what I imagine Elvis would be like if he had lived. Way past his prime, and trying to convince everyone of how great he still is.

-I'm out!

Posted by: JohnE at August 1, 2003 08:58 AM

I'm still holding out for an epic graphic novel written by David, drawn by Byrne, and published by Fantagraphics. Best comic book ever!

Posted by: Paul Anthony Llossas at August 1, 2003 09:52 AM

I know this has been asked many times but, as a fan of both creators, I would really like to know, just out of curiosity, why there's such bad blood between them. Can someone please explain that?

Posted by: Jason P at August 1, 2003 09:52 AM

It's funny just how often Byrne will castigate someone for doing the exact same thing that he does. One example is the time that a poster criticized a Byrne work on the board and speculated that Byrne would reply with some sort of "consider the source" shot in reply.

Byrne came back and accused the poster of having a martyr complex. This from the man who wrote a column recently that lamented that no matter what he does or says, fans will criticize him.

Or he'll mock fans who criticize his work without actually having read it ... while blasting the Hulk movie every chance he gets, a movie he refuses to go and watch.

Or he'll complain about superhero comic book films that lack "fidelity" to the source material, while he goes and does his "Chapter One"'s. (Then he laughs at the fans who like the films but don't like Chapter One, because those fans are being so "inconsistent.")

PAD ... people can call you immature if they like, but I think it's great that you call Byrne on some of this garbage.

Posted by: SER at August 1, 2003 10:20 AM

No. I would have done the same sequence no matter who wrote that idiot annual, presuming the editor let me.

The editor shouldn't have. I know I wouldn't have allowed it -- leave the grudges off the page (this occurs in other media, as well -- no, you can't make a dig at this film critic, no matter how wrongheaded his review was, in your column, and so on).

I was immensely disappointed by the Captain Marvel sequence. For one thing, no matter how bad you thought the annual was (and I didn't enjoy it that much), it was the official Hulk book -- that means it's "right" until a later Hulk writer says it's "wrong."

It just seems appropriate that you don't comment on that in another book *unless* you're working on the official Hulk book down the line. I wouldn't be keen on the JLA writer knocking the current runs of Flash, WW, Batman, or Superman -- even if I agreed with that writer. It's just professional civility.

And while you were the official Hulk writer when you dismissed a Hulk appearance in Spider-Man, I personally found that meanspirited. Don't put it on the page.

Anyway, I'm puzzled and disappointed by this whole "feud." Hey, I freely admit I have trouble forgiving people for slights, especially if they were clearly wrong, but even so, I've found it's healthier for me to just not waste energy and time on these people. Why fight the battle? What can be won? Friendship from someone you don't respect? An apology you don't believe will ever come? Move on.

But the examples (Spidey 2099 and Atlantis Chronicles and the Chapter One debate from years ago) that are constantly recited seem like you're going to just play Ahab. Again, what's the point? Let the whale go.

Posted by: Jarissa at August 1, 2003 10:21 AM

Hey, Zhen, for someone using an ilythiiri name, you sure do throw stones. I completely understand why Mr. David feels no obligation -- ethical or otherwise -- to ignore another Big Comics Industry Name's attempts to poison a competitor's public image.

For example:

Zhen dil Oloth is evidentally one of those people who cannot comment on a behavior he claims to eschew (failure to "leave each other alone" when two people have unkind things to say about each other) without resorting to gramatically erroneous and inconsistently generalized grade-school namecalling ("too often they will always remain big babies"). He positions himself as the Voice of Superiority, using a derogatory and even supercilious tone of condescension: he, the wise and ever-so-mature, looks down upon this topic from his lofty perch of almost ten years in the popular media industry, dispensing patronizing wisdom to the lowly owner of this website about how a PROPER adult should behave. Clearly, Mr. "Oloth" is here as a provocateur and a spy for the hated enemy!

Jarissa, on the other hand, is a GENUINE paragon of gracious and genteel behavior. She benevolently suggests that all posts from Zhen dil Oloth be automatically deleted, unless of course he manages to write them wholly in grammatically correct ilythiiri. Anything less would be codependent enabling on our part, and thusly he'll never learn anything!

You see? You shouldn't have to ignore that kind of codswallop from me in order to "prove" that you are not always a big baby. I just claimed to know your mind better than you know it yourself, and put meaning into your typing that you might not have meant at all. It'd be even worse if I were to then start dictating how you must act if you're to be considered an adult. Heck, I've only got one published gaming credit, and it's not a big one at that. So where do I get off saying what you think, *how* you think, much less how you OUGHT to be deciding on anything?

And, in the same vein, where do you get off telling Mr. David how to run his board? The man gets paid great heaping piles of pennies to write passionately because he writes well, and after all this time I'd say he knows his craft -- but if John Byrne has his way, the buying public will believe things about our host that are not true but nonetheless cause them to avoid his work.

Do the drow ignore a poisoner's attempt? No, of course not, especially when it's done without any style or elegance. Do the Good Guys have a moral obligation to ignore a poisoner's attempt, just because it's meant to destroy their livelihoods rather than their bodies? No.

Posted by: SER at August 1, 2003 10:30 AM

And, in the same vein, where do you get off telling Mr. David how to run his board?

Well, PAD does comment on how Byrne runs his board. I visit both and while there couldn't be two more divergent "moderating" styles, I just shrug and believe "too each his own."

I appreciate the freedom that PAD extends the posters on this board. That freedom, though, will extend to criticism. I can't imagine that PAD would mind all that much.

I just wish both sides wouldn't take this as a sort of "shirts" vs. "skins" type thing.

Posted by: SER at August 1, 2003 10:38 AM

but if John Byrne has his way, the buying public will believe things about our host that are not true but nonetheless cause them to avoid his work.

Sorry for the double but may I just add that this is highly unlikely? Byrne's comments about PAD's run on the Hulk never stopped me from reading the Hulk or later Young Justice and Supergirl. You're giving Byrne way too much power. You're also confusing lies with opinions. Negative opinions that are critical about one's work aren't "poison" while they can affect one's livelihood. PAD himself has taken on Liefeld, McFarlane, and Byrne and I think it would be unfair to say that that criticism of their work was "poison" intended to take food from their mouths.

The only "lies" I've seen attributed to Byrne regarding PAD are mostly of a personal level or, at least as PAD counters them, so transparent as to only convince a moron. Larsen recently said ridiculous (in my opinion) things about Perez's work, but that all seemed like a fair expression of an opinion to me.

It does seem curious, though, that there's all this focus on Byrne, who has little to no power over PAD's career (unless I'm incredibly mistaken) and yet very little focus on Quesada, who has publicly threatened to fire PAD and has publicly made what I found to be inaccurate and uncomplimentary statements about PAD's work that seem to me more "poisonous" than anything Byrne has done or could do.

"Know thine enemy... excellent advice," as the Doctor put it.

Posted by: Douglas at August 1, 2003 11:33 AM

SER wrote "I was immensely disappointed by the Captain Marvel sequence. For one thing, no matter how bad you thought the annual was (and I didn't enjoy it that much), it was the official Hulk book -- that means it's "right" until a later Hulk writer says it's "wrong." "

Until another writer says it's wrong? Isn't that what PAD was doing? In that sequence, we saw that the Hulk origin story was not "real" in the Marvel Universe but was a "comic book" printed in the Marvel Universe.

