September 30, 2005

Erik, you ignorant slut

I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there's a nice article about "Fallen Angel," complete with more artwork from issue #1. And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own--which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned...just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are "pussies," resting on their "fat asses" and failing to "show (Erik) what (they've) got."

Now I haven't bothered with Larsen's previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of "But I digress" for transitions.) But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address...

Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer "hold back," I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it. Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that--freed of the shackles of the main companies--all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes. Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.

(This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. "Sachs & Violens," "Soulsearchers and Company," "Fallen Angel," plus my novel creations such as "Sir Apropos of Nothing" are nothing like my other comic book work.)

Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?

Okay. Fine.

Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said. Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it. If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you're just not trying hard enough and you're a wimp and pussy. Which I'm sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven't owned any scripts they've written, ever.

What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be...jealousy? Well, let's check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on "Aquaman" that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his...and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn't want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod. Maybe he's the fox dismissing those grapes as just too damned sour.

Or maybe he's just shilling for Image, with "Show me what you can do" as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine. Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I'd say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jackass isn't the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone. Well...almost everyone.

Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever...God bless 'em. There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hell does ANYONE get off bitch-slapping people who are living out their dreams...the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with? And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive "peachy." It deserves a "well done you" and "welcome to the club" and "stick with it." It doesn't deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.

And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.

Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.

Just one fan's opinion.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at September 30, 2005 01:58 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Nick Eden at September 30, 2005 02:45 PM

Glad it wasn't just me that was put in mind of the original BID and the Flame war the followed.

The interesting thing as far as I could see was that Larsen appeared to be agreeing with your original position - that he, and his ilk, hadn't beeing doing their best before and should be ashamed of themselves.

At least I think that's what he was saying.

Posted by: George Shuma at September 30, 2005 02:53 PM

Erik Larson, in my opinion, is one of the many undertalented creators operating in the comics field. I simply do not like his work or his attitude towards comics and those who read them. And to this end, I tell him so using the only method he understands: I do not purchase his material. Hit Hhim i the wallet, that's the only language he will ever understand.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at September 30, 2005 02:54 PM

"Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy."

Prdoucing it on a regular basis apparently plays no factor in that happiness. I guess I should lower my expectations that Savage Dragon, which is months behind schedule since its last issue, will see stands anytime soon. Maybe, like Erik, I'll change where Savage Dragon sits in my priority list.

fRed

Posted by: Michael Brunner at September 30, 2005 03:07 PM

If working on books you don't own makes you a pussy, then what is he for his Aquaman stint & attempt at doing the Hulk?

Is he a pussy, schizoid, or just being an attention whore?

Having just read his diatrabe, I think he's gone off his meds.

BTW - wasn't he "name withheld" from a few years back?

Posted by: James Blight at September 30, 2005 03:19 PM

Another quote from Mr. Larson from the same article:

"So-- what's your excuse? What are you waiting for?

And it doesn't have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn't get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still-- most of them weren't)."

Okay. And Savage Dragon isn't the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I'm the first to notice that).

Posted by: John Lewis, Jr. at September 30, 2005 03:26 PM

See I'm kinda torn with this one. It's something that I've been discussing on one of the message boards.

I've always been a Peter David fan, but for a while there I wanted him to write something without using established characters. There was a time when the only thing out and readily available David-written was comic work, using establish characters and Star Trek novels. His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me).

But then I got thinking that a world without a Mark Bagley drawn Spider-Man would not be a happy place as far as I’m concerned.

But like Peter said, do what makes you happy...

Posted by: Peter David at September 30, 2005 03:35 PM

"And it doesn't have to be a Spider-Man knock off or a Batman clone in order to make it in this market. The icons of today didn't get to be the icons of today by being copies of the icons of yesterday (okay, the Hulk was pretty much a blatant rip off of Mr. Hyde but still-- most of them weren't)."

Okay. And Savage Dragon isn't the Hulk with a big fin on his head (not that I'm the first to notice that)."

I didn't even get into that because by me it was off topic, plus I didn't want discussion to dissolve into a defense of the quality of "Savage Dragon"--a title enjoyed by quite a few people.

That said, though, Larsen is dead wrong. I mean just flat out wrong. The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore...and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday.

Batman is a combination of Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, and the Scarlet Pimpernel, with a dash of Mary Reinhart's "the Bat" tossed in.

Superman is George Wylie's gladiator crossed with Doc Savage, with roots going back to Hercules.

The Flash is based upon Mercury, so much so that the Golden Age Flash's costume is wearing the classic Hermes helmet.

Thor is Thor. The Justice League is a modern day version of the knights of the round table.

Then again, someone who was baffled by a villain named "Charybdis" and changed his name to "Piranha Guy" can't be expected to have much of a grasp of classic icons.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at September 30, 2005 03:38 PM

"His original novels were all out of print. I greatly enjoyed Hulk and Supergirl and the Star Trek novels, I just wanted to see him take a crack at some original concepts. Then Sir Apropos came along and the Knight books, and everything was cool, and I was very pleased (not that any writer or creator has any calling to please me)."

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation." I was going out of my mind. I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

PAD

Posted by: Bobb at September 30, 2005 03:40 PM

I kept thinking throughout Larson's latest "wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a publishing machine in their basement? Just to produce their own work?"

Take this "logic" a step farther...why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you're just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. "Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ass, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people."

I'm sure it's nice to be one of the original Image boys, and have the clout to get the financing together to start your own publishing company. But I was really turned off by the way Larson basically slammed every fan who'd ever dreamed of getting their story for their favorite character printed.

Look at it this way...for every Raphael or Michaelangelo, there's a million guys named Bill that can copy the TMNT's brilliant works, but their own creations are just ok. And no, Larson is NOT a TMNT. He's a decent guy that lucked onto some bigger talents, and managed to get his baby printed his way. Good for him. Seeing him piss in everyone else's pools just makes him look petty.

Posted by: Knuckles at September 30, 2005 03:40 PM

Part of the challenge (in my mind) in taking on established characters is MAKING them your own. I'd almost want to argue that the only reason Erik Larsen went to Savage Dragon is because his takes on characters were so goddam stupid that no one either wanted to buy them, or publish them. But that would be petty. I enjoyed PAD's run on the Hulk because he approached a character I found to be intrinsically uninteresting, and made him interesting.

Let's use Alan Moore and 'Swamp Thing' as a test case. Does anyone want to argue that Moore's run on ST was NOT one of the most influential comic book runs in history? If they do, they are either fools or simply weren't paying attention. He took a very uninteresting monster book that was not created by him and made it something completely different and spectacular.

To me, taking an established character and making your run on that book so distinctive, so unusual and so superior, that you become the first name out of people's mouths when they discuss it (whether you created the character or not), then you have done something special. Who gives a damn if you created it?

(On the note of creator-owned super hero books, I have to give the highest props to Kurt Busiek and 'Astro City'. I only recently discovered this, and holy crap am I impressed. It's the "Firefly" of the super hero world.

And on the note of taking established characters who suck - ok, I realize it may just be me that hates Dr. Strange, Namor and the Silver Surfer - and making them interesting and new, I have to give props to Giffen/DeMatteis for their current run on "The Defenders." Damn, I love that book.)

Posted by: John Lewis, Jr. at September 30, 2005 03:51 PM

"And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation." I was going out of my mind. I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

PAD"

That totally sucks, but I can see it happening, now that you mention it.

All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer's credit pretty much assures I'll buy it.

Posted by: Bobb at September 30, 2005 03:58 PM

"The icons of today became what they are for two reasons: Massive distribution of a low priced product, neither of which exist anymore...and the fact that they ARE copies of the icons of yesterday."

Yeah, what PAD said.

I'm at a loss that someone as prominent as Larson is in the comics field can be so ignorant of the actual history of the field he works in. There's a reason why new superhero creations are hard to sell...the field is saturated with icons, dervites, and "new" creations. What's a good Big Two print run these days? 100,000? And few folks buying multiple issues? That means that there's at most about 100,000 customers out there, each with bills, families, expenses, etc., meaning they each can't buy every single comic produced. It's Wednesday, you hit your LCS on your lunch break, and you see the latest X-Book, which you've been collecting since you were 12, and some brand new T-Men book. It looks neat, but your mortgage payment is coming up, so you just leave it. It may very well be the next Big Comic Thing, but you're not going to shell out anOTHer $3 to try it out, because you've been reading comics for 20 years, you know what you like, and you've pretty much seen it all in your time as a collector.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at September 30, 2005 04:00 PM

>All brown nosing aside, the name Peter David in the writer's credit pretty much assures I'll buy it.

Cool! So that means that the chances of Angel Love returning with a new series again aren't dead!

Posted by: John W at September 30, 2005 04:07 PM

Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?

So when he says that a creator should create their own property rather than add to someone else's creation, is that not the same path that Mr "Better than Marvel/DC writers" took?

Posted by: BBayliss at September 30, 2005 04:08 PM

Bobb: "Take this "logic" a step farther...why stop at just writing about your own creation? If you have to rely on some *aritst* to render your work for you, you're just slacking off. Ditto for the color. Or the binding. Or the distribution. "Using Diamond? Pfah, lazy-ass, get on your ten-speed and deliver them comics to the 5 and 10 yourself, like they used to in the old days, when comics meant something to people.""

Some people are doing a variance of just that...
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=87e21c878d3cfb385a8e66f400c2501a&threadid=447421

Posted by: James Blight at September 30, 2005 04:17 PM

"The thing is-- people like new stuff. That's why Clorox Bleach keeps saying that they're new and improved. People want something new. " -- Eric Larson

And how many titles has Larson created over the last ten years that have lasted more than four issues? In fact, besides Jim Lee, how many of the original seven founders of Image are doing anything that’s turning the comics world on its ear, beyond administration? Jim Valentino is recurrently trying to resurrect his one-shot deal, Shadowhawk, Todd McFarlane still hawks his toys, and Mr. Larson pumps out his original Image title - the only title of his with any renown, but with little industry or commercial impact. What is Larson doing that’s “new and improved”?

I can appreciate the criticism that the comics industry, when it comes to the Big Two, are seeing a somewhat stagnant creative spell when it comes to superheroes stories. Mr. Larson is right that we DO need to see more blood and life in superhero stories, and more options outside of them (I'm enjoying Fables and Y: The Last Man moreso than most of Marvel's books right now). He also makes the valid point that a corporately-owned character will obviously have editorial safeguards that restrict complete freedom in terms of storytelling. But his arguments seem to stem just from this one point. And the framework for his "encouragement" is so aggressive and inappropriately self-exclusive, considering his unimpressive resume in comics in general and especially in being a force in keeping comics innovative.

Mr. Larsen also seems neglectful of a predisposition for superhero comics -- they sell better. So creators, even ones who have good creator-owned ideas, often take work with the Big Two just to build up some "street cred" before they introduce a new, unsolicited product into the market (and yes, a lot of people make it to the Big Two by reversing the order, but that's a harder battle). Working for a major publisher is also a way to learn some of the kicks of the industry before jumping into the water feet first. This need to strategize may be a bit calculated, but that doesn't make it less of a need. After all, all seven Image founders were originally Marvel artists. There was nothing that stopped them from entering the comics in the creative-owned marketplace.

As well, many professional artists in the field HAVE to take their lead from the writer -- that doesn't preclude one from developing as a writer if they have such an inclination, but if the artist doesn't, then working on Batman or working on a creator-owned product is pretty much the same job when sitting at the art table. However, drawing and writing are two different disciplines, and some of the Image boys took some well-deserved shots for thinking that being a good artist entitled them to a "pass" on the other side of the creative process.

Ultimately, creating a character is only the first step in creating a lasting piece of art. There are story events, character progressions, narrative expression, insightful commentaries on life and numerous other ingredients that go into crafting a good story. Being there for step one does not allow one to presume the rest will follow, nor does NOT originating the character exclude one from creating seminal pieces of work (Frank Miller, one of Mr. Larson's examples, has done it twice).

As a personal note to Mr. Larson, I would say, “Stop telling everyone how to do it, and show us how instead.”

Oh, and, “Be nice.”

Posted by: Kyle Dasan at September 30, 2005 04:22 PM

I just read Larsen's article, and I have this to say...

Is he fucking insane?!

Every single iconic hero out there is based on some legend hero in the past. Most of them stem from the Greek Gods. The figures they represent come from classic stories told long ago.

Secondly, to berate newcomers in the biz because "they don't have they're own work" is clearly asinine. These people grew up reading Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and the mainstreams. They didn’t grow up reading Savage Dragon. The broke into a rough business, because the companies that owned the characters thought that their work was good enough to represent these characters.

Personally, I think Mr. Larsen's ego is getting a little too big. Ya know, I picked up the first few issues of Savage Dragon. They sucked. It (and Spawn), solidified my opinion that artists of that caliber cannot write worth squat. I paraphrase John Lasseter here when I say, “Pretty pictures are worthless without a good story to back them up.” It’s all about the story, not how well the character is drawn. Savage Dragon is Erik Larson’s baby all right. No arguing that. Will he be a classic icon? Never. A hundred years from now, kids will see a picture of him, and say, “When did the Hulk get a fin on his head?”

Sorry Erik, you just don’t have it.

Posted by: L.O. Quint at September 30, 2005 04:36 PM

Peter (et al), let me bounce this back and see if I understand correctly: You're saying Erik Larsen's attitude--and message--is childish, aggressive, devisive, narrow, and unsupportive?

When I read his column I had mixed feelings: I support the pep-talk encouraging creators and artists to strive to be their best, but I don't think that requires that they disassociate themselves with corporate comics. By the end of his column it felt more like a rant than an observation, certainly not "fair and balanced." It sounded to me like an ultimatum: Do it one way or you suck. And any time I'm confronted with an ultimatum--in conversation--it's a turn-off. Life is far more complex and beautiful than to be stuffed into a single format.

It is no small thing to congratulate someone for coming in last place, if they have tried. I believe Erik said something about "better to have loved . . ." But is sounds to me like he's being mighty strict about they kind of love one is allowed to enjoy.

But, though his tone is too confrontational, and his condemnation is not shared by me, I do read a truth resonating in that particular diatribe. It's just surrounded by a little too much evangalism.

Do good.

For some people, to do good means to strive for purity, for others it means something else. I think Erik clearly made his point that he favors a kind of purity in comics production. I do not think he's "justified" to piss on anyone else, but he doesn't need my approval. I support that it's his column and I'll simply discard the bits I don't like.

I can't help but think he's got a point, but it's obscured by his aggression. Too bad, because otherwise it could be a good motivating columnn. Instead it's just a rant by a guy with some authority.

Nice rebuttle PAD.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at September 30, 2005 04:41 PM

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation."

Sometimes, I seriously have to wonder if the publishing industry doesn't know what's good for them. :)

I keep seeing the same thing (when the subject comes up) from Raymond Feist - people ask if he'll do something other than Riftwar, whether it's fantasy or sci-fi or whatever. And he keeps having to reply that, even if he wanted to write something else, his publisher isn't very interested.

Posted by: Knuckles at September 30, 2005 04:51 PM

That comment about Ray Feist is too bad. I really enjoyed "Faerie Tale".

Posted by: George Tramountanas at September 30, 2005 04:56 PM

And to bring things full circle...

Here is the article about Peter's new wholly-original concept - the one that got Peter to visit CBR - at the following link:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=5969

Posted by: DJ_Convoy at September 30, 2005 05:00 PM

Well, at least Larsen didn't "withhold" his name this time...

Justin

Posted by: lawrence at September 30, 2005 05:11 PM

What Larsen is saying isn't so much as "don't write for others" as much as it is "don't write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input." Can't say i can argue with that.

Don't get me wrong, for me Peter's run on Supergirl is my holy grail of comics but its great to see that with Fallen Angel and other such titles he's able to work without the helping hand of playing on past continuity and ideas. With Fallen Angel Peter created a new universe in which he could play with as opposed to Supergirl where he had to follow the guidelines the DCU lays down and that is far more impressive than just writing another mainstream comics story.

Posted by: Jeff Suess at September 30, 2005 05:14 PM


J.K. Woodward:
"So in the first arc, we'll be revealing that the Fallen Angel is, in fact, Supergirl and…wait, that's not quite right."

It was great to hear someone else talk about Fallen Angel with the same enthusiasm as PAD. The article about Woodward and IDW Editor-in-Chief Chris Ryall was a great behind-the-scenes take. Thanks for pointing out the story.

Re: Larsen

I wonder who exactly he's talking about. Artists, I suppose, back on his whole "artists don't need writers" kick. Because most of the big name writers at Marvel and DC do have creator-owned titles (Bendis, Millar, Rucka) or projects (Winick). Art, on the other hand, is much more time-consuming. And while Bendis can write five-plus comics a month, Mark Bagley can only do one and a half issues of Ultimate Spider-Man (which is really a remarkable pace).

Erik Larsen's definition of quality is "do it all yourself." Thankfully Larsen decided to work in the comics field instead of bridge construction.

Posted by: Knuckles at September 30, 2005 05:18 PM

What Larsen is saying isn't so much as "don't write for others" as much as it is "don't write for others all the time and get one of your ideas and concepts out there if only to say that you have your own ideas or that your ideas are still good without any higher up editorial input." Can't say i can argue with that.

I need clarification on that point, as the grammar is a bit confusing. Do you mean to say that his point is simply "Don't only create for others, thereby sacrificing your own creative impulses?" Because it sure didn't read that way to me. It read as "If you only work on characters that are owned by someone else, you're a pussy, creatively bankrupt, and I fart in your general direction." Which is his prerogative. However, I think it's a shallow and misguided comment.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at September 30, 2005 05:18 PM

I think Larsen has a point. Look at all these new people taking over some of the key Marvel characters. Like that guy Straczynski who's been writing Spider-Man and recently took over Fantastic Four. Or somebody named Whedon who's just muscled in on X-Men. If these guys had any real talent, why don't they try creating their own characters, maybe for film or television? And I just read about some guy named Damon Lindelof, who's going to be writing Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk. I gotta tell ya, all these newcomers leave me a little bit, well, lost.