Posted by: SER at August 1, 2003 11:55 AM

SER wrote "I was immensely disappointed by the Captain Marvel sequence. For one thing, no matter how bad you thought the annual was (and I didn't enjoy it that much), it was the official Hulk book -- that means it's "right" until a later Hulk writer says it's "wrong." "

Douglas replied: Until another writer says it's wrong? Isn't that what PAD was doing? In that sequence, we saw that the Hulk origin story was not "real" in the Marvel Universe but was a "comic book" printed in the Marvel Universe. >>

PAD was writing Captain Marvel. While Rick Jones was a character in Captain Marvel, that was more likely a favor by the Hulk office (as Rick is a Hulk character). Writing Captain Marvel doesn't give you any authority over the current Hulk book. Like it or not, what goes on it is "real." You can change it when you're the next Hulk writer.

Again, this is *my* rule of civility. As an editor myself, I would never have allowed it to pass. That's my professional call. As a reader, it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Consider this: What if in She-Hulk, Avengers West Coast, and Namor, Byrne made a point of dismissing everything he didn't like in the current FF as being "fake." No matter how much we might prefer the Byrne FF run, such actions would be wrong.

Personally, I *hate* what Mark Waid did to Doctor Doom in the current FF. That's not the Doom I know. That's just some punk hood. However, if I were the writer of any other Marvel book and had a panel in which Doctor Doom, in his normal armor, commented on how one of his robots had gone "wonky," that would be out of line.

This reminds me: Byrne commented on a Doom X-Men appearance in a classic issue of FF. However, as FF writer, he "owned" Doom and had the final say. Also, there was at least a degree of professional respect to how it was done -- it wasn't dismissed as a dream (like the Hulk appearance in Spider-Man) or as a goofy story in a fictional comic (the Captain Marvel issue had Rick *laughing* at the issue, openly mocking it -- that's just tacky). No, the FF issue treated the X-Men issue as real -- it just revealed an untold element to it.

So, perhaps that's my major problem with it -- the "joking" tone that I find meanspirited. Again, I'm speaking from my *personal* viewpoint as a professional and as a person as to what offends me.

It just strikes me as a very small thing to do. And while I disagree with Quesada's position regarding "But I Digress," PAD *does* often use it as a way to broadside people, which I used to find amusing as a kid (I even did my share of it when I wrote a column in college) but pleases me less these days.

I recall the *three* columns PAD wrote mocking Byrne's Chapter One (for both Hulk and Spider-Man). I *agreed* with PAD for the most part (I didn't like the changes Byrne made) but I remember thinking, "C'mon, surely there were far WORSE comics that came out that month -- Byrne at his worst still kicks the behind of a lot of guys out there." And then I had a further thought: "Why even go after the guys who suck *more*? Why not spend three columns praising *good* comics and *good* creators and not hurling personal grenades?" That epiphany changed how I wrote and it changed how I looked at BID.

Posted by: luke at August 1, 2003 12:14 PM

The only fact that matters to me about PAD and Byrne is that i know of at least five people who will buy a book simply because PAD wrote it and those same five people will NOT buy a book simply because Byrne wrote it

Hell i bought the entire run of supergirl, and i hate DC (mainstream universe DC) comics.

Posted by: Peter David at August 1, 2003 12:33 PM

It does seem curious, though, that there's all this focus on Byrne, who has little to no power over PAD's career (unless I'm incredibly mistaken) and yet very little focus on Quesada, who has publicly threatened to fire PAD and has publicly made what I found to be inaccurate and uncomplimentary statements about PAD's work that seem to me more "poisonous" than anything Byrne has done or could do.

There was certainly focus while it was relevant. Remember the "I don't do well with threats" posting? His whole approach was that one couldn't be earning money from Marvel and also be in a position to criticize the company.

Since then, with the hiring of various comics journalists, he's had to specifically withdraw that rather unofficial policy.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at August 1, 2003 12:49 PM

Douglas replied: Until another writer says it's wrong? Isn't that what PAD was doing? In that sequence, we saw that the Hulk origin story was not "real" in the Marvel Universe but was a "comic book" printed in the Marvel Universe. >>

PAD was writing Captain Marvel. While Rick Jones was a character in Captain Marvel, that was more likely a favor by the Hulk office (as Rick is a Hulk character). Writing Captain Marvel doesn't give you any authority over the current Hulk book. Like it or not, what goes on it is "real." You can change it when you're the next Hulk writer.

No. I can change it when the editor who oversees it says I can change it. If you check the credits, you'll see that the same editor who oversaw the Hulk annual also edited Captain Marvel.

Bottom line, he didn't like that Hulk story. I didn't like that Hulk story. Best of my knowledge, no one at Marvel liked it. I think they felt it was a mistake it saw print at all. I was more than happy to make it go away, and they were more than happy to let me.

Writers come in disliking other storylines, other characters, and they undo them or toss them aside routinely. It's been that way for decades. For John to act as if it's anything other than SOP is just disingenous.

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 1, 2003 02:02 PM

See, that's the funny thing about the way Peter makes such references. If you don't know the background of the joke, he writes it so that it just blends into the story innocuously. I never knew the background about that story, and never knew that it had anything to do with Byrne. Similarly, when Peter had the merged Hulk fight Doctor Octopus, I had no idea that it was a reference to a previous story by Erik Larsen, or that the "holding back" comment was a reference to something that one of the Image founders (McFarlane?) said.

By contrast, when Erik Larsen devoted a double page spread in an early issue of Savage Dragon to dissing John Byrne, he did so with all the subtlety of a lead pipe. The sequence did not add anything to the story, nor even have anything to do with it, so he ended up wasting two pages in having thinly disguised caricatures of Namor, She-Hulk and others mouth his opinions of Byrne's work, even repeating that tired old "Byrne abandons his books" idea. Funny, though, how Erik criticized Peter for the Hulk/Doc Ock sequence, which at least wasn't so obvious.

Posted by: Terry Jones at August 1, 2003 02:09 PM

Just like Paul Anthony Llossas, I'd like to know where this PAD and JB bashing stems from.

Posted by: Nytwyng at August 1, 2003 02:24 PM

Consider this: What if in She-Hulk, Avengers West Coast, and Namor, Byrne made a point of dismissing everything he didn't like in the current FF as being "fake." No matter how much we might prefer the Byrne FF run, such actions would be wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this have been during Steve Englehart's tenure on Fantastic Four...a run that he himself once described in a letter to the now-defunct magazine Amazing Heroes, "...issue after issue of dream sequences?"

Posted by: Richard Franklin at August 1, 2003 02:38 PM

I really think that John Byrne, Peter David and Erik Larsen should all get over their feuds with each other and move on. Most of the rest of the industry doesn't care. None of them like each other.None of them ever will. What more needs to be said? This may come across as a bash against all three, but I only mean it to keep things in perspective. Don't you think that if the three of them focused this energy spent trashing one another on their creativity instead that their books might stop getting canceled? These are three talented men, who have all done great things with their comics, but sometimes that doesn't seem to be their primary focus anymore. Instead they're worrying about what the other guy said while Defenders, X-Men : The Hidden Years and Young Justice are busy being cancelled. They have all had successes and they have all had flops. Time to move on before the industry moves on without them.

Posted by: Somebody at August 1, 2003 03:18 PM

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this have been during Steve Englehart's tenure on Fantastic Four...a run that he himself once described in a letter to the now-defunct magazine Amazing Heroes, "...issue after issue of dream sequences?"

This the letter in question?

http://www.ffplaza.com/commcenter/transcripts/Englehart.shtml

Posted by: Steve at August 1, 2003 03:18 PM

"(for instance, holding up Spidey 2099 #1 as an example of how to do a first issue wrong because the hero never appears in costume...except he does, for eight pages. Later John admitted he hadn't actually read it, but stood by his opinion nonetheless.)"