Posted by: joelfinkle at September 30, 2005 05:29 PM

There are two very good reasons for working for the big companies on established characters:
1) It puts food on the table for a new artist. If nobody knows who you are, it's going to be very hard to market your creator-owned work. There are some great places to pitch self-created stuff, but previous work is going to open up the doors, and self-publishing will kill you before you ever get an audience
2) It's fun. I've read plenty of 'big' artists and writers say, "I'd love a chance to work on Superman" or "Batman would be my first choice when I my exclusive contract with Marvel runs out."

And truly, the same thing exists in the TV world. Read Stracyznski's decade of rants of how hard it was to pitch Babylon 5, and that was after a significant career on prime time dramas. That's about the closest metaphor, but even there, a TV producer doesn't own his show.
\

Posted by: Jim at September 30, 2005 05:46 PM

I wonder… are all those writers for soap operas and sitcoms and Star Trek and CSI also "pussies" (and such) for writing stuff owned by someone else rather than creating stuff they own themselves?

Posted by: Victor Infante at September 30, 2005 05:52 PM

I can't take Larsen seriously. His sole noteworthy claim to originality is a working-class Hulk with a fin on his head.

He can come back and rant when he's done some original work that's actually interesting.

Posted by: Jeff Lawson at September 30, 2005 05:55 PM

I was pretty unimpressed with Larsen's article, as well.

Posted by: Greg O. at September 30, 2005 05:57 PM

"Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?"

Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.

Posted by: Peter David at September 30, 2005 06:19 PM

I just noticed that I said "George Wylie" was the creator of Gladiator. Don't know where I got that from; it's Phillip Wylie. Which I probably misspelled, but at least I'm not saying it's George anymore.

"Angel Love?" That wasn't me. I write "Fallen Angel."

PAD

Posted by: James Blight at September 30, 2005 06:22 PM

Posted by: Greg O. at September 30, 2005 05:57 PM

' "Erm... what came first?

Savage Dragon or the work that Erik for Marvel?"

Savage Dragon, as part of Graphic Fantasy, a self-publishing venture. Pick your potshots more carefully. You went pretty wide on that one.'

Of course, the Graphic Fantasy was a limited venture before, using Mr. Larsen's terminology, he became a "pussy" and headed to Marvel for a couple of years before returning and revamping the more commonly recognized incarnation of Savage Dragon for Image.

If anything, the chronology of events damns Larsen more than exonerates him -- if he was truly the bastion of dedication he presented as the ideal in his article, he never would have abandoned his creation in the first place. Also, the fact that Larsen basically recreated the character (not the visual of the character) from scratch is a strong indication that no one was expected to associate (or even acknowledge) the current Dragon character with the prototype incarnation. (After all, when Larsen was younger, he once imagined Dragon as being a rage-induced alter ego).

Therefore, John W's comment falls more into the "not aware of a trivial detail of a trivial publication." The context of his statement is still pretty valid, and Larsen's hyprocrasy still radiant.


Posted by: Elayne Riggs at September 30, 2005 07:07 PM

Oh my. Shades of (the lead-up to) Comicfest '93! Peter, warn me next time before you give me nostalgia whiplash. :)

Posted by: Victor Infante at September 30, 2005 07:14 PM

I think what gets me about this whole thing (and what drove me to flippancy a short while ago. And, as it turns out, not even original flippancy) is that Larsen's work, by and large, ISN'T very original. At all. He pretty much just apes all the dumb tropes from the big guys, with characters that are obviously derivative. It's not like he's been writing something like "Powers" or "Astro City" here.

In a lot of ways, I'd have to say he's a stellar example of everything that's WRONG with superhero comics these days -- whether he's working for DC or Image: flat, uninventive stories without much sense of care or joy in them, and art that's not any fun to look at.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at September 30, 2005 07:30 PM

I'm with knuckles on this one. If I had one chance to write a comic book that would serve as an example of what I could do, I certainly would not write an established character. It's hard to write a good story under any circumstances, but what advantages does a company owned book bring? You have to work with established continuity, characters that have been around for decades, and it's all under the magnifying glass of a fan base that will jump ugly on you if the character so much as thinks something that contradicts anything done since the dawn of time...

Forget that. It's much easier to work with your own world. I know that Allan Moore will impress me with any book he writes but his Superman 2-part story blew me away, something I didn't think would ever happen with a character that old.

Now, the fame and rewards are probably easier to achieve with a company book but Larson's point still fails. As good as Fallen Angel and Maddrox were, I'm more impressed with what PAD has done with Hulk because at th1s point it takes real talent to show us something new on Hulk.

Posted by: Craig O. at September 30, 2005 08:14 PM

Wow. I must have read something different. I'm pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don't create anything new. He's wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.

People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis' Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ass comics.

Posted by: tori at September 30, 2005 08:20 PM

Peter
I have a few thoughts on the subject
having just and i do mean just breaking into the field of comics i have 1 dream
to write a wonder woman story
ive been doing the creator own stuff for years and years i like doing that so much but to be part of the book that started my love of comics that would fill me with a entirly different kind of joy
pardon the typos and what not as i tend to write as i think being disabled it takes me awhile

Posted by: roger Tang at September 30, 2005 08:58 PM

Wow. I must have read something different. I'm pretty sure Erik was aiming the article to the more seasoned professionals who don't create anything new. He's wondering were the new Hulks, spidermans, and Batmans, and Wolverines are.

People like Kirkman are great on Marvel Team Up, but on Invincible he stuff absolutely shines. Bendis' Avengers is great, but Powers absolutely rules. I think if some more of the pros out there gave creator owned stuff a shot we would have some kick ass comics.

Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work....

Posted by: Wolvy at September 30, 2005 09:22 PM

I think it's just plain stupid of him to call people who want to work on company owned characters, Pussies. I mean like PAD said. if you enjoy writing Daredevil or Spider-man or Batman. Then more power to ya. Do what you enjoy. If you enjoy creating new things. Then go for it. He really has no right to say everybody is a pussy who worked or works on company owned characters. He's also calling himself a pussy. His work on Spider-man, Aquaman, and him wanting to do work on the Hulk. He's just being childish and stupid.

Posted by: Craig O. at September 30, 2005 09:29 PM

"Er, those examples sorta undermine the point, donnit? For one thing, the company work post dates the original work. For another, the move to the company work has served in a lot of ways to increase sales of the creator owned work. For third, these folks are doing BOTH kinds of work...."

I don't understand... I don't remember reading where Erik wrote anything about doing only one or the other(working at Marvel/DC vs. creator owned). He's pushing creators to add something new of their own. He NEVER stated that you shouldn't aim for trying to work at the big two. I believe he was just saying that the pros should aim for more than just that.

Posted by: Kyl at September 30, 2005 09:52 PM

Even more ridiculous, Larsen's argument -- which seems to be that stories written for others' characters are merely painting by numbers and not contributing anything creative or original -- is couched in such broad terms that it implicitly encompasses writing for any sort of franchise.

By his logic, no one other than Gene Roddenberry added a unique creative vision to Star Trek -- and you can totally tell because episodes like "Darmok" and "The Inner Light" are sooo cliched and overdone by the franchise; Vince Gilligan's take on Mulder and Scully is in no way different from Chris Carter's, which is why "Bad Blood" is such a shoddy substitute for Carter's genius; Jane Espenson's portrayal of Jonathan in "Superstar" (BtVS) means nothing because she was only writing Joss's characters; and so on.

...right.

Posted by: David Seidman at September 30, 2005 09:54 PM

From PAD:
"Erik Larsen ... scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own -- which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc."

Erik does attack people who don't own their own characters, but I think he's more upset that people don't create new characters in the first place. That's why he praises Lee, Kirby, Ditko and company; they created new characters. Erik even gives the old-timers an excuse for not owning their creations. "Years back you couldn't do your own stuff. The major companies had a stranglehold on the industry and there weren't any viable alternative." (That's actually open to debate, but that's another thread.)

On the other hand, I was amused to see Erik say this: "There are thousands of stories that will never be told. Thousands of characters that will never be created ... so we can have more stories of Aquaman." He seems to be criticizing people for doing what he himself did.

It's also interesting to see this from the guy who wiped out your Aquaman work: "It is a drag when the next creative team comes along and ignores everything you set up or undoes it all."

David Seidman

Posted by: mister_pj at September 30, 2005 09:59 PM

Well, what is the old saw about opinions and body parts? Larsen is certainly entitled to his - the column has been entertaining for the most part and truthfully I think he’s going out of his way to be controversial in it - so, that being said I take away what I read with a grain of salt.

It’s not a news feature as much as Larsen’s Soapbox. I’m not defending his statements in this case and I think you’ve cited a few arguments which wind up being glossed over today on any discussion of the industry (price point and distribution).

Larsen doesn’t strike me as any less opinionated than let’s say for example Jim Shooter or Bill Jemas for what it’s worth.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at September 30, 2005 10:23 PM

So to recap, using the Larsen theorum:
Alan Moore on Swamp Thing and Miracleman: Pussy

Frank Miller on Daredevil and Dark Knight: Pussy

Neil Gaiman on Sandman (rethink of an established DC character), Books of Magic, Black Orchid and 1602: Pussy

Chris Claremont on The New X-Men: Pussy

Roy Thomas and Barry Smith on Conan: Pussies

Walt Simonson on Thor: Pussy

Yeah, I can see that he's got a point there.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at September 30, 2005 10:51 PM

>"Angel Love?" That wasn't me. I write "Fallen Angel."

>PAD

I know. I was responding to the poster who said that he'd buy any title with your name attached to it. I figured Angel Love was more fun than using Slapstick.

Fred

Posted by: Phil at September 30, 2005 10:54 PM

I'm no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.

His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table.

Posted by: Craig O. at September 30, 2005 11:08 PM

"I'm no fan of Larsen, but it seems like a lot of people are missing his point. Alan Moore DID create his own stuff (ABC, Watchmen, V For Vendetta). Frank Miller did Sin City. Walt Simonson had Star Slammers.

His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

AMEN. I begining to think people are ignoring the point just to bash Erik. Why aren't other people getting it?!?

Posted by: dave w. at October 1, 2005 12:19 AM

I admit I don't get to as many shows as I would like. And I have met/talked to very few PROS. But of the two being discussed here--One was very nice to me, listened/talked with me, and gave me an experience I will never forget. He Is My Favorite 'Pro'. I still buy/enjoy his work. His name is PAD.

Posted by: Richard Fisher at October 1, 2005 12:46 AM

I have never agreed with anything that Erik Larson has said in the past. Every time I have read one of his opinions all I could do was shake my head. Then a little while ago he said that George Perez draws crap and was overrated and untalented. It was then that I knew Erik was a moron. So this column doesn't surprise me one bit.

Posted by: Peter David at October 1, 2005 12:47 AM

"His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

No, his point is that anyone who is happy to be doing Spider-Man and/or Superman and isn't aspiring to anything beyond that is gutless.

Not only do I think that one has to be a considerable dick to go around insulting people simply because they're doing what they love, but the point is also completely wrong. I worked on the Hulk for over a decade. Am I to understand that in the course of all those issues, I never brought "anything new to the table?" Never provided fresh or different perspectives on the Hulk? Never changed the character, explored new sides to him? Never introduced any new characters? Where are the new Wolverines? Wolverine was created AS AN OPPONENT FOR THE HULK.

Erik's doesn't have a point. He has a false premise: That anyone who is working exclusively in an ongoing series with a pre-existing character is not contributing anything of value or worth...that they are cowards...and that, for some reason, they should feel compelled to prove their worth to Erik Larsen by--let's just say it--producing work that Image can publish, lest they continue to be pussies.

All of this is not true. It is historically not true. It is demonstrably not true. And it is insultingly not true.

PAD

Posted by: Matt McNamara at October 1, 2005 01:06 AM

Very well said. Bravo.

Posted by: dave w. at October 1, 2005 01:17 AM

I just took a very unscientific poll. I went back to the bar I just left and asked everyone there "Who is Peter David?". Most people yelled out the writer of the Hulk.(A few said Sachs & Violens, Fallen Angel. Some even said Star Trek) I was surprised considering the people I hang out with. I then asked "Who is Erik Larson?"--Total Silence.

Posted by: dave. w at October 1, 2005 01:23 AM

BID> In the 3rd Spider-Man Movie--I just heard that Hayden-Church will be playing the Sandman and Topher Grace will be playing Venom. If this is true, my niece--my four year old niece-- should be able to kick Venom's ass

Posted by: ElCoyote at October 1, 2005 01:27 AM

Heheh, I knew Larsen's column would prove to be worth it for the trainwrecks alone.

Has anyone pointed out that most of his characetrs are thinly veiled analogues of famous characters yet? His Captain Marvel rip off even LOOKED like a blond Captain Marvel, Jr.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 1, 2005 01:36 AM

Nothing much to add to what Peter has already said so well...but it occurs to me that one of the reasons that comics are still in the cultural ghetto as far as most are concerned is that too many of the creators act like high schoolers. I'm sure that there are film directors and other movie folk who in their hearts are just as much of a dick as Mr Larson but most of them are smart enough to keep it to themselves. Off the top of my head, I can only recall Sean Penn doing something similar--slamming Nicholas Cage for not taking enough challenging roles, or something equally idiotic. And the near universal reaction was "Shaddup, punk!"

If this were coming from someone of significant accomplishment it would be easier to take seriously, though I'd still disagree. From Eric Larson? I have no personal beef with the guy but his work has never elicited strong feelings either way from me. If you're going to throw around insults at your peers you had better make sure that most of them aren't your betters.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 1, 2005 01:58 AM

Dave: Well, considering that Venom will have to be just about entirely CG anyway, having Topher Grace as Eddie Brock could work if they make him an Anti-Peter as well as an Anti-Spider-Man. If it's true.

Sorry for perpetuating a digression. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Iain Gibson at October 1, 2005 02:49 AM

"His point isn't that people do work for hire, his point is that too many people are content with just working on established characters and never (as in never in their career) bring anything new to the table."

Even if this is his point - just who is he talking about? I've been through a list of writers that I follow and I can't think of a single one who hasn't been involved in producing a wholly original piece of work (in as much as such a thing can truly exist). He brought up DC's Countdown in his examples, but every writer involved in that have had their own creator-owned projects.

While I agree with the overall sentiment that there is and should be more to comics than superhero properties, I think Larsen's taking pot shots at imaginary tigers.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 1, 2005 03:33 AM

You really have to be appalled at how unintelligent Larsen’s reasoning is. Because someone may have not left behind a creator-owned character like he has, then all one has done is “a few pretty pictures” or “some fill-in issues” or “a cool cover or two”. To him “an impressive run on a title” is not good enough. No, the only measuring stick by which a creator’s career can be judged worthy is by having created a creator-owned character. You really have to admire the lengths one has to go to to come up with this type of fallacious reasoning.

Apparently it doesn’t occur to Erik that the vast majority of creators simply do not experience the type of hyped-up adulation that he and the Image Founders received in the last decade, and that because the industry is so different today that that sort of artist celebrity doesn’t exist right now, it is unlikely that anyone might do so again, so he’s pretty lucky that he enjoyed that. The fact of the matter is that Erik and the other Image guys were lucky that they were in the industry at a time when they could sell anything they put their names on, and it is for that reason that Image and their books worked. It’s idiotic to say that anyone else today would necessarily get the same assurance of success. He seems to be under the impression that everyone should create a Savage Dragon or whatever. Never mind that many, if not most artist, genuinely have no interest in writing, but merely want to be a part of the storytelling process by illustrating a writer’s stories (I am reminded of Harrison Ford’s comments that he has no interest in directing, just working with good ones himself). It simply doesn’t dawn on Larsen that some creators simply aren’t interested in reinventing the wheel, but feel genuine enjoyment in being a part of a good story.

His profane, judgmental attitude towards those who have taken a different career path than he has—something that most creators do not have as much control over as he had—and his insulting statement that those who do work for hire need to “grow up” is simply mind boggling in its ignorance and its arrogance.

Yeah, Erik, you really created something new. Between your total ignorance of anatomy, your inept use of cross-hatching, and your oh-so mature renditions of female characters with watermelon breasts and bee-stung lips, you’re a regular Leonardo Da Vinci.

Michael Brunner: BTW - wasn't he "name withheld" from a few years back?
Luigi Novi: Yes. He admitted so in the letter pages of The Savage Dragon.


Posted by: cal at October 1, 2005 03:41 AM

I have a theory. After whatever power struggle resulted in putting Larsen at the top of Image, how has the company done? Didn't he talk about bringing in new and different books? Was he able to pull that off? I honestly don't know, a lot of what Image publishes doesn't interest me and over the years, it has seemed like they start with fanfare and then disappear quietly.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is struggling to get people to bring their books to Image. Too many have gone to Image and then left when it didn't work out as advertised. And I can't imagine that little things like keeping deadlines are a source of strife at Image.

Posted by: Bring Back Zot at October 1, 2005 05:16 AM

Let me come to Mr. Larsen's defense (not that he needs me). Yes, he worked in mainstream comics before moving to Image, and yes he continues to occasionally do a few mainstream titles. However, his principal craetive focus for the last 12 years has been his Savage Dragon comic, which he writes, draws, and inks himself. I've read all 100 plus issues, and it's a very enjoyable comic. It's also one of the longest creative runs on a comic (next to of course, Dave Sim's Cerebus).

As an Image creator and publisher, he has been welcoming of new and talented creators to his company, including Erik (Age of Bronze) Shanower, Rob Kirkman, Brian Bendis, and Warren Ellis. While Image might have started out as a mainstream superhero company, it has certainly evolved into more than that.

Now, should he be criticizing creators that spend their life working for the big 2? Probably not. However, I think both Erik and Peter in a way are in their own way trying to encourage writers and artists to think outside the box and create more innovative comics.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 1, 2005 08:02 AM

I've enjoyed Erik's Dragon and was especially interested to see where the current Dragon /Bush/Kerry election storyline *Did I mention it was late? ;)* was going.

Erik as always come across as very reactionary though, when I originally read this piece, I had to wonder whether he was simply attempting to stir things up, hoping to get a number of responses from pros..... maybe to draw more to Image? It came across as a poor man's Quesada statment, which is pretty damn poor.

Fred

Posted by: Nytwyng at October 1, 2005 10:08 AM

Appropriate that Larsen's column is called "One Fan's opinion.

Appropriate because he's a prime example that a great fan does not necessarily a great creator make.

Clearly, he does (to use his own words) "understand the desire to clutch on to the security of a guaranteed page rate." Yet, clearly, he himself is not above (again, using his own words) "sucking on the corporate tit" occasionally.

These are the first words of Larsen's I've read in years, be it "opinion" column or a comic. And, it reminded me why that is. I think I'm good for another few years without them.

Posted by: Lester Carthan at October 1, 2005 10:41 AM

You see this is why I hate traversing the internet. It’s broken my fan boy heart to learn that the talented people that brought me some well incredible, incredible hulk stories aren’t the best of friends.

Anyway I think this issue is part of a larger one which is that comic book fans and or comic book retailers don’t support books that shy away from the Superhero genre. Even if a comic book creator wants to create his or her own universe the market place provides no real incentive for them to do so. In the five years I have returned to reading comic books I have seen really great books as well as really great companies die due a lack of interest from comic book fans. Until the average person who reads both Batman and Spider-man starts picking up books like Fallen Angel the comic book medium will never move beyond decades old characters wearing spandex.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 1, 2005 11:03 AM

The only solid point Erik has ever made was the one at the end of his drawing pencil.

So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel? I grew up with guys ached to break into comics with every shred of their being. You know what most of them wanted to do? They wanted to write or draw the next great Batman or Spider-Man story. They wanted to play in the heads of the charecters that they grew up reading and enjoying themselves.

It's not a bad thing. It's not even a comic book thing. How many actors talk about not feeling that thay've made it until they do Shakespeare at one of the major stages in England or some other major show on Broadway. Why is that so different then a comic writer saying that he really won't feel that he's made it until he writes (fill in the blank) at the big two?

Posted by: Travis at October 1, 2005 11:14 AM

PAD wrote:

> Thor is Thor.

Well, damn. And here I thought he was Raoul the Talking Cat.

>All of this is not true. It is historically not true. It is demonstrably not true. And it is insultingly not true.

And that, my dear sir, is absolutely true. I find it interesting that anyone who gets paid writing (which is what I am more interested in than anything else) is degraded because they do work for hire.
Hey, getting paid for writing? That's a dream gig. As far as I'm concerned.
I sorta do understand what Mr. Larsen is trying to do, but at the same time he did it badly.

- T

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 1, 2005 11:45 AM

Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 1, 2005 12:17 PM

Bring Back Zot: Let me come to Mr. Larsen's defense (not that he needs me). Yes, he worked in mainstream comics before moving to Image, and yes he continues to occasionally do a few mainstream titles. However, his principal craetive focus for the last 12 years has been his Savage Dragon comic, which he writes, draws, and inks himself.
Luigi Novi: The issue is not really whether or not Erik has done that. The issue is whether those who have not done this are “pussies,” “pathetic” “cowards” or in need of “growing up,” as he asserted in his column.

Bring Back Zot: Now, should he be criticizing creators that spend their life working for the big 2? Probably not. However, I think both Erik and Peter in a way are in their own way trying to encourage writers and artists to think outside the box and create more innovative comics.
Luigi Novi: It is the height of euphemism to refer to his insulting and condescending column as “encouragement.”

Whatever otherwise legitimate points Erik ever has is usually overshadowed by the utterly unprofessional and anti-intellectual language and fallacious reasoning with which he conveys it, whether it’s the irrelevant letter in Wizard with which he responded to David Michelenie’s assertion that he was the sole creator of Venom, or his ridiculous Name Withheld letters in CBG, or this newest incoherent rant of his.

Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?
Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. :-)


Posted by: matt butcher at October 1, 2005 01:12 PM

PAD,
I think history has proven all this true. Image comics bombed horribly and can now be found in 2 for a dollar bins whereas PAD stuff is continually being reprinted in trade paperbacks to support demand.
Matt

Posted by: Jerry C at October 1, 2005 01:28 PM

"Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career."

You miss a key point here. No one is saying that you should only work the big two and never work your own gig. The argument with Erik's statements is that there is nothing wrong with or nothing lesser about anyone who wishes to do so. I love some of the great work done by all those guys on their own creations. I've loved many of the projects that they did for the big two as well.

Posted by: McNoriah Joy at October 1, 2005 01:29 PM

Hello Peter and everyone,

I just wanted to commend you on the work you've done so far. I picked up a copy of "The Hulk" today because I wanted an example to follow while I write my own first novelization of a movie (for money!). Any pointers, references or advice? If anything at all, thanks for a point of contact with this site!

mj

Posted by: Dave Mullen at October 1, 2005 01:36 PM

Eric Larson was very lucky - he followed a very succesful McFarlane on Spiderman, where his similar style and a decent run got him good publicity in time for the founding of Image. Now, point is - I recall just after Image was founded it had made a big deal out of creators rights and offered other creators a place for their expression. This led to a number of others taking up the challenge and creating their own concepts for image... only to be uncerimoniously turned away! One of these was Jerry Ordway with his 'Wildstar' character, if a genuine talent like Ordway could be spurned by Image what exactly does that say?!

If the world was as simple as Larsdon makes out everyone would be creating their own characters... It's a very old and cynical argument.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 1, 2005 01:38 PM

"Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?
Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. :-)"


Yeah. But I meant that it's fine with me if a guy wants to write Superman rather then going out and creating his own Superman clone. If you want to write Captain America then do it. Don't turn out a book that is Captain America with a different name but a script that only requires a name change to be printed as CA. I, and many others, won't waste our time on cheap clones of icons that we like. Dig?

Posted by: Adalisa at October 1, 2005 02:34 PM

Wow...
I've heard that kind of "if you don't do things the way I like things being done" thing forever down here, where we do not have a comic book industry. Nice to know where our guys are getting it.
I will never understand the need to bash on people working in other people's characters. As someone else said, Frank Miller's Dark Night Returns is still one of Batman's finest stories, and we can put examples out all night if we want. And sure, some completely original books out there are awesome too (I'm in love with The Walking Dead right now, although it's not exactly completely original). Why Larsen can't see that the two things aren't mutually exclusive?
If he was ranting about people copying scripts that were done before, I would understand it. Even if he was ranting about people not reading original characters because they're too busy reading whatever the Big Two are putting out, I would understand it.
But his whole rant sounds more like "You're not producing the comic books I want to read, so you're not worthy" than anything else. It's really pathetic.

Posted by: Jeff Coney (www.hedgehoggames.com)) at October 1, 2005 03:12 PM

Just to clarify, only the writer, artist/writers are the people Erik was refering to, correct? Because if not it seems unfair to call all of the artist who couldn't write them selves out of a wet paper bag cowards And what about the inkers? Having finally gotten achieved my dream and gotten a work for hire job inking a comic for a company thats about to spring into existance, am I a coward? incedently the comic I'm inking is called Bullet Time written by Steve Forbes and penciled by Dave Simons. I must say Daves art is awesome. Is Dave a coward for working on this title? It's differnt, not established characters, but written by Steve. Sigh. Maybe Erik is just one of those people who get pissed off if someone is happy and doing what they love. We all know people like that.

JAC

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 1, 2005 04:17 PM

Eh, I think Erik just wanted attention, pure and simple. That's why he worked to create an opinion he knew would piss people off, and express it in as crude and offensive a way as possible. He wanted people talking about him, and the simplest way to do that is say something stupid and infflamitory.

I mean, look how well it worked for Bill Bennett...

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at October 1, 2005 04:28 PM

Okay, I went and read Larsen's little rant.

In my own relatively-unbiased opinion (as in I had never heard this man's name before, and am only vaguely familiar with the character he's so proud of), he is so full of shit it's turned his roots muddy-brown.

Is Ronald D. Moore a "pussy", a "coward", because the situations and characters he's dealing with on Battlestar Galactica were originally created by Glen Larson, back in the '70s? All he's done is completely rewrite the backstory, and explore the darkness potential in their situation (oh, and change the gender on some of the characters - big whoop) - but since he didn't make the characters up out of whole cloth, I guess the past season-and-a-half is nothing to be proud of later, whereas Joss Whedon's Western-thinly-disguised-as-space-opera is some great original work, because at least Joss invented the characters, or at least pressed the templates into action himself...

Now, for those of you who just started slavering and cutting that last phrase for pasting, I'm not saying that enjoying Firefly is some sort of sign of great moral degradation, or anything - but I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction, and as television, despite the fact that the original (sucky) concept was someone else's.

Similarly, from what little I've seen of this "Savage Dragon", while the character conception may be Larsen's own, I'd have to say that for sheer originality and skill of writing, it's not a patch on PAD's "Tempest Fugit" storyline. PAD may not have created the Hulk, but in those few issues, he made the character his own once again.

For that matter, does Larsen's rant mean that if one creates a character, but cedes control to the publishing company (not an uncommon arrangement, as I understand it), one is no longer creating? Are the characters PAD created in "X-Factor" somehow lessened in originality because the company owns them, rather than PAD himself?

As for myself, I can't draw, ink, or write to save my life. The only original characters I've created in comic-style are for role-playing games like "Champions" (Frostfire, the Target, Mass, Wetware). Since they were original, from out of the interior of muh own haid, does that make them somehow inherently superior to, for instance, PAD's run on "Aquaman"? I don't think so...

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at October 1, 2005 04:36 PM

Okay, my first thought upon reading Larsen's
"article" was that he really shouldn't be writing things to be posted on the internet when he's that drunk.

But, I noticed something else on the comicbookresources page which might help explain Larsen's rant: Angel Medina, penciler of Spawn, has just signed an exclusive deal with Marvel. Larsen does expicitly deride those involved the "'Big Two's corporate pissing contest" (and to be fair, that's not an entirely inaccurate characterization of the "exclusives" battle). Image's chief may just have gone off because he's mad at losing talent to a rival company.

And while there may be a point to be made that SOME individual comic writers/artists/etc. should try harder, Larsen's blanket condemnations are so over-the-top as to be useless. And, while I'm not offended by the use of most "bad words", his "bullshit"s, "fucking"s, "fat ass"es, and "pussy"s aren't exactly conducive to making his point in an essay for a professional site. Further, to quote the man:

"And sure, you can find a publisher who will pay you a paycheck to do your creator-owned project for their company, and they'll take a big hunk of your ownership and the rights, but you'll still have your security blanket to cling to.

You big baby.

Why don't you get off your fat ass and do something?"

He's NOT just saying that creators should also create their own original concepts. That isn't good enough for him; that's not what he's arguing for.

On the positive side, I was able to read a good Fallen Angel article ... albiet one with an alarming headline. Reading it termed a "mini-series" was worrysome - but, to quickly assure anyone who may not have read the piece yet, there are several references to story arcs, and by the end of the article, it is stated that, presuming good sales, IDW intends to publish Fallen Angel for as long as PAD wants to write it. So, cool.

Posted by: indestructibleman at October 1, 2005 05:09 PM

"Yes.

The comics industry would be much better off if Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Mike Mignola, Erik Larsen, Jim Lee, Todd McFarland, Paul Chadwick, Colleen Doran, Kyle Baker, Warren Ellis, Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird, Dave Sim, Dave Gibbons, Brian K. Vaughan, Carla Speed McNeil, Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Kurt Busiek, Mark Waid, Sergio Aragones and Peter David only worked on company owned characters for their entire career. "

and i'll miss you most of all, straw man.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at October 1, 2005 05:26 PM

Speaking of blanket statements ...

Jonathan (the other one) wrote:

"but I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction, and as television, [than Firefly] despite the fact that the original (sucky) concept was someone else's."

I've tried to watch the new Battlestar Galactica several times. It's never been able to hold my interest for more than a couple of minutes.

Now, as far as whether "Firefly" or "Battlestar" is "better" science fiction, I won't necessarily debate that with you (though when/if you see
"Serenity", it may be more SF than you expect ...). I do have a good amount of science fiction novels among the books on the bookshelf beside me (though many of them are more Robert Heinlein than "way out in deep space totally driven by theoretical concepts and devices" type-SF). And I have seen a great deal of the Star Treks - I would probably buy some Deep Space Nine seasons if they weren't $100 a pop, while I still find some of TNG, mainly most of the first season, pretty unwatchable. And, Star Wars has been a MAJOR part of my imagination since I was a kid [No, I wasn't named after Skywalker - I came first; and he's not really one of my favorite characters, either :)] - though Lucas himself doesn't call it "science fiction". But I'm not drawn to shows or films, at least at this stage in my life, just because they're SF. You may very well have more of a background in science fiction, and/or thoughts on what "real" SF is, than I, so I'll conceed that point to you if you want.

But please don't presume to speak for me and say that your BSG is "markedly better television" than Firefly. IMHO, the latter show is filled with compelling and endearing characters and interesting situations which led me to re-watch the episodes several times on tape before buying the DVD set, and led me to go see an - excellent - sequel film on its opening night. Your BSG, on the other hand, I personally don't find as watchable as the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica, LET ALONE Firefly.

And I don't mean to put down your show by that. I know how it can rankle me when someone insults Buffy the Vampire Slayer or one of my other favorites. I'm not saying that the new Battlestar Galactica isn't a well-written, produced, acted, maybe even great show; I just personally cannot get into it. While with Firefly, I certainly, certainly could. So please don't assume that we all can and must agree that BSG is "markedly better television", because I, to speak only for myself, can't and won't.


Posted by: Brian Woods at October 1, 2005 07:05 PM

::As an Image creator and publisher, he has been welcoming of new and talented creators to his company, including Erik (Age of Bronze) Shanower, Rob Kirkman, Brian Bendis, and Warren Ellis.::

IIRC, Jim Valentino brought in Bendis when he was trying to push past superheroes. It seems like Jim Lee and Homage brought in Ellis, since Ellis was writing Stormwatch (and GASP! not something creator owned). I remember reading about the other Image founders displeasure with Valentino's esoteric choices for new creators, too, although I can't back that up.

Posted by: Brian Woods at October 1, 2005 07:09 PM

::I sorta do understand what Mr. Larsen is trying to do, but at the same time he did it badly.::

I think if I had been Mr Larsen, I'd have simply said, "I think creators who don't try their hand at their own creations are missing a heck of a lot of hard work and headaches, but a lot of fun, too!"

It's too bad his head is too far up his ass for him to get the words out.

Posted by: Alan Coil at October 1, 2005 08:30 PM

Something occurred to me as I read these posts.

Didn't half the original Image guys work on books that Peter David wrote?

If not for the good stories that Peter wrote, Image probably would not have come into existence and the Image guys would never have gotten so rich.

Maybe they should be paying him royalties in honor of his making them famous.

Posted by: Peter David at October 1, 2005 09:01 PM

If not for the good stories that Peter wrote, Image probably would not have come into existence and the Image guys would never have gotten so rich."

I wouldn't go quite that far. However, when Bob Harras first showed me Todd's artwork, he said, "Do you think you can work with this guy? Because if not, I'll get you someone else." And I looked at his artwork and said, "Yeah, there's something there beyond being a Byrne clone. Let's work with him, see if we can improve can improve his storytelling."

So if I'd gone the other way, I don't know that he'd NEVER have gotten a rep. But it would have taken him longer.

PAD

Posted by: Jacob at October 1, 2005 10:44 PM

I guess I don't understand what's the big deal about this particular column--compared to his others. Yes, I get that people are offended, but Larsen didn't, this time, call anyone out by name. He could have just as easily been yelling at himself in the mirror while dictating his column to his computer. As I showed on the Bendis! board the President/Publisher of Image made some highly inappropriate commentary in his previous postings.

I thought his David Mack comment could have been interpreted as a put down because Mack doesn't publish at Image due to his move to Icon. And I kind of thought women in general would be up at arms about the weird vagina digression. Apparently not, though. Read Larsen's archive or go to the Bendis Board if the discussion interests you. I kind of wonder if the reason no one cared to discuss the topic at BMB's board was on account of how so many are trying to break into the industry (myself included) and don't want to cause any controversy with the gent in power. On the other hand, it took a lot of words for me to get to the point and maybe no one read far enough down to bother with it.
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=33379

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 1, 2005 10:48 PM

Question:

When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?

Peter mentioned Wolverine in Hulk but that was 30 years ago. Out of the characters Larsen mentioned I think Speedball is the latest and that's roughly 20 years ago. Liefeld co-creations of Deadpool & Cable were 15 years ago at least.

But since then?

Maybe that's why Larsen wants people to self publish original characters. Because the industry can use some new exciting characters.

Posted by: R. Marcej at October 1, 2005 10:57 PM

Last weekend I along with many other cartoonists/writers/artists had a table at the SPX show in Bethesda, MD.

Among the wares for sell were hundreds of original and new characters and books.

Hmmm... I didn't see Mr. Larsen there.

If Erik truely believes in what he says, why wasn't he at the show mining new creators with new characters to publish under Image.

Or am I giving Mr. Larsen too much credit.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 1, 2005 11:09 PM

Probably because Larsen doesn't do much of the mining himself. I'm pretty sure Image staff have lots of submissions to go through as is without looking for more. Especially after Diamonds new terms.

But who knows, maybe somebody from Image was there. IIRC they found a lot of the Flight creators via convention browsing.

Currently Erik is away visiting his grandfather celebrating his 100th birthday.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 1, 2005 11:50 PM

When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?

Now, the question is, are you asking about "great" characters or "marketable" characters?

Well, not being a regular comic reader (only trades), the first that immediately pops to mind is Hush, from the Batman books. That's been, what, a year or so ago?

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Jeff at October 2, 2005 01:05 AM

"When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?"