Sounds like the Bush administration talking about WMDs.

Posted by: Bill Roper at August 1, 2003 03:38 PM

That explains a lot. Those stories always read a lot like "this is what I'd be doing if I wasn't being dumped off the book". Sort of like PAD's final Hulk story that way...

Posted by: Nytwyng at August 1, 2003 04:18 PM

That is indeed the one.

Posted by: Nick at August 1, 2003 04:23 PM

Just out of curiosity - can someone post the link to the John Byrne website. I have looked, but can't seem to find it.

Thanks!

Posted by: Profsog at August 1, 2003 04:47 PM

Could someone refresh my memory? What was the plot of the Hulk annual that appeared in Peter's book?

Posted by: Michileen Martin at August 1, 2003 04:52 PM

Richard Franklin said:

"Don't you think that if the three of them focused this energy spent trashing one another on their creativity instead that their books might stop getting canceled?"

I think this is kind of a silly thing to say. It assumes that PAD, Byrne, and Larsen do nothing but plotting all day about how they're going to bash the others.

Simply judging by how much writing PAD does, both in and out of the comics industry, in my opinion it's ridiculous to say that he's expending any great amount of energy on a feud. Saying that any of PAD's titles, or any of the titles you mentioned, were cancelled because the creators had expended so much energy bashing other creators is pretty flimsy, and I don't buy it.

I don't know why X-Men: The Hidden Years was cancelled, but considering what a curmudgeon Byrne is said to be, I could imagine it was cancelled just to get Byrne away from Marvel. YJ was cancelled to make way for Teen Titans, and Defenders was cancelled for so many reasons I don't even want to get into it.

Posted by: Brad at August 1, 2003 08:35 PM

One of my favorite comments ever from PAD was a few years ago regarding this whole "fued" with Byrne.

Someone (who apparently wasn't very familiar with how freelancing goes on at Marvel) asked PAD: "When you pass John Byrne in the hallways of the Marvel offices, do you give each other dirty looks?"

PAD's response: "Actually we high-five each other and chortle over how we've fooled everyone into believing there's animosity between us."

~Brad

Posted by: Peter David at August 1, 2003 11:23 PM

"Don't you think that if the three of them focused this energy spent trashing one another on their creativity instead that their books might stop getting canceled?"

I love when fans say stuff like that.

Now of course, if I go on a fan board where there's arguments over whether Hal Jordan should be reinstated as Green Lantern or Donna Troy got a raw deal and say, "Don't you think if you guys put your energies to constructive endeavors that actually mattered, you wouldn't have to waste your lives endlessly carping online over $2.50 adventure pamphlets?", I'd be crucified.

PAD

Posted by: Ben Hunt at August 2, 2003 12:39 AM

Frankly, I am torn by the comments made on the board. On the one hand, all of the feuding creators seem to be acting rather petty. I don't much care for John Byrne's work (outside his early illustrations and writing on She-Hulk, FF, and Namor) but the man does seem to have some scrupples with other people's creations. He has talked with creators of characters before altering them dramatically, which seems to be a common curtesy. On the other hand, Byrne has also made jabs at other creators, especially in his She-Hulk book. Jen once commented that if she had stayed in the FF, she probably would have been revealed to have been the Space Phantom, a reference to Tom DeFalco's decision to reveal that Alicia Masters had been a Skrull imposter.

Perhaps he is still feeling pained from that experience. He developed Alicia and Johny to a large degree durring their romance and eventual wedding, and all of that character growth was wiped away in an instant. Also, this isn't the first time you've undone one of his stories. You penned the tale that revealed Lockjaw to be a regular dog, instead of the mutated Inhuman Byrne had revealed him as. Interestingly, the rest of the issue you retconned, dealing with Quicksilver's attempt to expose his daughter to Terrigen mists, was heavily referenced in the X-Factor issue dealing with abortion, which was itself drastically altered by editorial. (I have long ago passed the point of rambling, but I must reiterate the request made earlier that you share with us on the board what you originally intended for those issues.)

The other side of my personality, the true comic fan, thinks that the fueds are OK so long as they don't interfere with the comics themselves and lead to funny in jokes. And so long as the characters retain thier loyalties. I love the line you had She-Hulk utter when she guest starred in an issue of the Hulk: "This title has gone down hill ever since Byrne left." Heh

Posted by: Richard Franklin at August 2, 2003 02:26 AM

"I love when fans say stuff like that.

Now of course, if I go on a fan board where there's arguments over whether Hal Jordan should be reinstated as Green Lantern or Donna Troy got a raw deal and say, "Don't you think if you guys put your energies to constructive endeavors that actually mattered, you wouldn't have to waste your lives endlessly carping online over $2.50 adventure pamphlets?", I'd be crucified.

PAD"

Well, you'd be right of course, but it wouldn't be the smartest thing to do since you might alienate potential readers.

I apologize for getting involved. I really think the three of you are very talented and it seems a waste to see three guys with this kind of talent wasting their time on being bitter and petty rather than doing something constructive with their time. I was honestly trying to bring some perspective on this, but you seem content to be petty about it so good luck and I hope you guys can keep one-upping the other guy until one of you is declared the coolest kid in high school. Personally, I respect the guy who knows when its time to walk away from a fight.

"Richard Franklin said:

"Don't you think that if the three of them focused this energy spent trashing one another on their creativity instead that their books might stop getting canceled?"

I think this is kind of a silly thing to say. It assumes that PAD, Byrne, and Larsen do nothing but plotting all day about how they're going to bash the others."

You're making a broad assumption yourself since I never stated that was all the three of them did. Spending too much time doing something isn't the same as spending ALL of your time doing it. I was making a helpful suggestion that the three of them could do something constructive with their free time rather than continuing a feud between creators that seems pointless. I don't see the point in picking on one another which is all the three of them are accomplishing since none of them is in the right in this situation. Meanwhile, most fans are losing interest in reading their works while they are busy worrying about what so and so said on his message board. I was actually trying to help give perspective on how stupid this situation is, but I've never seen any of the three of them give up on a good fight or admit they were wrong about something. I doubt they are going to change now or start showing any kind of maturity since it seems beyond them so I'll go find something constructive to do myself since I've got better things to do. Adios.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 2, 2003 03:25 AM

Richard Franklin: I really think that John Byrne, Peter David and Erik Larsen should all get over their feuds with each other and move on.

Luigi Novi: I believe Larsen, when asked about it when he took over last Aquaman series prior to the current one from Peter, said he had moved on from it.

Posted by: Stefano Priarone at August 2, 2003 04:21 AM

Mondadori, Italy's greatest book publisher, has just published a Hulk trade paperback(they got the license from Panini comics, who publishes Marvel comics in Italian), reprinting the first 11 issues of the current Hulk series, the ones mostly written by John Byrne! The Hulk movie arrives in Italy on August 29, and Panini comics editors thought the Byrne-Garney version of Hulk was much closer to the movie Hulk than the Peter David one.

Seems Byrne took a sort of revenge over David here in Italy, but Mondadori also published the movie novelization by Pad, so I think it's a tie!

Posted by: HDSchellnack at August 2, 2003 05:10 AM

The weird thing is that I read comics by all three guy, Erik, Peter and John (sounds like a band, eh?)... and currently enjoy their work a lot. Savage Dragon is better than it has been for a long time during the Kamandi-phase, harkening back somewhat more to the early days of the series. Generations is a complicated game witrh a see-through kind of plot... and impossible to even explain to comic-newbies..., but great fun, I just love all those variations of the Superman/batman myth and the whole timeline John is building. And Peter seemingly has come away from the Young Justice/Supergirl-debacle with a great Fallen Angel (nice joke with 'dolf, btw), Captain Marvel is 180° different from what it was and has become funny in a chilling unfunny way, a wonderful strange experiment, Sir Apropos rocks and of course Soulsearchers has more jokes per page than ever (and the SUpergirl TPB I just read was great -- what an ending)...

So, imo, the whole debate is a bit childish, entertaining as hell, but in the end I care more for the actual work by a creatr than for his relationship with (or lack thereof) to other creators. Seeing as how comics are a niche market at best, the whole business seems absurd. Comic book writers in-fighting doesn't help the comoc book market at all, I think. Where's Professor X when you need him??

Posted by: Hob at August 2, 2003 08:07 AM

I heard that Byrne said he can take you in a fight. I wouldn't let him get away with that if I were you.

Posted by: Leto at August 2, 2003 09:49 AM

Hum... PAD? Do You really take offense from a guy who wrote "Chapter One"?

PS : and he said dirty things about your mother too :)

Posted by: Thacher E. Cleveland at August 2, 2003 10:19 AM

PAD said:

Now of course, if I go on a fan board where there's arguments over whether Hal Jordan should be reinstated as Green Lantern or Donna Troy got a raw deal and say, "Don't you think if you guys put your energies to constructive endeavors that actually mattered, you wouldn't have to waste your lives endlessly carping online over $2.50 adventure pamphlets?", I'd be crucified.

That's the funniest thing I've read all morning. Granted, I just got up, but still.

It's so, so true. I've never understand "fan's" outright viciousness when it comes to cutting on books that they don't like, but still read. Honestly, I think the internet makes you crazy, but I'm I'm just still hungover from watching "28 Days Later" last night.

Posted by: Anthony Meadowcroft at August 2, 2003 12:59 PM

Well.. get this some one posts on the Bryne Boards that they think that JMS doesn't get Spider-Man and I posted saying that I thought that JMS' Amazing is a great book and I am enjoying the story. I also said that Amazing and Ulimate Spiderman were better stories then Chapter one (I am probably one of the few people that enjoyed that one) Then John Bryne Posts that I am not finding his work inferior but that of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. Well I can't figure that one out maybe some of you can.

Posted by: Markisan at August 2, 2003 01:22 PM

This has been asked a few times, but no one seems to be responding: SOMEONE PLEASE PUT UP A LINK TO THE BYRNE BOARDS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 2, 2003 01:26 PM

I particularly found this statement by the poster named Robin to be interesting:

anyone who is boneheaded enough to criticize Chapter One as written and drawn by JB without taking into account the source material being re-presented has already defined his opinion as inconsequential.

So in other words, some opinions are actually of consequence, and some are not. I'd like to know exactly what "consequence" Robin thinks the opinions he agrees with are. And then there's this little ditty from Linda:

And again one must question why such a person would waste his time participating in a forum for John Byrne fans.

Of course, Linda. We forgot that that site was nothing more than an uncritical source of propagandist aggrandizement for Byrne. God forbit actually debate and dissent be allowed.

Posted by: Markisan at August 2, 2003 01:45 PM

Never mind. I found it. For all those who have been asking for the link, here it is:

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/248951?it=1

Posted by: Cory!! Strode at August 2, 2003 01:45 PM

"I don't know why X-Men: The Hidden Years was cancelled, but considering what a curmudgeon Byrne is said to be, I could imagine it was cancelled just to get Byrne away from Marvel. YJ was cancelled to make way for Teen Titans, and Defenders was cancelled for so many reasons I don't even want to get into it."

Comic books are cancelled for one primary reason: Sales. There are a LOT of comics I love, but they went away because the company ran out of money or the book didn't generate the revenue it was expected to.

As for the feuds in comics...they are red meat for the marks and rarely have anything to do with the product. I hate to say it, but if people paid a LOT more attention to getting comics in front of people who might like them but can't find them instead of wondering if Joey Da Q has a secret hatred for the color orange, we might be getting comics like Young Justice in front of the kids that would like them.

I also find it painfully sad that the topics of politics and actual STORIES get fewer comments than the infighting stuff.

Posted by: Aaron at August 2, 2003 02:25 PM

God, I think that Marvel would make a mint publishing a comic where creators just take turns ragging on each other on a monthly basis. And at the center of it all would be PAD, a funny Spock-like character, trying to make sense of the idiocy.

Posted by: Hyatte at August 2, 2003 03:56 PM

Remember the good old days when all the mainstream freelancers superstars used to ban together and focus their energy on one single purpose: Goofing on McFarlane (sp?) and Leifield (sp?2.0)

I have to ask... will Bendis and Millar be taking shots at each other 8 years from now?

Serious question... Peter, do you think Byrne still has the "power/influence" to tell noteworthy, important stories, or is his time past?

Posted by: Michael Cravens at August 2, 2003 11:42 PM

Nothing much to add, here, really, but for me to say this:

This whole topic reminds me of that episode of "the West Wing," when Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman logs onto the "LemonLyman.com" message board and begins taking the posters to task.

What follows is, from my experience, one of the most accurate depictions of the world of anonymous Internet message board posting I've ever seen. Very, very funny stuff.

I wish I had quotes from that episode. :-)

Posted by: Sean Whitmore at August 3, 2003 12:26 AM

**"This whole topic reminds me of that episode of "the West Wing," when Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman logs onto the "LemonLyman.com" message board and begins taking the posters to task.

What follows is, from my experience, one of the most accurate depictions of the world of anonymous Internet message board posting I've ever seen. Very, very funny stuff.

I wish I had quotes from that episode. :-) "**

Here's one for you (and one that many online posters should take to heart):

CJ: "If you ever go on LemonLyman.com again, I will shove that computer so far up your ass--why are you laughing?"

Josh: "It's just...technically I outrank you--"

CJ: "...SO FAR UP YOUR ASS...!"

SEAN

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 3, 2003 04:45 AM

Bill Roper: That explains a lot. Those stories always read a lot like "this is what I'd be doing if I wasn't being dumped off the book". Sort of like PAD's final Hulk story that way...

Luigi Novi: First, Peter quit. He wasn't "dumped." Second, I don't see anything in that issue in which Peter indicated what he'd do if he weren't leaving.

Posted by: Hysan Gearring at August 3, 2003 06:05 AM

Um, good grief.

I've just finished reading the Erik Larsen/Byrne/George Perez-bashing, Byrne bashing Alan Moore threads, and I have a headache.

It all comes down to personal opinion. I have no problem with Larsen as an artist, he's not my cup of tea. I agree with some of his complaints about Perez, but Perez is one of my favorites.

And John Byrne critiquing Alan Moore's writing....JOHN BYRNE?

*holds head* Oy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I enjoyed Byrne's initial run on FF, even though, in retrospect, much of it feels like riffing on the things I feel didn't _work_ with the Lee/Kirby run. The twilight zone ripoffs, the needless soap opera elements, the need to always keep Ben Grimm miserable, etc., but that's just me.

I tend to think Alan Moore is crazier than a bedbug, but his work amazes me. The man has an attention to detail, a keen sense of how to piece together a story, weave a tale, so that it ultimately becomes satisfying. (It's one of the things that led me to enjoy PAD's run on the HULK, especially his last issue...that issue left me with a lump in my throat).