How about Buzz from Peter's Supergirl book? I'd still to see Peter come back and work on some DC book and have Buzz appear. Same thing with Wally. Oh and Twilight. And Cutter and Mattie and Comet/Andy. Sigh. I miss that Supergirl book.

Posted by: The StarWolf at October 2, 2005 01:32 AM

>Superman is George Wylie's gladiator crossed with Doc Savage, with roots going back to Hercules.

Partly disagree. Wylie's character? Sure, if you're thinking the original Supes. And Hercules? Sort of. But Doc? No, he's more of a Batman inspiration: very athletic and superbly competent but still human and very much an independently wealthy gadgeteer. Too, Supes operates with the blessings of the police whereas Doc, as with the early Batman, sometimes was at odds with them.

>I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

Sad to see it isn't just the film studios who are so massively unclear on the concept. In connection with which, a Brazilian friend translated an article for me out of one of their major magazines. It theorized that one big part of the reason Hollywood has turned out so many stinkers of late is that most major studios have been bought out by big companies which now run them as they do all their other businesses, not bothering to think that the creative process in film making simply cannot be handled in the same way. The article just might have a point there.

>I kept thinking throughout Larson's latest "wouldn't it be nice if everyone had a publishing machine in their basement? Just to produce their own work?"

Unfortunately, it isn't everyone who can be as fortunate, or as deservedly successful, as Belgian comic book writer/artist Jean Graton who now has his own publishing house whereby he now controls every aspect of the creation/publishing/printing of his long-running [no pun intended] race-car driving character Michel Vaillant.

Posted by: Iain Gibson at October 2, 2005 03:11 AM

"But Doc? No, he's more of a Batman inspiration: very athletic and superbly competent but still human and very much an independently wealthy gadgeteer."

Clark Savage - Clark Kent
Man of Bronze - Man of Steel
Fortress of Solitude - um...

Savage was a superman in the original tradition - Superman was just that extrapolated to the nth degree.

Posted by: Cory Fuka at October 2, 2005 03:39 AM

I maybe wrong.... but all of Image comics sucked. Tomb Raiden Gen 13 what kinda crap was that? I think the last Image comic I bought was Jim Mahfood or whatever that was. The only reason Image was popular was because of Marvel otherwise we wouldn't have ever been a Erik Larsen. It takes alot of guts and money now to do something like Dave Sim's cerebus. You gotta be bold and original without faking your pages. It's a tough act to follow or not follow.

Posted by: Marci Kiser at October 2, 2005 05:31 AM

Hey Peter, I just heard OJ Simpsons will be selling photos for 95$ a pop at NecroComicon.

Now let me take a stab in the dark here...

Posted by: gvalley at October 2, 2005 07:08 AM

Boy, does Larsen love to start shit or what? LOL... you can always count on him to, once in a while, just try and piss the entire comics 'community' off for the hell of it. I remember a few years back he had some pretty derogatory stuff to say about comics readers and comics in general that pissed ME off so bad I dropped whatever I was reading he had to do with back then (Nova? Defenders? That Fantastic Four maxi?) and wrote a couple letters to Marvel steaming and ranting about his complete disregard and lack of respect for the entire medium and the few people left to support it. Ah... glorious days of hazy innocence.

And this time around, I suppose he's mainly trying to get people to throw pitches at Image - albeit in not a very elegant manner - or maybe just to increase the hitcount on his column, who knows. At least we get a nice little pissing contest out of it.

That said, his previous column (about superheroes and aging) was pretty damn good.

Posted by: Peter David at October 2, 2005 09:41 AM

Again--OJ Simpson=NecroComicon=Los Angeles.

Me=Necronomicon=Tampa.


PAD

Posted by: Gabh at October 2, 2005 10:32 AM

What ghoul wants an O.J. Simpson autograph?

Posted by: mister_pj at October 2, 2005 10:36 AM

You know, I’m betting Larsen hasn’t been to the Mocca show in NYC. It’s one of the reasons I have to take his comments with a grain of salt. The Mocca event is so different from any mainstream comic con I’ve ever been to. Not just in the material on display but also in the demographics of the people attending the show.

Every time I’ve walked away from a Mocca show, I have the feeling that there is a vital, thriving and artistic community using comics as a means to express themselves - but, it’s a very different beast from the material put out by the mainstream companies. Web comics also are an interesting alternative to what is put out by mainstream publishers but, throughout his rant (and I may be reading into this), I get the sense Larsen just hasn’t seen a lot of this material.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 2, 2005 10:50 AM

I know for a while one of Erik Larsens favorite comic books (that he went to the comic shop to buy, take home and read) was Fantagraphics Minimum Wage.

Posted by: Doug Atkinson at October 2, 2005 11:17 AM

Speaking of Doc Savage, this is off the main topic, but it's a theory I've wanted to bring up for some time...(And it does come back around to theme of originality.)

Another comics tradition that can be traced back to Doc Savage, in part, is the "team of experts." (Other pulp heroes had teams of assistants, such as the Avenger, but Doc's was particularly prominent.) If you reduce Doc's role as the central character and spread some of his attributes around the other characters, you wind up with a team like the Challengers of the Unknown, which can be traced forwards on the one hand to the Fantastic Four and through them to the original X-Men and Doom Patrol, and on the other hand to DC's various groups like the Sea Devils and Cave Carson's crew. (And though Monk and Ham weren't the first duo to bicker and play practical jokes on each other, they weren't the last either, as the Thing and Human Torch demonstrate.)

Posted by: Leviathan at October 2, 2005 11:23 AM


Jonathan (The Other One) writes:

I think we can agree that BSG is markedly better as science fiction

Well, no. The new series is, even more than than the original, which is saying quite a lot, crap.

The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience.

In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn't work, your story can't. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005.

I don't demand perfection in the world-building of my sf -- hell, I'm a Whovian! I'll accept worlds built of wobbly cardboard! -- but I do demand that at least an effort be made.

The new BG didn't even pretend to look busy! Off-the rack suits, cigarettes, all the tropes surrounding cancer and doctor-patient relationships, the exact form of the US government and separation of powers, presidential swearing-in ceremonies, liquor, 24-hour days and cheap battery-powered wall-clocks from K-Mart.

Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example.

The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship, and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither.

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 2, 2005 12:14 PM

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they've been duped into having it...

Posted by: AnthonyX at October 2, 2005 12:51 PM

This has turned into an odd pissing match between the PAD army and Larsen.

Look, I was not a fan of the original Image crew, back then I thought of it as a war between Writers and Artists.

But Image now is a great place, with new ideas and yes new heroes. In terms of creativity, it is leaps and bounds ahead of the big two.

I hate to get all negative and self evident as well but the comics industry is going thru a HUGE downward spiral.

What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?

Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?

I thought it was an interesting and provocotive
column.


Posted by: Leviathan at October 2, 2005 01:23 PM

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

Yes, because if someone has an opinion different than yours, then obviously they've been duped into having it...

If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you've probably been duped into having that opinion.

Not all opinions are created equal, and while it's important to have an open mind, Ity's even more important that you not keep it so wide open that garbage blows in off the streets.

The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don't notice the stories are all stuff you've seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on 'em.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 2, 2005 01:25 PM

Leviathan wrote:
"The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience."

Effrontery and contempt are kind of strong words, don't you think? What, do you think Moore & co., while planning the series, sat around and said, "Our viewers are a bunch of simps and idiots, so screw 'em"? C'mon, that's silly.

Besides, there actually is more than a "slight gesture toward a semblance of culture," or at least there was in the 3 episodes I've seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can't remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before.

Are there things which probably would be different in a distant, extraterrestrial culture which aren't (the cigarettes, the liquor, the form of government, etc.)? Sure, but why is that any more of a big deal than the fact that we hear them speaking English? (Plus, part of the premise is that there is a connection with our world, hence the various Greek names in use, so who knows, maybe there'll be an explanation for it. We have no idea when the series is set, relative to our time.)

"In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn't work, your story can't. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005."

While I'm sure many would agree with you, the first sentence is open to debate - sci fi can go down many different roads. The latter, what, you've never seen science fiction that functions, and is to a large extent constructed as a direct commentary on the present before? (And why just LA circa 2005? US circa 2005 is more like it - paranoia, threats of terrorism, conflict between military and the democracy.)

"Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example."

Why would the character of the next president have to match that of LBJ? Are the only significant things in the actual iconic image of LBJ's swearing in LBJ himself and his presidency? Aren't there other meanings attached to those images, that moment?

"The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship,"

What's wrong with mainstream drama? What's wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?

"and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither."

Okay, I can see how you could try to argue that "moving starfields outside the window" might fool people into thinking something is sci fi when it's not, (though I don't think that's accurate here), but how would it fool them into thinking it was good? (And you're on shaky ground when you say that someing "is _in fact_ not good.")

Like I said, I've only seen 3 eps, the ones broadcast on NBC, but for my money, this is the best, most intelligent, most interesting TV science fiction set in space since Farscape. (No offense meant to the Firefly fans - that was a decent show.) So it's not your cuppa tea. Why does that make it horrible, an act of contempt, etc.?

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 2, 2005 01:36 PM

Leviathan wrote:
"If your opinion is that you own the Brooklyn Bridge because you just bought it from a guy in a trench-coat, you've probably been duped into having that opinion."

I don't think Moore's trying to sell anyone the Brooklyn Bridge here. He's hoping you'll give up an hour of your time each week to watch a story he's telling - hardly the same thing, and a specious argument.

"The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don't notice the stories are all stuff you've seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on 'em."

Or it's an attempt to tell a story that comments on our contemporary world, and accordingly (not out of necessity, but out of creative choice) incorporates elements of our world into the world of the story.

And again, personally, I haven't seen some of this done before on television, from this perspective (the religious conflict; seriously questionable acts committed by characters who, according to the tropes of television sci fi, should act as moral compasses, etc.)

And really, given the statements and interviews made by Moore about the show, I think you're being really unfair here. Not everyone has the same idea about what sci fi should be and what it should do. Why is that a horrible thing? Why is any attempt to put forth a different type of sci fi than the type you prefer simply a con game?

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 2, 2005 01:52 PM

Leviathan: Okay, we get it. You have a large amount of irrational hatred for a television show. That's you ropinion. (And I'll resist the temptation to hoist you upon your own petard of opinions having differing reletive worth.)

That does not mean that those who do not agree with you have been fooled or are somehow less mentally developed than you. It means they have different tastes. It's called life, and it's going to happen quite a bit, I think you'll find, so you might want to work on adapting yourself to it...

Posted by: Peter David at October 2, 2005 02:24 PM

"What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?"

Japan.

"Superman was a new idea at one time, where is the next Superman? What will propel and assist the industry to the next level? Are we stagnant?"

You're forgetting that the "one time" at which Superman debuted, comic books were ten cents, were situated on every street corner, far more kids read, there were millions of copies out of every issue, TV didn't exist and movies were what you went to on Saturdays. Now they're $2.99, they're in specialty shops and bookstores, kids are busy on the internet, or with video games and aren't reading that much anyway, cable TV is available 24/7, and movies are easily accessible on DVDs.

As for iconic characters, two thoughts: The last truly major iconic character I can think of created was Wolverine, and that was by Len Wein WHILE WRITING HULK. Furthermore, it is the corporate structure Larsen so reviles that helped make Superman the mythic character that he is.

"I thought it was an interesting and provocative column."

And if you throw eggs at people's front door, it's an interesting and provocative way of saying hello. Doesn't mean it isn't rude and insulting.

PAD

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 2, 2005 03:48 PM

Another comics tradition that can be traced back to Doc Savage, in part, is the "team of experts."

That's an interesting thought. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything before Doc that would fit the bill...unless there are some folk tales. Were there any stories in Chinese mythology like the sort of Kung-Fu movies that are so popular, with teams of characters who are each experts in one form of martial arts? Or something form mythology where a team of Gods does mighty deeds with each God using his or her special powers?

I wonder why Doc Savage has never been successfully done as a comic book.

Posted by: Tom Beland at October 2, 2005 04:01 PM

I really found this rant by Larsen, who wants to get more creator-owned books on the market... especially when I sent an entire run of TRUE STORY, SWEAR TO GOD for Image to consider reprinting in color.

It was impossible to get a hold of Larsen to begin with, with Erik never answering an email to simply ask if he'd received the package, then never letting us know what they thought. I mean, I can TAKE "sorry, this won't fit in with what we want to sell" but at least take two seconds to tell me in an email.

I was just disillusioned with Image from that point. Why blow off an indie creator with an Eisner-nominated series and then bitch about creators who aren't doing enough indy work? Dude... if you'd answer an email, perhaps they WOULD do more.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at October 2, 2005 04:06 PM

1) Jacob - Yes, it sounds like I would have been offended by several other of Larsen's columns, as well - if I had ever heard of his column before reading this thread two days ago.

2) Well, this is why I was careful to avoid attacking new Battlestar Galactica in my previous repudiation of Jonathan (the other one)'s comment. But, I will second at least part of what Leviathan is saying. From my limited exposure to new BSG (because it just didn't compell me to want to watch any more of it, any of the times I tried), I was distracted and bugged by the seemingly nonsensical EXACT CURRENT EARTH CULTURE elements which were showing up. Now, it may eventually turn out that these colonies spread out from Earth-That-Was - to borrow terminology from Firefly, that "inferior" show which also uses this premise; that would be an explanation for this Earthishness. (And, specific cultural elements of society being exactly the same in a supposedly alien culture is a lot different than a language being "translated" into English for the viewers.) Otherwise, it just seems like needlessly distracting, and possily lazy and weak, writing to me.

That said, maybe I would have a different view of the show if I had (somehow) managed to watch every minute of it. (And hearing that Michelle Forbes has shown up as Cain - while raising the question of "How many times can they play the gender-change card?" - has raised my curiosity a little again.) But, the fact that I did not, while I have watched every second of Firefly, repeatedly - Go see Serenity!!! - again speaks to the point, that we all "must" not, cannot, and will not concede that BSG is a superior television program. 'Kay?

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at October 2, 2005 04:20 PM

Yes, there are elements of known culture transplanted wholesale to BSG - in large part because those elements can say something that might takes lines, even pages, of exposition otherwise. For instance, when Kara "Starbuck" Thrace wound up back on Cylon-occupied Caprica, we saw her personal vehicle - a military-surplus HMMWV. Yes, they might have draped it with fiberglas shapes to make it look all "futuristic", but then we would have had the two characters present at the time forced into a conversation whose main point was to exposit that Kara drove a military vehicle in her off-time. Using the HMMWV itself gave us that point in a single flash of airtime, without making the characters exposit all over the place.

Besides, if you're going to claim Firefly's superiority based on that, you're going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup...

(Yes, Joss was also using existing tropes to shorthand the concept of a frontier culture. See, the idea works in a number of stories, doesn't it?)

(And I promise, this is the last time I'll derail the discussion to defend any TV show... :) )

Posted by: David S. at October 2, 2005 04:22 PM

The last time that I've read a column that was that confrontational was from one of Peter's dearest friends, Harlan Ellison. The big difference is that when Harlan didn't know what he was talking about, he was the first to admit it! Also, when he criticized SF writers for allowing the Television and Film industry to rip them off and encouraged them to take a personal interest in how their works were adapted, HE LED BY EXAMPLE!

Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?

If someone new to the comics biz was a fan of Savage Dragon and wanted to write/illustrate it, does that make him a BIG BABY?

From what I've read regarding Stan Lee's comments about Peter's work on The Hulk & Spiderman as well as his BID articles, I deeply envy Peter for receiving those praises from a legend who admittedly "paved the road that Peter's still travelling on" rather than dismiss Peter's works because his most recognizable works were created by someone else! I would feel the same way if someone else adapted Peter's original work in a film or a comic book, personal bias aside that I probably wouldn't like it as much as the original if that were to happen.

My heart goes out to you, Peter, that the publishing and movie industry still don't get it! I guess businessmen who can't see beyond a ledger never will!

Posted by: David S. at October 2, 2005 04:31 PM

For those who wish to correct me by saying that Spawn was created by Todd McFarland, not Eric Larsen, please don't. I'm well aware of that. I was just trying to make a point about creator-owned characters being treated by the Image guys, who are ALSO publishing licensed characters like..ahem... Lara Croft BTW, the same way that Larsen alledges Marvel & DC are treated these "cowards." Pot to Kettle: "What's happening, Black?"

Posted by: The StarWolf at October 2, 2005 04:57 PM

"Fortress of Solitude - um...

Batcave?

>Savage was a superman in the original tradition - Superman was just that extrapolated to the nth degree.

But, honestly, for all the similarities which you quite correctly point out, Doc has more in common with Bats than he does Supes. Another example, even Superman eventually got married. Neither Bruce nor Doc ever did. For all that he is an alien, Clark Kent fits in more with the people he's protecting than the other two ever did. Clark Kent is Clark Kent (as Byrne made clear) and becomes Superman at need. Bruce is Bruce more as a disguise than anything else (think of him in KINGDOM COME where he is BATMAN 24 hours a day). One gets the impression that Batman takes time off as Bruce. Doc doesn't even bother. Also, Both Doc and Bats are self-made specimens of uber-humanity. Superman became so because of a combination of genetics and environment which were outside his control.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 2, 2005 06:03 PM

Jaime: "When was the last really great character created via working at Marvel and/or DC?"

Sandman & co. Unusual, but still work-for-hire owned by DC.

As far as Larsen's column, I think he's got an ok point but presented it horribly. Same old, same old. Just ignore the crap.

Posted by: Nytwyng at October 2, 2005 06:48 PM

Just to step briefly into the digression for a moment....

Personally, I think trying to compare (and thus determine the "superior" of the two) Firefly and the new Battlestar Galactica is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

I enjoy both shows. But, it's hard to say which is "better" because - from my perspective - they're just so different.

With BSG, I come back to see what happens next. But, I'm not quite emotionally invested in the characters...I don't care much for them beyond how they facilitate the story's movement.

With Firefly, the characters are the thing for me. The story - in and of itself - serves to allow me to spend time with these people and informs their own personal stories. I am emotionally invested in them. (And, anyone sitting near me during Serenity the other night could have seen as such. "I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.")

So, for my two cents, it's impossible to say whether the orange makes a better apple than the apple, or vice versa.

It is, however, possible to prefer apples over oranges, or vice versa. :-)

Posted by: J. Kevin Carrier at October 2, 2005 11:04 PM

which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned.

Buscema maybe, but Kirby (Captain Victory, Silver Star, Satan's Six) and Ditko (Mr. A, Avenging World, Static) certainly did creator-owned stuff. I don't know offhand if Stan Lee actually owns any of the "Stan Lee Media" characters, or Stripperella, or any of his other later work (and he might not want to admit it if he did), but no one can accuse him of just resting on his laurels.

Anyway, Larsen's obnoxious demeanor aside, doesn't anyone think it's weird that the comics industry is so dependent on all these ancient franchises? In movies, you have some remakes and the occasional long-running series like James Bond, but for the most part it's new stuff. Same with books and tv. "CSI" spin-offs are ubiquitous now, but you know in a few years they'll fade and be replaced by the next big trend. But in comics, it's Superman-Spiderman-Batman-XMen, decade after decade. That's just bizarre.

Posted by: RAT at October 2, 2005 11:16 PM

2 little things running around my head (and after the week I've had, that's a miracle)
Firstly, in regards to the article--from what I've seen it REALLY resembles the attitudes put forth by my Creative Writing II teacher (and that term is questionable) in college. First night of the course he says to us, "You WILL not be submitting any science fiction or fantasy stories because they as a group do not represent real literature." Took all I had not to leap up and drive my pen through his temple. But, this guy was a published poet, so's all he was interested in was poetry. I like poetry, I like writing poetry, I just don't like SHOWING my poetry cuz it's just a little TOO personal. But, back to the topic, while it can be more satisfying for some to work exclusively on their own creations, others like to play with other people's worlds and see where it leads. My life would be much duller had I never been introduced to Bernie the Klingon and the phaser-proof vest.

Which sorta leads to my second point, the above Galactica complaint that said the first step in science fiction is world creation. As someone who's been writing science fiction and fantasy for the last quarter of a century, I must say that the first step is really deciding what you want to say, what kind of story you want to tell. World creation comes waaaaaay down after that. It's what my brother calls the D&D Syndrome, create whole interesting complex worlds with whole interesting complex people and you're so intent on creating them that once everything's done, you can't create anything for them to do there. Don't limit yourself to anything. Just write what's in you. Don't do it to be sold, don't do it to please anyone but yourself.

And anybody else picturing Erik as Dan Ackroyd lighting Halloween costumes on fire?

Posted by: Jerry C at October 2, 2005 11:45 PM

"I thought it was an interesting and provocative column."

Actually, despite my earlier posting, he does have a good point. The fact that it took me three readings to see it and it's taking others longer just underscores Erik's greatest failing in the industry. It's not his poor plotting, writing or sub-par artwork. It's his mouth.

Erik is making a good point. But his manner of doing it, tantrum throwing three year old, distracts everyone but the most diehard Erik supporter from seeing it. Approach is everything sometimes. If someone came up to you and told you that you clothes looked ok but you might look better in these colors with this cut, you might respond well to them and their suggestions. You would respond less well to someone who walks to you and says, "dude, your clothes look like s**t and you have no sense of style at all!"

It is true that some new blood, icon wise, is missing of late. Erik is right about this and he's not alone in saying it. I would disagree with what, I think, he puts forth as reasons for this.

There are a great deal of reasons, in this fan's opinion, for why there are no new icons out there right now. Most of them have nothing to do with anything Erik cited.

One thing that makes an icon is age. How many awesome creations have been given the "next great icon" tag over the last two decades that, while hot for a year or so, fizzled badly with age? How many "just good" characters are out there now that have been slow, quietly building over that same time period and may reach icon statues in another decade or so?

Batman, Superman and Spider-Man were all popular when they first came out but were not icons until many years later. To look around at the present crowd of characters and decry the lack of icons is shortsighted. It's like the network executives who used to cancel any new science fiction show because it wasn't doing Trek numbers and Trek buzz after four shows. Trek had a twenty year build up, major motion pictures and a Next Generation spin off behind it. New sci-fi show X didn't. But the same network executives would often overlook the failure of Trek in its first run while killing a potential future Trek like icon. Same with M*A*S*H*. It's first season ratings would kill it these days. It became one of the greatest shows of all time. Same thing with comic book icons. They need time.

Wolverine has been cited by several people on this post as one of the last great comic icons to be created. Again, that took time. He was despised across the board by fans when he was first introduced. It took a lot of time, tweaks and fan tolerance to create the Wolverine of icon status.

Another problem we have now is the greater number of challenges facing the medium for pop culture attention. Pulp novels and comics had books, radio and movies to compete against. TV was a later addition to their competition. But the competition helped the characters become icons. Radio, movies and TV looked to pulp novels and comics to flesh out their offerings a bit. Now, while that still happens, there are many more options for Hollywood to investigate for creative inspiration.

Movies and TV shows based on video games are being made left and right. Foreign films (horror this week) are the remake flavor of the month. The relatively short history of TV is being mined for nostalgia movie and TV making in an amazing (and in the case of The Love Boat movie, terrifying) rate. And that nostalgia factor is also hurting the creation by pop culture of new comic book icons. Executives and writers of movies and TV seem to want to do their version of the heroes that they grew up with or that they think will be big with the public. There's a reason that Batman Begins was made and that Superman and Wonder Woman are in the pipeline. They're bankable, proven commodities. They create buzz and even non-comic people know them. It's a bit like Trek VS show X. Hero X would have to be a mega huge hit with mega huge buzz to get the same attention as a moderately successful Batman or Superman.

That kinda hurts the pop culture forces that help create a comic book icon. The nostalgia factor really hurts. Batman becomes Vanna White in a way. She became famous for being famous. People would by books, magazines and bad TV movies because of her while they would pass up the same items featuring lesser known actresses with far greater talent. Marketing people new that and they would create things to pander to that target audience. Why risk a payday on an unknown? Same here. Why risk a payday on Hero X when Batman is there to offer up a huge payday?

The general public's attitude towards comics plays into this as well. Batman, Spider-Man and Superman create huge buzz and are hotly awaited properties as movies because people know them. Try and explain a Crow, Spawn, V, Savage Dragon, Speedball or other lesser known by the public hero and you get far less interest (if not complete disinterest). Less interest translates to more risk and that translates into less interest to take the risk by executives. Less exposure equals less ingraining into the pop culture and less "icon" status.

If Erik were serious about wanting to do something about the issues that he raised he would address these problems and others or try to get a discussion going about them. He would also not express his opinion in a way that turns off everybody but his five or six most loyal fans.

Another thing he might do is look at how he might be barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not so sure that the ideas he puts forth to back his viewpoint are that valid. I've been racking my brain here and I can not come up with one comic book character created by an independent company or creator in the last twenty or so years that is anything like an icon in pop culture or comic culture like a Batman or Superman. The big two may have done a lot of things wrong in their history but creating a cash cow is not one of those things. They did that as right as you can and they did it by creating icons. Maybe he should look at how they did it and figure out what an independent creator can do to replicate that success while not throwing out complete creativity. It may not be possible. The creative process is sometimes at odds with the things that the big two have done to create and preserve their cash cows/icons.

See, Erik is about 25% right. Maybe we should be throwing out the 75% of his stupidity to focus on that 25% right and discuss what may help the problem. Not that, despite Erik's world view, we and others haven't been doing that for years. The biggest thing Erik seems to be missing is that most people are trying to create the next big icon or iconic story everyday no matter where they work.

Another thing Erik seems to be missing is what makes people proud. I'm always proud when I put out my best effort and do my best work. It doesn't matter if it's around the house, at work or for some other institution. I would be just as proud, were I a comic book writer, if my best work was considered to be an awesome run on Batman or Superman rather then a book of my own. I think I would like my creation to be popular but I think, with my nature, that I would be proud of any work I did.

He also seems to have an odd view about legacies. He seems to believe that Savage Dragon is a greater legacy to leave the comic's world then something done by creator X at the big two. I would argue that he's wrong. Frank Miller's Batman and Daredevil runs have had more impact on comics then the Savage Dragon ever has. X-Men's impact on the industry was huge. And, hey, look at the huge number of mutant clone books Image churned out. The big guys effected the independents rather then the other way around.

I think that the legacy of a great story run or great creation in an ongoing book like Batman will have a greater long term impact and legacy then a self contained, self owned book that ends with the book's creator or it's creator's whim. I loved Cerebus (most the time) but I hardly think that it had the impact on the industry like many of the books from Marvel, DC and, for a short time, Image.

It also, sometimes, takes away from a character's legacy when a series ends. If Batman is owned by DC and around 100 years from now then it will, even with a circulation of 25 issues, have a greater legacy and influence the a long dead series that's mostly forgotten. If Savage Dragon ends when Erik chooses to end it and no one else ever continues it then it fades away and dies. Is that a problem? Yeah, kinda. And again, if Erik were serious then he might look at those issues and try to find a way to correct them. But he's not and he won't.

So Erik has one good point buried under tons of horse manure. Maybe it's worth looking at even if he's not.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 2, 2005 11:54 PM

Wait... One just popped into my head.

TMNT. Closest thing to a pop culture icon created by an independent in the last 20 odd years. Still doesn't stand up well next to the other icons though.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at October 3, 2005 12:09 AM

Walt Simonson on Thor: Pussy

Pussy, no. Artist who makes my eyes hurt, yes. Especially with Wiacek inking. The two of them made me cringe when I bought their run on X-Factor... but buy them I did, because I was so fond of the characters, who had been created by another writer decades before and who had been brought back together by some "pussy." (Where's the Bob Layton Anti Defamation Defense Elite Revenge Squad when you need it?) Larsen might not approve, but back in Seventh Grade, I was as happy as Scott that they brought Jean Grey back. Typically I disapprove of retconning, but occasionally exceptions should be made.

That's the thing that the ignorant slut is forgetting-- these characters are iconic because they register with the audience. The audience is frankly much more interested in keeping Superman and Spider-man around than in seeing Larsen's artistically pure Savage Dragon in the stores. Image has been around for ten years-- that would be plenty of time to dent DC or Marvel's dominance, but it hasn't happened, and I don't think that it's merely a matter of corporate hegemony. Spider-man's popularity didn't come from an advertising blitz; Marvel just struck gold with a character that Stan Lee wrote about in Amazing Fantasy #15. Marvel has created thousands of characters since then, most of them forgettable. (Who's up for a StarBrand movie? C'mon people, work with me.) The ones that are good-- or at least popular-- survive through a series of writers and artists. The corporate hacks, mocked by Larsen, fundamentally make their audience happy in a way that Larsen either can't or doesn't. Writers and artists who work primarily with established characters see them the way that the audience does-- interesting on their own merits, and treasured relics. I don't know what Larsen sees.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at October 3, 2005 12:25 AM

TMNT. Closest thing to a pop culture icon created by an independent in the last 20 odd years. Still doesn't stand up well next to the other icons though.

Particularly since so much of it seems to have been a riff on the ninja culture from Frank Miller's Daredevil run. I do not mean that disparagingly-- really good satire is art. But it would be a little bit surprising if the satire were to become more iconic than its source.

Posted by: Joe Zhang at October 3, 2005 12:55 AM

It's nice to see Erik Larsen ripping off yet another opinion from John Byrne.

Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.

What has Erik Larsen done?

One little nitpick David Bjorlin, Stan Lee AND Steve Ditko created Spider-Man.... and anyone who doesn't like Walter Simonson's art is a putz.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 3, 2005 03:05 AM

Jerry C: So what if a guy doesn't feel any great need to go out and recreate the wheel?

Luigi Novi: Hmmm…now that sounds familiar…. :-)

Luigi Novi: Yeah. But I meant that it's fine with me if a guy wants to write Superman rather then going out and creating his own Superman clone. If you want to write Captain America then do it. Don't turn out a book that is Captain America with a different name but a script that only requires a name change to be printed as CA. I, and many others, won't waste our time on cheap clones of icons that we like. Dig?
Luigi Novi: Of course. But I’m not certain if you dig what I meant by the above comment. If you read the last sentence of the second paragraph of my October 1, 3:33 AM post, I think you’ll understand why I made that comment (and only in jest, hence the smiley).

Jonathan: I guess the past season-and-a-half is nothing to be proud of later, whereas Joss Whedon's Western-thinly-disguised-as-space-opera is some great original work, because at least Joss invented the characters, or at least pressed the templates into action himself...
Luigi Novi: Well, I don’t know about original, but it was certainly great, and having just seen Serenity just now reaffirms it. Just my opinion. (Haven’t seen BSG, though, but I’ve heard great things about it.)

Luke K.: Okay, my first thought upon reading Larsen's
"article" was that he really shouldn't be writing things to be posted on the internet when he's that drunk.

Luigi Novi: LOL!!!

Jacob: Yes, I get that people are offended, but Larsen didn't, this time, call anyone out by name.
Luigi Novi: So what? He excoriated an entire group of people that he identified by virtue of a legitimate career choice. If a white supremacist walks down the street and calls black people “niggers”, do you argue that it’s not a big deal because he didn’t call anyone out by name?

Anthony X: What he is asking is where are the new ideas coming from?
Luigi Novi: No. He is saying–not asking—that anyone who chooses not to self-publish creator-owned work is a “pussy” a “baby,” “pathetic”, and “sucking at the Big Two’s tit.”

Jonathan: Besides, if you're going to claim Firefly's superiority based on that, you're going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup..
Luigi Novi: That was already explained in the pilot. Those people were dumped on planets with little more than blankets and maybe some cattle or horses. They have to live off the land, and are apparently poor. They have some basic tech like vehicles and interstellar communication devices, but otherwise have to make do because they’re not part of the core worlds, where the affluent Alliance holds sway. They probably could have stuff like laser cannons and stuff, but six shooters are probably much cheaper, and people like Mal and the Serenity crew, who are often hard up for work, as well as the people they deal with, can’t afford much better.

David S: Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?
Luigi Novi: I think Larsen was talking about self-publishing your own creations in your own books. Not creating characters in someone else’s book.

Jerry C: It is true that some new blood, icon wise, is missing of late.
Luigi Novi: And why does the industry need new icons. Doesn’t it merely need well-written stories and characters? Who says an industry must continuously produce a new icon every decade? Does the movie industry make new “icons” each decade? Or the TV industry? It makes memorable and successful movies and TV shows and characters, but it doesn’t necessarily make new “icons” every decade. Why should the comic book industry? Again, which is more important? Peter’s great 12 year run on the Hulk, or mere existence of a character like Spawn or Savage Dragon or Hellboy? Is the fact that a character is iconic really the most important thing? Me, I think it’s stories and well-written characters, not necessarily iconic ones. Iconism seems more relevant to historical discussions than ones of quality of entertainment.

Posted by: Ian Neve at October 3, 2005 04:28 AM

I have just one thing to add.
Since the debut of Savage Dragon, howmany times has Erik the red returned to Marvel to work on those characters he obviously would reather leave alone?
Methinks this is a person trying to get himself noticed again??

Ian

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at October 3, 2005 04:45 AM

Jonathan: Besides, if you're going to claim Firefly's superiority based on that, you're going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup.
Luigi Novi: That was already explained in the pilot. Those people were dumped on planets with little more than blankets and maybe some cattle or horses. They have to live off the land, and are apparently poor. They have some basic tech like vehicles and interstellar communication devices, but otherwise have to make do because they’re not part of the core worlds, where the affluent Alliance holds sway. They probably could have stuff like laser cannons and stuff, but six shooters are probably much cheaper, and people like Mal and the Serenity crew, who are often hard up for work, as well as the people they deal with, can’t afford much better.

But in our world, price out a six-shooter. Unless you're looking at one of those short-barreled little .38s, you're probably going to find a semiautomatic pistol is much less expensive, simply because so few six-shooters are made any more.

I still maintain that Joss chose the milieu because it shorthands the whole "frontier culture" mindset in ways that would take pages of exposition otherwise. It rubs me personally the wrong way mostly because when I was six, my favorite uncle gave me a crate of back issues of old sci-fi magazines. I got so sick of writers who thought they could just take an old Western they'd written (or read), change "horse" to "rocket" and "six-shooter" to "ray-gun", and suddenly have science fiction. (I also got sick of editors who thought it was a great idea...) I know that's not what Joss is doing with Firefly - but I've still got that bad taste in the back of my brain. :P However, that has no real bearing on the quality of the show - just as the fact that Ronald Moore started off with Glen Larson's take on Mormon beliefs does not mean that Ronald turned out the same horrid, boring mess that Larson did.

Posted by: Jacob at October 3, 2005 04:52 AM

Hey Luigi, next time you pull quotes from me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pull a tiny snippet of what I wrote. What you essentially did was smear me out of context and I don't appreciate your follow up with an allusion to racism. Also adding the N-word was a tad-bit strong to prove your disagreeing point. If you don't agree with me in any shape or fashion, fine, but what I wrote reflected how this recent commentary wasn't as offensive to his past ones. I wasn't implying it was equally harmless.

Also, your immediate follow up was "So what?" It kind of excuses my point and dismisses my words, but mentioning that is like pulling tiny snippets of what you wrote so, in fairness, let's pardon that.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 3, 2005 05:59 AM

Besides, if you're going to claim Firefly's superiority based on that, you're going to have to tell me why a spacefaring culture is still carrying six-shooters and holding square dances in the town square after the cattle roundup...

Oh, no, Firefly's just as bad. It's never told a story, as far as I could tell, that couldn't have been told on gunsmoke. But Galactica's such a miserable failure as science fiction that the phrase "better as science-fiction" just doesn't ever, in any circumstances, apply to it.1

Posted by: Leviathan at October 3, 2005 06:06 AM

Patrick Calloway:

Leviathan: Okay, we get it. You have a large amount of irrational hatred for a television show. That's your opinion.