Meanwhile, Byrne hasn't written a story that hasn't made me cringe in well over a decade. LOST GENERATION made me laugh out loud at how mind-numbingly bad it was, YEAR ONE was just....who asked for it? And GENESIS? Ehhhh.

I'll continue to read this page and Christopher Priest's weblog to learn the thoughts of creators who actually manage to put out works of merit, thanks.

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 3, 2003 07:43 AM

"Byrne bashing Alan Moore threads"??

When and where did that happen??

LOST GENERATION was co-plotted by Byrne and Roger Stern and scripted by Stern.

Posted by: James Lynch at August 3, 2003 09:55 AM

While some of this is interesting -- when PAD backs up his statements with actual quotes, the WEST WING bit above -- it's degenerating into fans shouting about how much 1) they love their favorite author, and 2) they hate whoever says something bad about their favorite author. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where someone complains about a sketch, and someone complains about the complainer, then Michael Palin comes on, saying "I'd like to complain about people who hold things up by complaining about people complaining. It's about time something was done about it." He's then crushed byt he 16-ton weight.

Wait a minute -- *I'm* complaining about complainers! What's that over me? AIEEEEEEE--

Posted by: Hysan Gearring at August 3, 2003 11:33 AM

Agreed! *laughs*

See, I think there's room for everyone, and taste is subjective.

What saddens me, though, is that the people I held in high regard as a youngster have come to _this._ It's what saddens me about Frank Miller after DARK KNIGHT STRIKES BACK, etc. I don't care if they have opinions. Hell, I expect people with dynamic personalities to not get along.

I dunno. Even Alan Moore says that WATCHMEN was part of a bad mood he was in at the time, and was never to be taken as the Bible it became later. But I have a tough time respecting Byrne's opinion when nothing he's done in recent years has been any good. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

On a positive note, I actually get where CAPTAIN MARVEL is going, and I do think Byrne would be a perfect choice for AVENGERS, but I've always had a soft spot for his protrayal of the A-Team.

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 3, 2003 11:50 AM

"But I have a tough time respecting Byrne's opinion when nothing he's done in recent years has been any good. Sorry, that's just my opinion."

I take it that you did not check Generations 3?? Fun serie, although I wish DC gave him a better inker. But it is a fun book despite of that.

I would say that it is jus tmy opinion, but it seems obvious enough that what people post on the web is just that... their opinion. Oh well.

"I do think Byrne would be a perfect choice for AVENGERS, but I've always had a soft spot for his protrayal of the A-Team."

He did a great run on Avengers. But with the current Marvel politics, not sure it would be such a great idea.

We will have to settle for is JLA run soon.

We shall see.

Posted by: Krusty at August 3, 2003 01:08 PM

Byrne. Byrne. Byrne.

The guy is a real piece of work. If he was a superhero , I'd call him 'Mr. Hypocrite'. How many times can this guy say one thing and then do the other?

Now, he's been granted the 'power' to ban and delete anything on the site dedicated to him.

I have this image of him dressed like Constanza from 'Seinfeld' wearing a robe and a crown on his head walking down the street.

Posted by: Bill Roper at August 3, 2003 02:02 PM

Bill Roper: That explains a lot. Those stories always read a lot like "this is what I'd be doing if I wasn't being dumped off the book". Sort of like PAD's final Hulk story that way...

Luigi Novi: First, Peter quit. He wasn't "dumped." Second, I don't see anything in that issue in which Peter indicated what he'd do if he weren't leaving.

I believe being told that if you want to continue on the book, you have to write "Hulk smash" (which I think Peter had been fairly clear about his opinion of) can be constructively considered as being "dumped" even if he was the one who officially "quit".

As to your other point, I thought that the entire final issue of PAD's Hulk was a summary of future aborted plotlines. It makes me sad when I read the capsule and realize what we might have gotten...

Posted by: Gary Bainbridge at August 3, 2003 07:03 PM

Byrne's just sore because PAD took his abortion of a Supergirl and turned it into a character worth reading about.

Posted by: Hysan at August 3, 2003 08:57 PM

I'm not a big DC person, so I haven't read generations. I'm sure it's fun, but I'm not big on Bats and Supes these days.

Posted by: William Watson at August 3, 2003 09:11 PM

Just chiming in for no apparent reason. I like Byrne. I like David. They've both done some stuff I still re-read to this day and have projects that hold my attention coming out each month. They have also both done stuff that made me do a double take at the credits page. I enjoyed Chapter One to the extent that compared to the Spidey crap available at the time (after Untold Tales), C1 was fun. Genesis was a misfire like Perez's War of the Gods and I have a hard time blaming Byrne for it. I love Generations and keep hoping for Byrne to go back and continue NextMen. And I think he needs to write another horror novel because Fear Book and Whipping Boy are still helluva good reads! As for David, I was let down by the Supergirl series and I gave that sucker TWO years to get my interest. That was when I had more expendable cash and the books were a little cheaper. Haunted was just sad. The Hulk was OVERALL well done but it had some misses. Young Justice started and ended strong. But then there is Captain Marvel. That is a wonderful piece of work. PAD has shown he has really outgrown that annoying habit of losing character to tell a joke like in his earlier works (including ST novels). My main complaint is the lack of Chriss Cross since I have followed that guy since Milestone. Anyway, I would worry about this "feuding" if it caused problems with their work. A panel here or there or a letters page (remember those") comment doesn't worry me. Bendis vents in his Powers Letters Pages and Miller used to rant on and on in his Sin City columns (now THAT is someone who needs to get back to something!). Maybe they both just need fully creatored owned books they can vent in the backs of. And if PAD does that in Searchers then sorry. I don't read it and would like to check out a TPB or two if they exist. Anyway, thanks for listening.

Posted by: Midknight at August 3, 2003 11:15 PM

Geez Zhen, do you have trouble walking around? What with your head so far up Byrne's ass and all

Posted by: Ezrael at August 3, 2003 11:35 PM

Zhen didn't say anything sycophantic towards Byrne. It's okay to like Byrne's work. A great many people have, over the years, and I've been one of them at times. I'm not fond of his current 'exposition theatre' style, and I dread the idea of a Byrne run on JLA with every fiber of my being, but that doesn't make me an enemy of Byrne's any more than it makes Zhen a bootlick that he's interested in the work to come. "We shall see" is hardly asskissing.

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 4, 2003 12:30 AM

"I'm not a big DC person, so I haven't read generations. I'm sure it's fun, but I'm not big on Bats and Supes these days."

BLASPHEMY!!!

It is the greatest serie since... since...the Crew a few weeks ago. ;)

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 4, 2003 12:41 AM

"Geez Zhen, do you have trouble walking around? What with your head so far up Byrne's ass and all"

If you really think that, then you obviously never read my posts to Byrne telling him how awfull it was when he was using his zip-a -tone effect on Namor, ot how his work usually is better when inked by someone else.

He does not like it, but he still did not ban me from the boards.... yet. ;)

I just thought that this whole thread was nothing more then a cheap attack on John for no apparent reasons.

Noext time John makes a cheap move against Peter, I will be sure to let him know.

Unlike what someone mentioned earlier, I have no power to dictate what Peter posts. I think she read a lot lore in my post then what was actually on the screen.

I cannot dictate anything her, on the Byrne board, or on any other board for that matter.

All I can do is make a plea.

Don't you find it sad seing what is supposed to be grown Men throwing each other stones as if they were still in 3rd grade.

I know I do.

I could almost understand if this was Peter answering to an attack by Byrne. But it was not even close to that.

Byrne can now lock and delete threads on the boards dedicated to HIM.

So what???

The Apocalypse must be near.

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 4, 2003 01:03 AM

"Zhen didn't say anything sycophantic towards Byrne. It's okay to like Byrne's work. A great many people have, over the years, and I've been one of them at times. I'm not fond of his current 'exposition theatre' style, and I dread the idea of a Byrne run on JLA with every fiber of my being, but that doesn't make me an enemy of Byrne's any more than it makes Zhen a bootlick that he's interested in the work to come. "We shall see" is hardly asskissing."

Thnk you.

I love some of what John did (Cap, X-Men, FF, Generations etc)and hate some of what he did (Next Men, Namor, his second She-Hulk run etc).

The same goes for Peter(liked Hulk, X-factor, Sachs & Violents etc) (hate Supergirl, Young Justice, etc).

How can I hate and love both of their work sometimes?? Simple. Sometimes I think they do a wonderfull job, sometimes I think they do a lousy job.

I guess I am enough of a fan to be honest with the work as opposed to having blinders and blindly worship and love everything they do no matter how poor/rushed/uninspired/etc it seems to have been done.

If I think it is great, I will say so.

If I think it stinks, I will say so.

If being a fan always giving a creator an ego boost by telling him how a genius he is even if we see them produce poor work, then I guess that I am not a fan.

If they need an ego boost, let them hire themselves a cheerleading team.

If they want an honest opinion of their work, then I will be there.

Does it mean that what I say is fact all that I say is the absolute truth??? Absolutely not. Everything I say is nothing more then my opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unless of course I quote someone.... but you get the idea.

I have my good days and I have my bad days when I might be too hard in my comments.

But wether I am too hard or not at the time, it always reamins that it is my honest opinion.

Take it for what it is... nothing more.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at August 4, 2003 01:34 AM

I didn't see anything sycophantic in what Zhen said, and I agree with what he just said above.

Posted by: Matt Hawes at August 4, 2003 05:00 AM

"...We forgot that that site was nothing more than an uncritical source of propagandist aggrandizement for Byrne. God forbit actually debate and dissent be allowed." - Posted by Luigi Novi @ 08/02/2003 01:26 PM

It is called the "John Byrne Message Board." That, and it originated from a board on a site called the "John Byrne Fan Site."

The idea is for fans of John Byrne to discuss and debate topics that relate to the man, but not to pick fights with him.

Anyway, I don't see why you would want to post on his site if you don't like John Byrne.

I like PAD's work. I like JB's work. I think Erik Larsen has done some nice stuff, and while I am not a big fan of his work, I think he's ok for the most part. I post on their sites (Barely, in Larsen's case) because I want to discuss matters that concern comics with these creators of comics.

I do not post on the message boards that belong to, are are about creators I do not care for.

It just makes sense. I mean, what's the point?

I gotta add, I think it's funny that invoking JB's name has once more led to a flurry of messages. For someone that is supposed to be so unpopular anymore, people really seem interested in what he has to say, and want to garner his attention.

Anyway, "Fallen Angel" #2 should be out soon. I can't wait to see what's next! :-)

Matt Hawes

COMICS UNLIMITED

654-B E. Diamond Avenue

Evansville, Indiana 47711

Posted by: Frank Cooper at August 4, 2003 07:28 AM

Just like Paul Anthony Llossas, I'd like to know where this PAD and JB bashing stems from.

This is only my guess, but I think Byrne has carried a grudge from the time of Alpha Flight #12, when he felt that PAD ruined the ending of that comic somehow at a convention. Byrne has attacked PAD ever since, and PAD gives it right back to him

Posted by: SER at August 4, 2003 09:34 AM

Just like Paul Anthony Llossas, I'd like to know where this PAD and JB bashing stems from.

This is only my guess, but I think Byrne has carried a grudge from the time of Alpha Flight #12, when he felt that PAD ruined the ending of that comic somehow at a convention. Byrne has attacked PAD ever since, and PAD gives it right back to him

>>

As the Doctor said, "Never guess -- unless you have to. There's too much uncertainty in the universe as it is."

I don't see why people want to know the root of a personal disagreement between two men. I'm sure there are people out there you don't particularly care for, right? In fact, it's possible that JB and PAD are *both* right about each other (in that, we all have "bad" traits -- our friends tend to like us either despite those traits or even because of them, "bad traits" being subjective and all).

Posted by: Peter David at August 4, 2003 11:22 AM

The Hulk movie arrives in Italy on August 29, and Panini comics editors thought the Byrne-Garney version of Hulk was much closer to the movie Hulk than the Peter David one

Well, it was. The Byrne Garney stuff was the mindless Hulk rampaging around.

It also sold for crap. I wasn't interested in writing those stories because I knew they'd sell for crap.

And now all fans seem to talk about is the film's disappointing box office take. So, y'know...do the math.

PAD

Posted by: Matt Hawes at August 4, 2003 11:29 AM

"This is only my guess, but I think Byrne has carried a grudge from the time of Alpha Flight #12, when he felt that PAD ruined the ending of that comic somehow at a convention. Byrne has attacked PAD ever since, and PAD gives it right back to him." - Posted by Frank Cooper @ 08/04/2003 07:28 AM

Serious question, Frank: PAD and JB have a definite past together, and so there's a reason for their animosity toward one another. But, why do you have such a grudge against JB that you constantly dog on him? Is it just because of something he said in response to you on a message board?

If you don't care for his attitude, fine. But, I think this vendetta of yours is unhealthy. Do as you please, I guess, but sometimes you seem as obsessed as Kurt Busiek's ex-pal that dedicated web pages to haunting the guy.

Seriously, do you think anything positive will result from your attacks on JB? Is there an end result that you are shooting for, or do you just receive satisfaction from deriding the man?

Just curious.

If it's your idea of fun, go ahead, but it seems like a waste of energy that could be put to better use.

Matt Hawes

COMICS UNLIMITED

654-B E. Diamond Avenue

Evansville, Indiana 47711

Posted by: Peter David at August 4, 2003 11:36 AM

The root stems partly from the Alpha Flight business mentioned above. But the real problem, I suspect, stems from when John quit "She-Hulk." He blamed his departure squarely on editor Bobbie Chase, saying she had violated agreements over his creative freedom. And Bobbie was being crucified by the fans on line and in CBG. And in those days, Marvel policy was a strict "no comment" in such matters (which Byrne knew) and so Bobbie couldn't defend herself.

I considered Bobbie a dear friend and, rather than let her twist in the wind, I publicized the simple truth: That Byrne had quit off She-Hulk because there was a throwaway bit of business in a She-Hulk comic written by someone other than Byrne in which She-Hulk is shown snapping off razors in a bathtub in a futile attempt to shave her leg hair. Bobbie thought it was a cute bit and let it go through. Byrne went ballistic and resigned.

Keep in mind the context of the time: Rick Veitch had just quit off "Swamp Thing" because of the whole balls-up over his already approved/subsequently dumped Jesus-related story. And fans were likening the two. My contention was that there was lightyears difference between Rick having an entire story he'd already written (involving Swamp Thing being the cross upon which Jesus was crucified, no less) and had approved suddenly rejected when it was ready to see print...and John quitting over She-Hulk's leg-hair.

John tried to write in a rebuttal to CBG, but fans realized that it still boiled down to She-Hulk's leg hair. It took the heat off Bobbie, made John look petty, and that's pretty much what started it.

PAD

Posted by: Sasha at August 4, 2003 12:11 PM

And I'd still like to know how you managed to convince Byrne to do the back art on you BUT I DIGRESS compilation.