No, I have an entirely rational dislike of the show based on its lazy unwillingness to think an original thought or define its characters in a way that makes sense.

(And I'll resist the temptation to hoist you upon your own petard of opinions having differing reletive worth.)

I'll be hoisting you on it shortly.

That does not mean that those who do not agree with you have been fooled

It does when they're pointing to a cow-flop that's been spray-painted and say, "Look! I have gold!"

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 3, 2005 07:04 AM

. (Who's up for a StarBrand movie? C'mon people, work with me.)

I will probably earn scorn and pity for this, but I'd LOVE to see a Starbrand movie. The comic was like a train wreck for the first year, in the best sense of the words "train wreck" and I felt a strange attraction to the quacking girl (so, predictably, she ended up eviscerated. Story of my life...)

Now a KICKERS, INC movie, THAT would suck...

Posted by: bob woodington at October 3, 2005 07:53 AM

"Or something form mythology where a team of Gods does mighty deeds with each God using his or her special powers?"

well, jason's argonauts were a group of heroes that all had particular powers (including hercules for strength). and they often were able to use their particular powers (i.e. when orpheus got them past the sirens)...

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 09:02 AM

Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 3, 2005 09:06 AM

Luigi Novi: Of course. But I’m not certain if you dig what I meant by the above comment. If you read the last sentence of the second paragraph of my October 1, 3:33 AM post, I think you’ll understand why I made that comment (and only in jest, hence the smiley).


I know. it wasn't posted in a nasty way. I read youy wheel post after making mine and thought that, while we had close points, our points went to different issues with recreating the wheel. Sorry if it came off wrong.

Shoulda put a smiley after "Dig?".

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 09:08 AM

In movies, you have some remakes and the occasional long-running series like James Bond, but for the most part it's new stuff.

Mostly new stuff? Who are you kidding? The reason why the movies are in an all-time slump is because 90% of what Hollyweird is churning out is either a remake or derivative of something else.

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 09:10 AM

Byrne of course is able to create wholly original properties like Next Men that are celebrated in comic fandom and in the non comic world for their originality and do work for hire books like Doom Patrol that are loved by everyone.

Hmm. For some reason, my reply was cut off. It should have read, "Yeah, Byrne's Doom Patrol is so loved by everyone that it's already been cancelled. LOL."

Posted by: Name Withheld at October 3, 2005 09:10 AM

None of you know what you are talking about.

Erik Larsen is a visionary. He stands up for what he believes in and always stands behind it publicly. He would never anonymously trash other creators without signing his name.

My run on Aquaman was one of the best, better than the stuff that came before. What the heck is a Charybdis? Savage Dragon is the best book on the market and is obviously by the best creator in the business.

Posted by: Ian Neve at October 3, 2005 09:17 AM

Is it just me or is the above comment written by 'name withheld' just a wee bit sad.

Ian

Posted by: Brian Czako at October 3, 2005 09:25 AM

The 'Name Withheld' comment looks like a goof, not sad. And if you've heard "Wrapped Around Your Finger" you'd have heard of Charybdis (thanks Mr. Sting!)

Brian

Posted by: Jerry C at October 3, 2005 09:33 AM

"Luigi Novi: And why does the industry need new icons. Doesn’t it merely need well-written stories and characters? Who says an industry must continuously produce a new icon every decade?"

It doesn't and I'm fine with writers making great stories with any charecter. I'm just looking at one point under all of Erik's manure and addressing it.

Now I'll go kinda 180. The industry doesn't need new icons (yet) but it would be nice to have a few more develope to stand by the older ones. Their creation often adds a frsh breath to an industry or genre. Look at Star Wars. it created a group of icons and, by hitting right across the board, helped both the film industry and the science fiction genre in many ways.

I would love to see a new icon, be it book, hero or even crerator, to come along and bring new attention and readers to comics and breath a fresh new breath into the industry. But, in counter point to Erik, you can't just snap your fingers and do that or create one just by doing your own book rather then a Big Two book.

Star Wars was one of those rare icons that hit huge from almost day one and never stopped hitting on all gears. The next big icon in movies, TV or comics will likely be a slow build and take a little age to be given the tag, "icon". And I think its creation would be a good thing.

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 09:58 AM

"The new Battlestar Galactica is a con game, a desparate attempt to distract you with spaceships and robots so you don't notice the stories are all stuff you've seen before, better, right here on Earth, with serial nyumbers filed off and a thin coat of paint splashed on 'em."

Back in college, when I was making the study of writing and English a part of my education, I came across a statement that essentially said there are only 7 (maybe it was 9) basic stories in human culture. You can mix and match, giving the illusion of more, but when it comes down to it, there's only so many different stories you can tell before you start becoming derivitive. It's like DNA...you get 4 blocks, and you can combine them in different ways, and make long streams of them to form a more complex tapestry, but at the end of the day, it's all the same 4 blocks.

Reading Leviathan's other comments re: BSG and Firefly, it's apparant to me that he's missing the trees for the forest. It sounds like he wants his sci-fi stories to be non-human. I'm sure someone could come up with a TV show that represents a truly alien story...but chances are, our human senses wouldn't be able to percieve that story in any kind of way that makes sense. I'll use a new TV show telling an old story as an example: Threshold introduces what seems to be communication attempts from an extraterrestial species that has some senses that we humans do not...thus, when we observe their creations with our human eyes and ears, we fail to fully understand what it is we're looking at. In the show,they represent this with objects that seems solid, yet also in a constant state of physical flux, constantly changing.

Leviathan, what are some examples of Sci Fi shows that in your opinion tell new stories? Because, as Den suggested, there are no new stories. The anchient Greeks pretty much had the basics of all storytelling down, and they probably got them from some other culture. Hollywood of late has gotten really bad, because they've lost sight that it's HOW you tell the story that matters. The story itself isn't new, and it never will be.

Look at some recent examples of movies that provided some surprises: The First Blair Witch, and the Sixth Sense. Are the stories new at all? Not really. Both are pretty much ghost stories. It's HOW they told the story that made them fresh.

BSG isn't doing anything new...being a modern version of an old TV show, how could it be? Neither is any other show. Star Trek, TNG, can essentially be seen as a retread of the expulsion of Eden story...the Federation represents a utopia dream of Eden, where money isn't even used any more, yet we see our characters ranging around the fringe of space where that utopia no longer exists, or maybe never did.

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 10:20 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica and Firefly. I can understand Leviathan's frustration about the use of contemporary clothing, names, and vehicles on the show. To me, that does serve to break the illusion that the people are supposed to be from an alien culture that diverged from ours thousands of years ago. But that is balanced on the other hand by the complex and intriguing plots. So on the whole, the show keeps drawing me back in to see what happens next.

As for Firefly, my biggest rip on the show was similar: Whedon's usage of wild west tropes to create the appearance that space would have a frontier culture. The problem was that he lifted the costumes and mannerisms out of shows like Gunsmoke wholesale. The result was a metaphor that was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Again, what drew me back week after week was the intriguing story of the opressive Alliance and how they had to stay one step ahead of it.

I haven't seen Serenity yet, but I plan on it. I've heard that Whedon toned down the Gunsmoke elements, so we shall see how that shakes out in the end.

Posted by: Robbnn at October 3, 2005 10:23 AM

Certain characters are iconic, but do you really think the were designed that way, or did they succeed because they happened to fall into iconosism? Were S&S purposefully drawing from Herc, Doc, etc for Supes? (I do think the Kane drew directly from the influences you named.) Which came first, Jay Garrick's super-speed or the costume design? He doesn't have much else in common with the messenger god...

While I tend to think the early creators may have ripped other ideas (which likely ripped other ideas that made their way back to icons), I doubt they set out to create them in iconic fashion. What's wonderful is that through the years, they were imbued with iconic attributes through other writers knowingly and unknowningly (face it, Moore, David, Sims, and a few others bring a much more literary background to their writing than most of the usual writing suspects).

Bill, I've wondered about the lack of a graphic Doc Savage as well and decided that the pulp fiction heroes just aren't visual enough to support a comic book existance. To make them do so would be to make them someone else (hey! Like Superman or Batman ;0) ). I would like a good movie about Doc, but I don't think he's very well known anymore...

Posted by: Whune at October 3, 2005 10:38 AM

It's quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure Larsen would agree that he isn't blameless, or clean himself, but a ranting confessional would be pointless; and to be honest you are just as guilty of pointing out things you your self are guilty of, its called being human.

Personally I ignored the hypocrisy, and let it inspire me. I think most of you are mad because he's talking about you, deep down you know you are taking the easy way.

I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe. (God marvel is actually bringing back the cover enhancements again, did they ever go away? "gold standard" *rolls eyes*) I think those of you that contribute to this ongoing problem should be ashamed of your selves.

Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today 'creators' have wised up, and don't pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won't see near a dime for it.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 3, 2005 10:52 AM

Leviathan wrote:
"No, I have an entirely rational dislike of the show based on its lazy unwillingness to think an original thought or define its characters in a way that makes sense."

I don't get the character complaint - they seem well-defined, make sense to me, and seem pretty believable (or believable enough for a work of fiction).

And I don't think the similarities with Earth culture, politics and tech represent any kind of "lazy unwillingness to think an original thought." It's more like a deliberate creative decision that stems from the creators' intention, from what they want the show to do. Seems like the very opposite of laziness to me.

And heck, if you wanted to attack the show as not being "real" sci fi, point to the FTL drives, sound in some of the space exteriors, etc.

"It does when they're pointing to a cow-flop that's been spray-painted and say, "Look! I have gold!""

That may be, but you've yet to show in any way that's convincing that that's the case with the new BG. Sorry, I don't see, based on what you've written, how your low opinion of the show is worth more than the opinion of those who like it.

Posted by: Peter David at October 3, 2005 11:36 AM

For what it's worth, I find both "Firefly" and "Battlestar" to be engaging and entertaining. Why? Because I like the characters. I've seen creators build unbelievably involved worlds, populated with characters who are an afterthought. You can't find two commanders as different as Adama and Mal, and yet they're both men of honor, which just goes to show how far the term can be stretched.

And by the way, I think you'll find that there's just about no story in the WORLD that can't be told as a western. The Seven Samurai became a western. The original Star Wars had huge western elements, right down to the bar fight. "Unforgiven," on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch. A lot of SF is westerns with blasters instead of guns. "Firefly" was just more honest about it (although the network-imposed train robbery story that launched it was a bit too on-the-nose for me. I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn't have left quite such a bad taste in people's mouths.)

And if you think "Serenity" could have been a western...no. Definitely not.

PAD

Posted by: Jerry C at October 3, 2005 12:16 PM

"It's quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others."
"I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe."

No, a number of posts have pointed out that there is a difference between the message and the way it is delivered. However, it is not the fault of the person who is the intended receiver of a truth for ignoring it if the delivery of that truth is sent out in the most petulant and insulting manner by a person who has a long history of making pointless statements and rants in ever increasingly petty manners over time. If you make yourself look the fool and the brat until no one cares to pay attention 99% of the time then you have no one to blame but yourself when a good idea or point is ignored because it's written off with all your other pointless and petty rants. Erik never has and, it seems, never will learn this.


"Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today 'creators' have wised up, and don't pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won't see near a dime for it."

Ah, a statement that shows both ignorance of the medium and the asininely insulting manner that gets Erik's points written off so easily.

Kirby, Ditko, Kane, Lee, Simon, etc. all cited other major icons and figures as the influence or sources for their greatest works. Their creations were not so much original as they were fresh packages placed onto iconic characters or traits of several iconic characters from the past.

Not that skill and talent didn't play into it. There were a number of other creations that came from the same source material that never made it as big as some of the others. It, like the problem of Erik's point making, is largely dependent on how you present something as much as what you present.

Batman, The Shadow, The Spider and other share some common heritage. Batman, with a pedigree including The Shadow, Zorro, Doc Savage and other pulp crime fighters, was presented better and had the right mix of concepts to grow bigger then his roots. The sum being greater then the parts and all.

Now, about that "today 'creators' have wised up, and don't pour tons of drive and creativity" bit. How stupidly insulting do you really want to prove yourself to be. you show up on PAD's site, one of today's creators, and basically accuse him and others of dogging it? I don't believe for a second that any of the writers and artists that I pay my money for are out there deliberately giving me anything less then their best effort for me to plunk down my hard earned cash for.

Also, you say that it is ignorant of some to focus on the hypocrisy of Erik's statements. Here is a perfect example of how Erik's words do not match his actions and how he damages creations rather then helps them. You will never convince me that his run on Aquaman was anything other then an attempt to prove what a brat he can be by destroying the work of another creator.

PAD was giving Aquaman his first big infusion of fresh blood and fresh attention in years. He was taking Aquaman back to some of his roots as well as infusing other mythology into him to create a strong and distinctive character that may have had the chance to grow into a new, mythic comic icon. He was creating something great. Erik the Brat came in, after publicly attacking PAD and making fun of his Aquaman work, and systematically destroyed everything that was built by PAD and sank both the character and the book's sales in the doing. He then grabbed his toys and went home without creating anything to counter the damage and distruction he did.

Pad was a creator who gave it his all on a company owned book and brought the character and it's sale numbers to new heights. Erik was a brattish, petty destroyer of the creation process and of the character. Because of those actions and many more like it, Erik has shot himself in the foot and lost the privilege to stand up and make declarations like he did and expect anybody to listen or take him that seriously. Some of us may still look for a good point in all the manure but most will not and have no reason to do so.

His fault. Not ours.

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 12:41 PM

Say, here's a counterpoint to the "only original creations, done by their creator, can truly be the best" idea: Isn't it more challenging to draft a new and exciting story that gets readers excited with an old, tired character, one that fans think they've "seen it all" with before? I never read PAD's Aquaman work, but from others' comments, it seems that it had this exact infusion of new life into a deadend character that I'm talking about. Anyone can come up with a new character...I'm sure just about all of us posting here have done it at some point. Larson has done it with Savage Dragon. And since it's his creation, he's free to tell whatever story he wants to...but isn't he essentially just telling stories that he'd want to tell with, say Hulk?

As a writer, I suppose you could find the restrictions placed on you by the owner of a character restraining. On the other hand, I think it shows the level of a writer's talent to be able to tell a compelling story when you can't do X, kill Y, or change Z.

Still, this is all just the "I jumped over the creek without getting my feet you, you losers, why can't you do it, too" mentality applied to comics. Some of us are just fine and dandy on this side of the creek. We don't need to get our new shoes wet to find out that jumping over the creek isn't such a big deal after all.

Posted by: The StarWolf at October 3, 2005 12:53 PM

> I was as happy as Scott that they brought Jean Grey back.

That makes one of us. I hated it and skipped X-FACTOR entirely because of it. The Dark hoenix storyline was one of the most memorable in all my comics-reading years and bringing her back to life after her tragic sacrifice made a travesty of the whole thing for me.

>Who's up for a StarBrand movie?

Me! Me! And, yes, I was a fan of Duck, too. Pity the series went haywire after the first year and soon ended up in the dumpster. The Annual which had the major continuity error of giving the character power blasts which he never had before or since wasn't a great move either.

>I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn't have left quite such a bad taste in people's mouths.

It's what killed it for me. Too, I concur with the Wild West look to the series being too silly to be taken seriously. If you've got interstellar travel that's cheap enough for freelancers to afford, there's no such thing as an out-of-the-way colony. Unless it is outright lost off the charts, people will go there and there will be a steady flow of modern supplies. And even otherwise dirt-poor indian tribes found a demand for some of their art and hand-made trinkets. So, unless everyone there is dumber than a rock, they'll find SOMETHING someone somewheres else will want in trade.

Posted by: Peter David at October 3, 2005 01:12 PM

"It's quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others."

There is no "truth" to saying that writers who are content to be working on company-owned characters are gutless. It is an opinion at best, and an insulting opinion at worst. The sheer act of producing work, signing your name to it, and then sending it out there for people to diss as they see fit, requires vast degrees of nerve. Like the work, don't like the work as you see fit. But don't start calling people gutless simply because they're not producing work YOU want to see (or, more on point to Larsen, work that he can publish.)

"The thing is, I'm pretty sure Larsen would agree that he isn't blameless, or clean himself, but a ranting confessional would be pointless; and to be honest you are just as guilty of pointing out things you your self are guilty of, its called being human."

Hypocrisy usually is. Bottom line, if you're criticizing people for something that you yourself do, you damned well better be able to (a) defend it or (b) explain the difference. Because the first rule of blasting other people is the concept of "clean hands." That because your hands are clean, you have the moral high ground from which to bitch out people for certain behavior. That's why it's always thuddingly on point when, say, a high-profile Bible thumper who trashes others for lewd behavior gets caught with his pants down humping a prostitute in a dingy motel room.

"Personally I ignored the hypocrisy, and let it inspire me. I think most of you are mad because he's talking about you, deep down you know you are taking the easy way."

Considering I was producing creator owned material before Erik Larsen was pencilling books, I'm thinking I'm not taking any easy way...and again, by the way, referring to working with company-owned characters as "the easy way" displays mind-numbing ignorance of the difficulties in working with company-owned characters. I had to write three position papers and attend a major editorial sit down to convince DC to let me replace Aquaman's hand with a harpoon. If I want to cut off the Fallen Angel's hand and replace it with a sword, I write the script, period. So don't go talkign to ME about "the easy way."

"I see his anger as much more righteous: a juvinal rant of a child seeing an artform he loves dearly being polluted with imbred corporate driven tripe."

That's a different argument. How about railing against the fans who don't buy material that's new and different and retailers who don't order it, rather than insulting writers who are living out their dream and getting health care besides.

"(God marvel is actually bringing back the cover enhancements again, did they ever go away? "gold standard" *rolls eyes*)"

Yeah, well guess what. They work. So go roll your eyes at your fellow fans for supporting it.