Posted by: Logan at August 4, 2003 12:48 PM

Sorry for being confused here but why was someone else writing SHE-HULK? I thought Byrne was the writer...

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 4, 2003 12:48 PM

Peter; I was under the impression that you liked Hulk movie.

But now are you saying that it was bad because it was the mindless rampaging Hulk like what Byrne did??

Strange.

And what was the point to ruin the ending of Alpha Flight #12??

It cannot be to teach him a lesson because of the She-Hulk incident because it happened years BEFORE that.

So what was to gain in doing that exept to piss him off??

And for what reason?? Did he spoil a Hulk ending before and it was payback time??

Posted by: Tim Lynch at August 4, 2003 01:21 PM

Logan,

If memory serves, the razor bit was in a She-Hulk graphic novel that was published at the time, not the actual series (which, as you say, Byrne was writing at the time).

TWL

Posted by: SER at August 4, 2003 01:45 PM

The root stems partly from the Alpha Flight business mentioned above. But the real problem, I suspect, stems from when John quit "She-Hulk." He blamed his departure squarely on editor Bobbie Chase, saying she had violated agreements over his creative freedom. And Bobbie was being crucified by the fans on line and in CBG. And in those days, Marvel policy was a strict "no comment" in such matters (which Byrne knew) and so Bobbie couldn't defend herself.

I considered Bobbie a dear friend and, rather than let her twist in the wind, I publicized the simple truth: That Byrne had quit off She-Hulk because there was a throwaway bit of business in a She-Hulk comic written by someone other than Byrne in which She-Hulk is shown snapping off razors in a bathtub in a futile attempt to shave her leg hair. Bobbie thought it was a cute bit and let it go through. Byrne went ballistic and resigned.>>

From what John Byrne has said on the subject, I thought there was more to it than that. There was a miniseries published that had the leg-shaving scene, which Byrne thought was absurd (he listed many reasons why this was the case). He pointed out this (along with several other flat-out factual errors, like the tribe Wyatt Wingfoot was from) to Ms. Chase and instead of the changes to the miniseries being made, changes were made to *his* copy to bring it in line with the miniseries (even though he was given ostensibly complete control over the character).

Obviously, this was his version of events, but it's not been disputed to my knowledge. If this was the case, I wouldn't blame him for "getting ballistic." (Marvel apparently had no issue with his as he returned once Ms. Chase left.)

<>

It wasn't just "because of leg hair." Many creators would have quit over similar circumstances. Would you have been keen if your copy in the Hulk had been changed against your knowledge to conform with a Hulk miniseries?

What made John Byrne "look petty" was the erroneous implication that he quit "because of leg hair." And, thanks to comic book post office, people thought that *he* had written the leg-shaving scene and quit when it was KOed. So, yes, I can understand why this would annoy him.

And I can understand why you would use your column to defend a friend (and your then-boss), but it obviously had consequences.

This, though, didn't seem to fester for long, as IIRC, you mentioned there being an issue involving Erik Larsen's depiction of you and John Byrne in an issue of Savage Dragon.

Posted by: Logan at August 4, 2003 01:45 PM

Hey thanks Tim!

But now I don't understand why would he be upset at broken razors? Makes no sense.

Posted by: Steven Clubb at August 4, 2003 03:50 PM

I don't know why X-Men: The Hidden Years was cancelled, but considering what a curmudgeon Byrne is said to be, I could imagine it was cancelled just to get Byrne away from Marvel.

There's a certain amount of weirdness around the cancellation of The Hidden Years, although at its core was Marvel culling the X-line. Every book that was selling below a certain point was cancelled, and JB's THY was well below the cut-off point--only Bishop was selling lower.

The weirdness involves some behind the scenes stuff dealing with a proposed X-Men: The End mini-series to be done by Clairemont and Byrne. From Byrne's account, Marvel tried to hold the final issues of THY hostage to get him to agree to The End... those issues ended up being published after Marvel realized that they had already paid for them.

Posted by: The Blue Spider at August 4, 2003 03:54 PM

I don't know why X-Men: The Hidden Years was cancelled, but considering what a curmudgeon Byrne is said to be, I could imagine it was cancelled just to get Byrne away from Marvel. YJ was cancelled to make way for Teen Titans, and Defenders was cancelled for so many reasons I don't even want to get into it.

X-Men: the Hidden Tears was NOT canceled because sales. Not by any means could it have been cancelled for lack of sales without a vertiable slieu of other then-current titles being canceled with it, and/or before it.

It was canceled shortly before the Morrison/Casey revamp because of politics. The Powers That Be believed that a series set in the past would confuse readers. They were steadfast in the belief that readers would be confused with things like Cyclops and Jean Grey not being married and rot like that.

Idiots. I think it was Joe Quesada but I cannot say for sure... so take it for gospel yet.

Posted by: Steven Clubb at August 4, 2003 04:06 PM

X-Men: the Hidden Tears was NOT canceled because sales. Not by any means could it have been cancelled for lack of sales without a vertiable slieu of other then-current titles being canceled with it, and/or before it.

I'd agree that it wasn't cancelled due to low sales (it was above Marvel's usual cut-off level), but when the X-Cull was announced, it became clear that sales were the criteria Marvel was using as no other criteria made the slightest bit of sense... even if they weren't admitting it. The lower-selling of the X-books got the axe, the higher-selling ones got a reprieve.

It does make sense. If you're writing an X-book (or Spider-Man or Batman or Superman), then you *should* be pulling in better than average numbers. Same thing when Chuck Dixon's MARVEL KNIGHTS was cancelled, as it starred three characters regularly appearing in the Top 20... and it's only pulling in okay numbers. If you're writing a book for a popular franchise, you are going to be held to a higher standard.

Posted by: Scavenger at August 4, 2003 04:38 PM

being an issue involving Erik Larsen's depiction of you and John Byrne in an issue of Savage Dragon.

In one of the early Image books...Either Spawn or Dragon, there were 2 KKK members called Petey and Johnny clearly meant to be PAD and Byrne...both who had made comments not glowing about the intial Image press releases.

I had actually never noticed (in the more public areas) anything between Byrne and PAD with Larsen..McFarlane certainly, but Larsen always seemed to be the small guy standing behind the big gang leader trying to act tough..trying to pick a fight with people who we'ren't paying attention to him.

Posted by: Frank Cooper at August 4, 2003 05:10 PM

But now I don't understand why would he be upset at broken razors? Makes no sense.

His complaint was that the joke made She-Hulk look stupid ("Why would she keep trying to shave after the first razor broke?") and it 'violated' his 'rules' about her ("her hair doesn't grow. Don't ask me how the hair on her head got there or about her hair anywhere else.")

I think both of these are overreactions to a simple joke.

Posted by: SER at August 4, 2003 05:54 PM

But now I don't understand why would he be upset at broken razors? Makes no sense.

His complaint was that the joke made She-Hulk look stupid ("Why would she keep trying to shave after the first razor broke?") and it 'violated' his 'rules' about her ("her hair doesn't grow. Don't ask me how the hair on her head got there or about her hair anywhere else.")

I think both of these are overreactions to a simple joke. >>

Did you read my previous post? Byrne "overreacted" to having his copy changed to conform to the mini when he was told that he was in charge of the character. I can understand perhaps why this was done (under deadline pressure, it might have been easier to change his work rather than what was already out the door -- but I won't speculate). However, I can also understand why he bolted (it also involved the then-editor in chief).

Again, it's more complex than you wish to make it. His actions were also more justified than you wish to make it.

(It's also not that incongruous to think that the hair on her head grows but not the hair on her legs.)

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 4, 2003 06:15 PM

Ser; don't pay attention to Cooper concerning John Byrne.

He post topics after topics on the JoeQ board bashing John.

Posted by: ObeeKris at August 4, 2003 06:36 PM

**Peter; I was under the impression that you liked Hulk movie.

But now are you saying that it was bad because it was the mindless rampaging Hulk like what Byrne did??**

Where did PAD say it was a bad movie? He said people were talking about the disappointing take. He didn't say a word about the quality of the movie.

Posted by: Urban Shocker at August 4, 2003 06:43 PM

I enjoy some of Byrne's work as well as Peter's and Erik's. I just don't understand why these talented creators dislike each other so much. You'd think there would be enough common ground there that they would be friends. They would get so much more out of life if they allowed themselves to exchange ideas. As an artist, I'm always interested in what others have to say, even if I disagree. Maybe there's a story idea there somewhere. Frankly, I have no use for hate. I find it to be a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. Can't we all just get along?

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Posted by: Cory!! Strode at August 4, 2003 08:36 PM

"X-Men: the Hidden Tears was NOT canceled because sales. Not by any means could it have been cancelled for lack of sales without a vertiable slieu of other then-current titles being canceled with it, and/or before it."

It was the lowest selling X-Men title ever, was losing sales at around 500 - 1000 a month and was based on stories 30 years old. Yeah, some other books were selling worse, but they didn't have X-Men in the title. It was sales, and the fact that it was painfully reader-unfriendly, could not have been repackacked in trade paperback form (as it was a never ending storyline that just seemed to go on and on).

Were there things other than sales involved? Yep. The fact that no one working on the book had a plan to make sales go up, and the fact that all of the "continuity focused" comics from Marvel were dying on the vine. But as I have said in a private letter to a poster, if the comic was selling 40,000 or more a month, none of the other factors would have applied.

The days when you can do a comic book series based on continuity holes set in the past is long gone. I love Roy Thomas as much as anyone, but you don't see a stampede to bring back All Star Squadron.

Posted by: Peter David at August 4, 2003 11:53 PM

It wasn't just "because of leg hair." Many creators would have quit over similar circumstances.

Actually, I'm thinking no, they wouldn't.

Would you have been keen if your copy in the Hulk had been changed against your knowledge to conform with a Hulk miniseries?

Not remotely analagous. No one was changing John's material without his knowledge.

PAD

Posted by: James Randall at August 5, 2003 03:40 AM

Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but as to the whole Alpha Flight deal: Wasn't Peter still part of the sales division when that happened? And wasn't it part of his job to SELL comics? I suppose it is anyone's opinion as to whether revealing the climax of the story would sell more, but then again, maybe some people picked it up just to see if he was right or not. Plus, Marvel had been running in-house ads warning people that one of the team WOULD die at the end of the story.

Posted by: Logan at August 5, 2003 03:48 AM

Peter...could you explain what it was that made John Byrne quit She-Hulk? It makes no sense to quit just because she's shaving her legs. Please elaborate.

Posted by: Alex Mandarino at August 5, 2003 04:19 AM

John Byrne quitted She-Hulk because he didn't agree with the scene where She-Hulk shaved her legs. That scene was shown ia a She-Hulk GN, written by another person. But Byrne didn't agree with it and quitted the title.

So, it really all comes down to a "leg-hair" item. Hell, She-Hulk is a Marvel property, another writer can even turn her red skinned, if Marvel let him.

Posted by: Zhen Dil Oloth at August 5, 2003 08:19 AM

Alex; did you even read SER's posts???

Posted by: James Randall at August 5, 2003 11:26 PM

Hey, given Byrne's opinion about how a first issue should be done, I wonder how much he liked Silver Surfer #1 from a few weeks ago. I mean, the Surfer was in what, two panels? If that.

Posted by: Alexandre Mandarino at August 7, 2003 01:52 AM

Yes, I did read them. But that doesn't change it at all: Marvel owns She-Hulk and can do whatever they want with the character. Byrne should already created a proper and decent creator-owned series or character. He should stop complaining about how a publisher treats its sandbox characters. Not even Stan Lee cares about this characters anymore.

Posted by: Frank Cooper at August 7, 2003 07:25 AM

**Serious question, Frank: PAD and JB have a definite past together, and so there's a reason for their animosity toward one another. But, why do you have such a grudge against JB that you constantly dog on him? Is it just because of something he said in response to you on a message board?

If you don't care for his attitude, fine. But, I think this vendetta of yours is unhealthy. Do as you please, I guess, but sometimes you seem as obsessed as Kurt Busiek's ex-pal that dedicated web pages to haunting the guy.

Seriously, do you think anything positive will result from your attacks on JB? Is there an end result that you are shooting for, or do you just receive satisfaction from deriding the man?

Just curious.

If it's your idea of fun, go ahead, but it seems like a waste of energy that could be put to better use. **

I've never understood these remarks on message boards -- like clockwork, they come up, someone saying someone else's posting style is unhealthy, and they should be focusing on more productive things.

It's not as if I spend a majority of my waking hours on message boards. I don't even spend spend a majority of my free time on the internet. Of my internet time, only a small portion is spent on message boards, and an even smaller time on comic book message boards.

Even given all of that, I still find any admonishment like "Oh, you could be doing something more productive" disingenuous. We're all right here posting on comic book message boards, which I think meets the definition of unproductive. We can all spend our time on message boards on other, more productive, pursuits, but, at that moment, we're not, and that doesn't mean we don't spend our other time on more productive things. So, I don't see this validity of the productivity assumption.

On Byrne:

Nothing specific has happened between us. We've never met. As long as I've been reading interviews with him, there has always seemed to be a disconnect between what he says (in stident terms) and what he does. As the 80s and 90s moved on, I found what I was reading to be more and more outrageous and to be simply unable to stand up under scrutiny.

Finally, I discovered that he was posting him comments online and that he would take questions from others. There was a consistent pattern of assuming an agenda from question-askers, speaking authoritatively on things on which he had no authority, and general rudeness.

My goals when I first began contacting him online were to clarify comments he'd made that seemed too outrageous to be taken seriously (this was The Time Before People Like Ann Coulter), and his responses were rude and missed the point. He claimed over and over that he liked debate ("dust-ups") and that he gave as good as he got. I found out over time that this was complete BS on his part. I was consistently polite and supported my comments while he would spew profanities and insults and resort to ad hominems.

For a long time, I thought it was a simple question of miscommunication. I thought I could reach him by pointing out the fallacies in his positions. He was clearly not interested in that kind of discourse (simply look at his non-apology apologies that have been on the internet in recent days.)

Now, I don't think I can reach him, but I think I can reach the people who read him messages, either through humor or debate. His meltdown over the rape/file-sharing comments should have come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to his behavior. Sometimes you just have to laugh at (not with) what John says.

Clearly, I've struck a chord with someone. There are a number of userIDs out there with variations of my name who post on various boards to mock me. I fugure that there are less actual people behind those userIDs than there are userIDs.

I post about John Byrne because I have something to say, because I think it's fun, and because I like to. No one has to read it.

Posted by: Bill Hood at August 13, 2003 06:57 PM

Listen,

Going against the grain here, but, I like John Byrne. As an artist. A writer, however, not so much. His stories that I've read...as well as his novels just really don't do anything for me. PAD however ROCKS, I mean sure there've been a few missteps as far as stories go, there always are, but they are few and far between. My opinion is this, Byrne needs to stick to what he does best, which is art...leave the writing to the professionals.