"I think those of you that contribute to this ongoing problem should be ashamed of your selves.
Oh, and the thing is: Kirby and ditko, Marvel may have owned their stuff, but they created it, it was original; today 'creators' have wised up, and don't pour tons of drive and creativity, new and wild characters, into their work for hire stuff, because they know they won't see near a dime for it."

You come to my website and tell me that I haven't poured tons of drive and creativity into twenty years' worth of work--that I've been basically cheating the fans and my publishers of my best effort--because I don't own it, and you have the NERVE to say that I SHOULD BE ASHAMED of MYSELF? I mean, who else are you referring to when you say "those of you." Unless I'm missing something, I'm the only person here who regularly turns out comic book work-for-hire superhero material. You think my upcoming work on FNSM or X-Factor isn't going to represent my best effort? Your beloved Erik Larsen, years ago, stated that "in many ways" he and his pals were "holding back", and *I'm* the one you accuse of not giving 110% while Erik goes around insulting people because they're not producing work he can sell--which you're okay with.

Your priorities are completely out of whack, and YOU are the one who should be ashamed of your behavior. Not the guys who are trying to earn a living doing something they love. But you for condemning them for doing so.

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 3, 2005 01:13 PM

Jacob: Hey Luigi, next time you pull quotes from me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't just pull a tiny snippet of what I wrote. What you essentially did was smear me out of context and I don't appreciate your follow up with an allusion to racism. Also adding the N-word was a tad-bit strong to prove your disagreeing point. If you don't agree with me in any shape or fashion, fine, but what I wrote reflected how this recent commentary wasn't as offensive to his past ones. I wasn't implying it was equally harmless.
Luigi Novi: I did not “smear” you, nor take anything out of context, nor make any “allusion” to racism. I simply disagreed with your argument, because it implied (to me at the time) that only calling someone out by name is a bad thing, which I disagree with. Yeah, I know you were making a comparison to his past columns, but again, so what? That’s not the basis on which people here are reacting to this recent one. I myself have never even read his other columns, as his exchange with Peter in the letter pages of Savage Dragon shows him incapable of forming a coherent argument, and I would imagine that many others here don’t read his other columns either. The only basis, therefore, on which people such as myself reacted to this column was the wrongness of what he did say, not what he did not. Just because I didn’t address the specific comparison you brought up doesn’t mean that I decontextualized anything, much less “smeared” you. If you came away with that, however, I apologize.

Whune: It's quite ignorant of you lot to focus on the hypocrisy, or irony: a bloody convenient way to ignore the truth of what he is saying, even if it scathingly applies to him just as much as many others.
Luigi Novi: The problem with columns like his is that if there is any “truth” to it, it is poorly conveyed, and in writing, how you convey your message is at least as important as the message itself. There’s nothing ignorant about “focusing” on the fact that Larsen insulted good, hard-working people simply because they didn’t take the same career path as he did (especially considering that not many creators have had the luxury—or luck—of having the opportunity to take that particular path). What’s ignorant about pointing out that his column was littered with profane, unprofessional insults and overly judgmental comments at a large group of people who’ve done nothing wrong?

Whune: The thing is, I'm pretty sure Larsen would agree that he isn't blameless, or clean himself, but a ranting confessional would be pointless; and to be honest you are just as guilty of pointing out things you your self are guilty of, its called being human.
Luigi Novi: And who says the column has to be a “ranting confessional”? A simply qualifier inserted at times into his statements would take care of that, something like “Now I myself have done work-for-hire at the Big Two, even after my success as a creator-owned writer/artist, but….” Instead, the entirety of the column is simply him attacking creators repeatedly simply because they don’t do creator-owned stuff, as if that’s somehow a bad thing.

And as far as us “being guilty of pointing out things that we ourselves are guilty of,” what does that mean? Can you elaborate on this?

Whune: Personally I ignored the hypocrisy, and let it inspire me. I think most of you are mad because he's talking about you, deep down you know you are taking the easy way.
Luigi Novi: You’re saying the people on this board are themselves comic creators doing work-for-hire for the Big Two? Obviously, that’s not true, so this accusation makes little sense.

Peter David … I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn't have left quite such a bad taste in people's mouths.)
Luigi Novi: Glad I only saw the entire series recently on DVD. I got to see it in the right order, and it primed me for the movie, which I saw last night. :-)

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 01:15 PM

"If you've got interstellar travel that's cheap enough for freelancers to afford, there's no such thing as an out-of-the-way colony."

What gives you the impression that interstellar travel in Serenity's 'verse is cheap? Maybe the fuel actually is, but I get the impression that the ships aren't, given the fact that not everyone has one. And that for some worlds, the ship becomes the first settlement building of the colony. Who knows how Mal and others afford their ships? Mal's a veteran of at least one conflict...he could have "acquired" some loot during one of his tours. He's the son of a rancher...could have sold his family plot for the cash. And not like Serenity is exactly state of the art, either, so it wouldn't have fetched top dollar when he bought it.

As to cheap travel being the answer to supplies, just look at the world today. Why is there starvation all over the world today, when it's a simple matter of transporting excess food?

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 01:27 PM

The original Star Wars had huge western elements, right down to the bar fight. "Unforgiven," on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch. A lot of SF is westerns with blasters instead of guns. "Firefly" was just more honest about it (although the network-imposed train robbery story that launched it was a bit too on-the-nose for me. I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn't have left quite such a bad taste in people's mouths.)

And if Lucas had given Han Solo a six shooter and had him speak in double negatives like Mal did, then Star Wars would have been too "on the nose" for.

Fox's decision to skip the pilot episode in favor of the train robbery as the debut story always puzzled me. Of course, I remember them screwing with the order of episodes of Sliders, too. But this case seemed pretty strange given that the commercials building up to the show kept mentioning a "girl in a box" and yet we never saw River being smuggled in the box until they finally aired the pilot as the very last episode of the series.

The primary purpose of the train robbery was to set up future confrontations with the crime boss, but it was still a fairly weak episode to lead with and it did color many people's perceptions of the series in general.

Still, I plan on giving Serenity a fair chance in the theater.

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 01:47 PM

I was thinking just today how weird it would have been to check into the premiere of Firefly and see the Train Job. Skipping the whole issue of showing how Book, Simon, and River came to be aboard Serenity, Train Job just doesn't carry enough of the themes and ideas Joss wanted to explore in the show that the pilot did.

Having seen the movie twice now, I highly recommend it. Unless you totally hated Firefly, or think that Whedon's vision of the future will distract you too much from the movie, I'd say you'd have to be a big fan of crap to not enjoy Serenity. It provides you with all the background information you need in order to enjoy the story and characters. Having seen the Firefly DVDs will only add depth.

And for those that have a different opinion on whether viewers need the backstory or not, consider that when Star Wars was released, all you got by way of introduction was the Giant Scrolling "previously...." That didn't seem to interfere too much with audiences following the plot, or getting into the characters.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at October 3, 2005 02:13 PM

And you have no idea how difficult it was getting "Apropos" sold. Why? Because publisher after publisher said the same thing: "Peter's fans aren't interested in reading anything that's entirely his creation." I was going out of my mind. I'd get these rejection notices saying there was no market for wholly original concepts of mine, and in the meantime I'd get constant e-mails from fans saying, "When are you going to write stuff that's your own work?"

Here is my two cents worth: I always am interested in other books by an author I know. I am glad they published your other works (such as Sir Apropos). However, I have not liked all of them. And that is fine. I personally think it is far more diffiuclt to take an established character, especially one locked into a universe where very little can really change, and to write consistently interesting stories. As you said with Aquaman versus Fallen Angel, you are working with far more restrictions when dealing with DC, Marvel, Star Trek, etc. My respect for your ability to weave in random past contintuity into new stories is huge. You have an ability to take the best of those worlds and create new stories that delve into what makes the characters tick. Very, very few writers know how to do this.

The problem with writing your own new creations is overcoming fan expectations. It is like meeting an actor you loved in a role. It can be hard to separate the two. He or she is not the same in real life. It can be unsettling to learn that the actor is nothing like the role he or she plays (even though this would be a rather obvious fact).

In the same way, I sometimes find authors who write for an established universe too different when they write their own. I did not like Fallen Angel or Apropos, but that does not mean they were poorly written, etc. (My best attempt to explain why is that there is a cynicism underlying these works that I disagree with. There is not the type of redemptive theme I look for in a book.) I am glad others have enjoyed them. I enjoy some Orson Scott Card and Stephen R. Donaldson and Terry Brooks that others don't. I do think I know PAD better through his own works than through Hulk or Spider-man or Star Trek. And I will try other new things PAD tries (especially books) since he has shown such a wide range of stories. So by all means keep doing new things (as long as you still do some more "New Frontier").

I have never deliberately read any Erik Larsen and doubt I ever will. At the end of the day, the proof is in the numbers. There are only a few who can hold a candle to the diverse range and success PAD has shown. So I simply ignore the comments that seem to come from petty jealousy.

On a side note, I just saw Serenity and thought it was a great movie. I only saw two episodes of Firefly, but found it very accessible. Too bad Star Trek is unwilling to let PAD or Wheedon write a decent script for a movie. Star Trek should be able to rival Star Wars. It is almost criminal the way the potential has been squandered.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: David Bjorlin at October 3, 2005 02:21 PM

One little nitpick David Bjorlin, Stan Lee AND Steve Ditko created Spider-Man.... and anyone who doesn't like Walter Simonson's art is a putz.

Not to nitpick back or anything, but I know that, and I specifically used the words "wrote about" when referring to the writer of Amazing Fantasy #15.

And as for my being a putz, well, 1) bite me, and 2) it may have been the Wiacek influence that really stunk-- I've seen (early) Simonson stuff that I liked without Wiacek, and I've seen Wiacek stuff without Simonson that I hated. I stand by my core position: the Simonson art in X-Factor, inked by Wiacek, was absolutely horrible, and has flavored my opinion of Simonson lo these 20 years later. I don't remember who was the inker on Simonson's Thor run; I think he may have done his own inking, in which case Wiacek is off the hook (to the extent he cares about my opinion of his "tracing") because I didn't like the look of that book either. Simply put, I liked Simonson's writing much better than his art, but I realize other putzes' mileage may vary.

Posted by: Scott Bierworth at October 3, 2005 02:46 PM

[b]The 'Name Withheld' comment looks like a goof, not sad. And if you've heard "Wrapped Around Your Finger" you'd have heard of Charybdis (thanks Mr. Sting!)[/b]

Yes, it was a goof. I admit to posting it. It was just another stab at Erik that long time readers of the Comics Buyers Guide will understand. Years ago he wrote a letter that was published in CBG that boiled down to "Writers aren't necessary since artists can write the books". It caused many flames and a lot of turmoil at the time. He asked that his name be withheld so the letter was published as "Name Withheld". It took a long time before he finally was outed as being the person who wrote it. It just shows what a stand up kind of guy he is, or isn't.

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 02:48 PM

I guess I'm a part-time putz. I started out hating Simonson's work, especially X-Factor. His Fall of the Mutants stuff seemed rushed and underdone. Then I saw his Thor stuff, and I started liking him. Maybe he just does Norse better than Spandex? I dunno.

Posted by: Travis at October 3, 2005 03:07 PM

Simonson's Thor was brilliant, and spoiled me from anyone else's take on him. Period.
But if you want excellent Simonson? Manhunter with Archie Goodwin at the helm writing.
That was a turning point... what a great series.


Travis

Posted by: Brian Czako at October 3, 2005 03:10 PM

Scott - I figured it had to be a goof since if Erik actually wrote it anonymously, he wouldn't have said 'when I wrote Aquaman'. I vaguely recall the letter you refer to - more silliness, I suppose, but not that far off the mark from the issues of Spider-Man that McFarlane's wrote.

Posted by: Peter David at October 3, 2005 03:48 PM

"I did not like Fallen Angel or Apropos, but that does not mean they were poorly written, etc. (My best attempt to explain why is that there is a cynicism underlying these works that I disagree with. There is not the type of redemptive theme I look for in a book."

Spoken like someone who would be eating their words had they read "Fallen Angel #15-18."

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 3, 2005 03:58 PM

What gives you the impression that interstellar travel in Serenity's 'verse is cheap?

The official Serenity website says there are something like 40,000 Firefly 03's (the exact model of the Serenity) still around, even though the model has been retired.

Even for a cargo ship, that's not exactly a handful. :)

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 04:13 PM

(pretend I know how to make italics for my quotes)

"The official Serenity website says there are something like 40,000 Firefly 03's (the exact model of the Serenity) still around, even though the model has been retired. Even for a cargo ship, that's not exactly a handful. :)"

Not sure which point you mean to make, that the Firefly class is rare, or isn't rare. That raw number is pretty meaningless. It's like your response was "the ship is red." Even by today's standards, 40,000 isn't such a big number. Comics are a good example...40,000 is a decent run for some monthlies. But that'doesn't mean that every house gets one. Far from it, it means that most houses DON'T get a copy.

And that's based on a US population of 278 million, and a planet-wide population of over 7 billion. Now put that same number of carriers into a whole different 'verse, with maybe hundreds of billions of people...and only 40,000 aging Firefly class cargo ships. Some no doubt in museums, others in junk yards like Serenity was.

Posted by: dan at October 3, 2005 04:35 PM

Larsen spoke like an ass, but I agree with him in principle (even if I DON'T think it matters one bit).

Work for hire IS creatively inferior to self-owned/created projects.

It's artistically inferior the same way rap "sampling" is inferior when the song is built on riffs/melodies created by other bands. Work for hire (meaning working on previously created characters) provides a ready-made spring board, so the new talent doesn't have to start from scratch.

The old notion that "everybody's got a Batman story in them" tells us a whole lot more about Bob Kane than it does ourselves. It tells us his character was very well made. The same can't be said about, say, Brother Power the Geek.

That said, self-owned/created projects are not economically feasible most of the time. And I don't care how artistically pure a self-created/owned project might be, an artist's gotta eat. A great story can be lost forever if it's buried in an indie book that has poor art and no marketing money behind it. So the incentive to convert that story to fit a Marvel/DC property is considerable.

Larsen can crow about the virtues of self-created projects all he wants, but this industry was NEVER driven by "originality." Everything's derivative around here.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 3, 2005 04:42 PM

"Work for hire IS creatively inferior to self-owned/created projects."

Phooey.

Posted by: Den at October 3, 2005 05:00 PM

The same can't be said about, say, Brother Power the Geek.

I don't know. I can think of three or four Brother Power the Geek stories. ;)

Posted by: Peter David at October 3, 2005 05:03 PM

"Work for hire (meaning working on previously created characters) provides a ready-made spring board, so the new talent doesn't have to start from scratch."

Is that a fact. Interesting.

So by that logic, Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel--entirely work-for-hire and using previously created characters--is intrinsically, artistically and morally inferior to "Savage Dragon #1."

PAD

Posted by: Jerry C at October 3, 2005 05:31 PM

"Work for hire IS creatively inferior to self-owned/created projects."

Really now????

So.....

Savage Dragon is creatively superior to Miller's Batman?

Youngblood was creatively superior then Moore's Swamp Thing?

Wildcats was creatively superior to Claremont & Byrne's X-Men?

Shadow Hawk was creatively superior to Gaiman's Sandman?

Super Patriot was creatively superior to PAD's Hulk run?

I could go on for ages but I think you get the point. Creatively superior work is what it is no matter where it is published. Creatively inferior work is what it is no matter where it is published. It has nothing to do with ownership. That was a very stupid blanket comment to make.

Posted by: Jim O'Shea at October 3, 2005 05:38 PM

Larsen is probably taking a page from Warren Ellis's script, superheroes=bad, indies=good. There's just so many Constantine knock-offs I can stand with Ellis, who is now back doing superheroes. I like both creators, but I don't think either of them are really grasping the real problem in the industry which is distribution. There are many good indies I've read, but the work-for-hire corporate characters are the ones that keep the industry afloat. You have to pay your bills after all. I don't think it's being a pussy to get paid a decent amount to work for a corporation so you can afford to do creator owned work. Getting a profile boost by work-for-hire seems pretty smart to me.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 3, 2005 05:50 PM

Now put that same number of carriers into a whole different 'verse, with maybe hundreds of billions of people...and only 40,000 aging Firefly class cargo ships

Err, no.

Firefly is but one example of many.

Compare it to, say, Firefly being the hybrid auto. There are far greater numbers of other types of cars and so forth.

And there are still plenty of backwater places in the US where the number of people still outnumber the number of cars. :)

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at October 3, 2005 06:00 PM

hey big news...

for what it's worth, the folks at Wizard have taken all of Peter's comments from this thread, and all of Larsen's comments from this thread, and declared this debate to be a draw.

(more whiplash for Elayne) :)

Posted by: clatterboot at October 3, 2005 06:12 PM

Ironically, for me, Erik Larsen is how I first became familiar with Peter David. I was a fan of the Dragon upon it's launch (eventually faded away from it, and comics in general) but the letter pages were constantly full of "Peter David this" and "Peter David that". It was clear there was some sort of grudge between the two, but being a teen and not too up on the comic gossip, I didn't know the cause. I recall in one column Larsen attributed it to when he was doing Spider-man and had Doc Ock (with adamantium arms) pummel the Hulk unconscious, while in the (Peter David's) Hulk Doc Ock gets whupped by the green goliath.

I thought it a bit odd that such a small thing would seem to fuel this sort of constant sniping, but now (years wiser and all that) I understand that it comes more from an argument of authorship and the credit division between the words and the art. Well, I looked into this Peter David fellow and it turn out that he wrote some darn fine comics that I was enjoying (I particularly like the Infinity Gauntlet Hulk issue with the Abomination).

I guess both gentlemen have tough nipples (as they say), they've been nursing this grudge a long time.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 3, 2005 06:24 PM

Peter, when Larsen said it was 'gutless' to do work for hire I think he meant it in the financial sense and not the creative sense.

It takes balls to say no the next advance, or page rate and instead work for free for roughly 3-6 months doing something self/Image published / creator owned and hope it pays out financially.

A freelancer can write/draw an X-men story and be reasonably sure that it will sell to some folks. The company will likely give it *some* promotion and at least the die-hards will pick it up. And of course, you get your money regardless.

But a whole new character? With the book's success or failure completely up to your creativity, promo skills and work ethic?

That's a different ball of wax. Perhaps some creators are taking the easy way and deciding to do work for hire for their entire career.

Truth be told, Erik's advice may be good for those folks. Very few freelancers have long term successful work for hire careers. Fan favorites come and go, many writers & artists that were hot 10 years ago ain't hot today. The same will be true for todays big names 10 years from now.

If they create something that they own and get some sort of fan base, they can still do that when editors stop returning their calls. I'd rather the 'job security' of owning Hellboy vs. hoping editors will hire me over the new and different up-in-comer.

Posted by: Scavenger at October 3, 2005 06:46 PM

"So by that logic, Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel--entirely work-for-hire and using previously created characters--is intrinsically, artistically and morally inferior to "Savage Dragon #1.""

Dude, have you seen the boobs on the chick in Savage Dragon #1? 'nuff said!

Posted by: Scavenger at October 3, 2005 06:52 PM

"Larsen is probably taking a page from Warren Ellis's script, superheroes=bad, indies=good"

That's taking Ellis' points rather out of context.
For him, he's bored with Superheroes. He feels the genre has been pretty much played out and is eating itself. If he's right or wrong is pretty much up for debate, but he also doesn't say that people who are working in Superheroes or doing work-for-hire are bad or inferrior. Just (generaly) not doing anything he's interested in.

There's a big difference between that and Larsen's belief.

Posted by: Paul1963 at October 3, 2005 07:01 PM

On the issue of there being 40,000 Firefly 03's still in service, and that making them fairly common:
The galaxy is a big place, and on a cosmic scale, 40,000 ships ain't that much. Also, 40,000 units is slightly less than half the total production of the 2004 Dodge Neon. We don't necessarily know how long they built Firefly-class ships in the "Firefly" universe, but if interstellar travel is relatively common it seems to me that 40,000 units still in service suggests either very low production or very high attrition.

As for why the colonists use six-shooters instead of semi-autos or blasters: The simpler the tool, the simpler the repairs when it breaks. What do you do if you're out in the middle of the prairie in an unsettled area of a newly-colonized planet and your laser rifle's lens breaks? Hop on your horse and ride two days to the nearest town and then wait six months or a year for a supply ship or a trader to show up, in the hope that they might have the particular lens for your particular model of laser rifle? Whereas, if you've got a problem with your .45 revolver, you can probably fix it yourself, or, in an extreme case, get a blacksmith to repair it.

Paul
"I aim to misbehave."

Posted by: Darren J Hudak at October 3, 2005 07:12 PM

>

Because the Allance has the good high tech equitment and those on the frontier "rebal" planets had to fend for themselves and in many ways start over from scratch. The Alliance doens't want to give them weapons with wich they might have an actual chance of fighting back. This was part of the show, Wedon never spelled it out as such but it's there. Also I should point out that Lazers haven't really come into being a usable weapon in 50 years in the real world, and I don't see a lot of evidence for them to come into comon useage anytime soon, meanwhile guns are still being used. We're used to seeing the future with high tech lazer guns and such, I found it refreshing that someone took an opppisite approach. AS to square dancing, every weekend, (if not every night), there's square dancing going on somewhere in the US, sometimes in the town square. Why do we automatically assume this custom will dissapear in the future?

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 3, 2005 07:30 PM

Peter David: "(although the network-imposed train robbery story that launched it was a bit too on-the-nose for me. I think if the series had aired in the order it was supposed to and the train robbery story had never been done, it wouldn't have left quite such a bad taste in people's mouths.)"

The train robbery show contains my favorite bit of the entire series - Mal kicking an underling into the ship's turbine then dragging the next underling to the same spot and giving him the same spiel which that underling immediately accepts. I saw the series in dvd-order and *that* moment is when the show made me sit up and take notice.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 3, 2005 07:43 PM

It takes balls to say no the next advance, or page rate and instead work for free for roughly 3-6 months doing something self/Image published / creator owned and hope it pays out financially.

Yes, it also takes balls to say no to that paycheck that will actually pay your bills and keep a roof over your head.

And since most writers (in any medium) are not rich, not wanting to turn down an advance shouldn't come as a shock.

Larsen has an ego that needs deflating.

Besides, who the hell is he to say what others should or shouldn't be writing? I'd never even heard of him before this thread started, so obviously his asanine comments don't have much of an impact.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 3, 2005 07:47 PM

Robbnn says:
Bill, I've wondered about the lack of a graphic Doc Savage as well and decided that the pulp fiction heroes just aren't visual enough to support a comic book existance. To make them do so would be to make them someone else (hey! Like Superman or Batman ;0) ). I would like a good movie about Doc, but I don't think he's very well known anymore...

I think you're right and if that doesn't tell you why superheroes dominate comics, nothing will. Doc Freaking Savage isn't visual enough! The readers, they loves their spandex.

Maybe it's just that in superheroes comics found a genre that could be uniquely their own--until the technology got better it was hardly worth movies and TV even TRYING to do superheroes.

The danger with that monopoly is that it has left comics more or less saddled with the expectation that superheroes are the alpha and omega and great stuff like Fallen Angel gets ignored. And now TV, video games and film have caught up.

Posted by: Peter David at October 3, 2005 07:52 PM

"The train robbery show contains my favorite bit of the entire series - Mal kicking an underling into the ship's turbine then dragging the next underling to the same spot and giving him the same spiel which that underling immediately accepts. I saw the series in dvd-order and *that* moment is when the show made me sit up and take notice."

See,whereas I saw it in aired order and I had the EXACT same reaction. I'm watching the show, and I'm not especially interesting. The characters aren't compelling, the world doesn't seem especially original...and then Mal drop kicks the flunky. And it wasn't just that; it was when he starts the exact same speech over and the next guy--not wanting to be shredded, stops him before he gets ten words out with, "No problem! I'm right there with ya, buddy!"

PAD

Posted by: Neil C at October 3, 2005 09:08 PM

'So by that logic, Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel--entirely work-for-hire and using previously created characters--is intrinsically, artistically and morally inferior to "Savage Dragon #1."'

Seems to be a common form of "artistic" snobbery, in all fields. Or perhaps it's the old "try to make yourself look better by tearing everyone else down", sort of the antithesis to creativity.

I observe the same elsewhere: I have a friend who is a nicely successful composer in Hollywood. He has always written eminently good music, making others in the composition field highly suspicious. Once he actually started getting commissions, well, clearly he had "sold out" and "lost his artistic integrity". Like Mozart, Liszt, Haydn, and those other famously incompetent and uncreative composers.

Posted by: The StarWolf at October 3, 2005 10:03 PM

>The galaxy is a big place, and on a cosmic scale, 40,000 ships ain't that much.

Depends. In the Star Trek universe that's more than the whole of Starfleet. But then, this latter only have a small portion of the galaxy to cover. Do we even know how big FIREFLY's Known Space equivalent is? If it isn't much more than 100 light-years across, 40,000 ships of ONE type - there are others - would be ample to cover the habitable worlds likely to be found in such a relatively small area.

Posted by: Jon at October 3, 2005 10:39 PM

"See,whereas I saw it in aired order and I had the EXACT same reaction. I'm watching the show, and I'm not especially interesting. The characters aren't compelling, the world doesn't seem especially original...and then Mal drop kicks the flunky."

Does this mean that we should be worried about Glenn?

Posted by: Bobb at October 3, 2005 10:48 PM

"It takes balls to say no the next advance, or page rate and instead work for free for roughly 3-6 months doing something self/Image published / creator owned and hope it pays out financially."

And when you've got a car payment, a mortgage, a wife and kid counting on you to make all those payments, to say nothing of putting food on the table, keep the AC running, and put a little away for a rainy day, saying "no" to that steady paycheck is what we call irresponsible. And stupid.

Larson and the rest of the Image kids only broke away after working for years for Marvel. They made an awful lot of money holding back while working on someone else's character. New books were launched just for them. The alone were practically responsible for the collector market that set off a wave that nearly ended modern comics as we know it. And then they took that market, went and got investors to back their Image venture, and launched a can't miss publishing company. They didn't take a risk. They never said no to a paycheck. By the time they formed Image, each of them had made enough money to be set for life. So Larson's "you're only really working hard if you're working on your own stuff" really smells.

Posted by: Nytwyng at October 3, 2005 11:06 PM

Do we even know how big FIREFLY's Known Space equivalent is?

According to the opening minutes of Serenity (which, themselves, are an expansion of one of the opening monologues Fox ran before the series), it's essentially a (large) solar system, with the outer planets' hundreds of moons terraformed into the "frontier worlds" where the crew of Serenity can normally be found, and the (naturally?) habitable "core worlds" making up the heart of the Alliance.

Unless I misunderstood, that is.

Posted by: chris mankey at October 4, 2005 12:17 AM

The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship, and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither.

The only thing more distressing to me than that Ron Moore, who I've previously respected, would be a party to such a travesty, is the huge number of otherwise intelligent and respectable viewers who've fallen for it.

I so sorry that your such a moronic ass! Have a nice life! whovian222@msn.com

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 4, 2005 12:21 AM

Unless I misunderstood, that is.

I don't think you misunderstood, I just don't think the explanation given in the movie makes much sense.

A very large solar system with hundreds of moons that were all able to be terraformed? I'm not buying it.

Posted by: David S. at October 4, 2005 12:44 AM

David S: Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?
Luigi Novi: I think Larsen was talking about self-publishing your own creations in your own books. Not creating characters in someone else’s book.

That's interesting. I was under the impression that he was talking about BOTH! He may have been pushing for the FIRST career choice, but he was also name-calling people who pursued the SECOND!

Comic pundits had been periodically covering the aftermath of the "guest writers" issues of Spawn that included the creations of new characters for the book like Angela and Medieval Spawn/Cagliostro, who made an important appearance in The Spawn Movie! The fact that Neil wasn't renumerated for his creations that became incorporated into a series that was created by someone else isn't as different IMHO as creating new villains and guest stars(am I the only one around here who remembered that Steve Gerber's "Howard The Duck" started out as a one-shot cameo in "Fear," Man-Thing's first series?) for an established "comic book icon" who stars in a book created by The Top Two Comicbook Villains, Marvel & DC Comics, at least according to the "prophet" Larsen!

Or do you feel that only Marvel/DC have a monopoly on dismissing creators as "writers-for-hire?" At least they get usually paid for their work before they're dismissed as "hired help." What was McFarland's excuse?

Posted by: BrakYeller at October 4, 2005 03:32 AM

Just a quick thought for all the Larsen defenders out there: when your fandom has to come to your defense to explain to people what you really meant by/might have meant by/got out of your "argument," you've done a piss-poor job of presenting your case --such as it may be-- and pissed off your audience to boot. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using honey to attract flies, you know...

PAD: "...so by that logic, Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel--entirely work-for-hire and using previously created characters..." Man, you love to whip out with this argument, don't you? And did you just compare God to a Big Two stable character? :)

Charlie G.: "...the folks at Wizard have taken all of Peter's comments from this thread, and all of Larsen's comments from this thread, and declared this debate to be a draw." Shows what they know... and why I rarely read Wizard these days (and I can get it free!).

Posted by: Allen at October 4, 2005 04:59 AM

"Peter, when Larsen said it was 'gutless' to do work for hire I think he meant it in the financial sense and not the creative sense.

It takes balls to say no the next advance, or page rate and instead work for free for roughly 3-6 months doing something self/Image published / creator owned and hope it pays out financially.

A freelancer can write/draw an X-men story and be reasonably sure that it will sell to some folks. The company will likely give it *some* promotion and at least the die-hards will pick it up. And of course, you get your money regardless.

But a whole new character? With the book's success or failure completely up to your creativity, promo skills and work ethic?

That's a different ball of wax. Perhaps some creators are taking the easy way and deciding to do work for hire for their entire career.

Truth be told, Erik's advice may be good for those folks. Very few freelancers have long term successful work for hire careers. Fan favorites come and go, many writers & artists that were hot 10 years ago ain't hot today. The same will be true for todays big names 10 years from now.

If they create something that they own and get some sort of fan base, they can still do that when editors stop returning their calls. I'd rather the 'job security' of owning Hellboy vs. hoping editors will hire me over the new and different up-in-comer."

I would like to chime in and point out that taking your project to IMage isn't exactly a sign of bravery and resourcefulness. Image likes to talk about how they're such a great independant publishing banner, but to that I would hold up the example of Dave Sim and Cerebus. THAT is self-publishing, people.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 05:16 AM

Posted by Bobb at October 3, 2005 09:58 AM
Reading Leviathan's other comments re: BSG and Firefly, it's apparant to me that he's missing the trees for the forest. It sounds like he wants his sci-fi stories to be non-human. I'm sure someone could come up with a TV show that represents a truly alien story...but chances are, our human senses wouldn't be able to percieve that story in any kind of way that makes sense.

That's a bizarre leap to a straw-man argument. I want my sci-fi stories to Science Fiction. I want teh stories to require their science-fiction elements to be told at all. And I want them to make some kind of sense. Doctor Who, Star Trek, Babylon 5 -- Hell, even Lost In Space! -- have all managed to do this and still tell stories that humans can comprehend.

Leviathan, what are some examples of Sci Fi shows that in your opinion tell new stories? Because, as Den suggested, there are no new stories. The anchient Greeks pretty much had the basics of all storytelling down, and they probably got them from some other culture. Hollywood of late has gotten really bad, because they've lost sight that it's HOW you tell the story that matters. The story itself isn't new, and it never will be.

I'm not talking about BG failing to create an eighth basic plot. I'm talking about entire plots and sub-plots lifted whole and breathing -- well, not really breathing, because they're shopworn, threadbare, and lifeless cliches -- from other sources.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 4, 2005 06:12 AM

Leviathan, perhaps, in the interests of actually supporting your arguments, you could share with the class a few of the supposed "entire plots and sub-plots" plagiarized by the writers of the new Battlestar Galactica?

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 06:22 AM

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 2, 2005 01:25 PM
Leviathan wrote:
"The sheer, lazy effrontery with which the producers completely failed to even make the slightest gesture toward giving even a semblance of a culture to the 12 Colonies is a sickening display of contempt for the audience."

Effrontery and contempt are kind of strong words, don't you think? What, do you think Moore & co., while planning the series, sat around and said, "Our viewers are a bunch of simps and idiots, so screw 'em"? C'mon, that's silly.

When J. Michael Straczynski first came to Hollywood, he worked as a reporter for some entertainment magazine, and during that time, one of his gigs was interviewing the producers of a new SF series -- possibly "V."

The producer told him, "We don't care about the Sci-Fi fans. We don't have to. As long as we have spaceships and ray-guns, the Sci-Fi fans will watch. We just want to attract other viewers."

Besides, there actually is more than a "slight gesture toward a semblance of culture," or at least there was in the 3 episodes I've seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can't remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before.

That's the thin coat of paint on the surface.

Are there things which probably would be different in a distant, extraterrestrial culture which aren't (the cigarettes, the liquor, the form of government, etc.)? Sure, but why is that any more of a big deal than the fact that we hear them speaking English?

Because there's way too much of it, down to the bonehead stuff that would be easy to fix.

(Plus, part of the premise is that there is a connection with our world, hence the various Greek names in use, so who knows, maybe there'll be an explanation for it. We have no idea when the series is set, relative to our time.)

We know it's distant enough that (A) humankind has colonized a dozen worlds in different, distant solar systems, far out across the galaxy, and for those colonies to have forgotten us so completely that "Earth" is a half-forgotten legend more obscure to us than Atlantis. So we can safely assume a couple of thousand years, and, based on how obscure the "Earth" legend is, probably more like five or six thousand.

So, look around yourself at work today, and take note of how many people you see who would be able to blend in to a crowd scene in, say, Ancient Rome -- without a change of clothes.

"In science-fiction, Job One is world-building. If your world doesn't work, your story can't. And the world the new BG has given us is LA circa 2005."

While I'm sure many would agree with you, the first sentence is open to debate - sci fi can go down many different roads. The latter, what, you've never seen science fiction that functions, and is to a large extent constructed as a direct commentary on the present before?

Sure. Watch the Doctor Who episode "The Sun Makers." It understandably mocks Britain's tax structures without appearing to be set in London in the year of its filming.

(And why just LA circa 2005? US circa 2005 is more like it - paranoia, threats of terrorism, conflict between military and the democracy.)

There isn't the cultural diversity of a whole country.

"Moreover, it re-uses iconic images without a thought to what those iconic images mean: re-staging the LBJ swearing-in on Air Force One without thinking about what it implies about the character of the new President, for example."

Why would the character of the next president have to match that of LBJ? Are the only significant things in the actual iconic image of LBJ's swearing in LBJ himself and his presidency? Aren't there other meanings attached to those images, that moment?

You can't pick and choose what parts of the iconic image are communicated and what parts aren't. It carries its emotional weight in toto. That's what makes it iconic. You see LBJ being sworn in, and you see a country in crisis, and a small, venal, unworthy man stepping opportunistically into the shoes of a giant. It's all of a piece. Straczynski understood that, re-staging the LBJ swearing-in with President Clarke on Babylon 5, and we immediately knew that the Earth Alliance was screwed, that this man was going to sell us down the river. BG doesn't seem to want us to think that of its President, but put her in the same iconic position. That's just inept storytelling.

"The new BG isn't science fiction at all. It's a mediocre exercise in transplanting a couple of different genres of "mainstream drama" into a spaceship,"

What's wrong with mainstream drama? What's wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?

Nothing is wrong with mainstream drama.But it's not science fiction. A lot is wrong with derivative, unimaginive, mediocre mainstream drama, and none of it goes away when you set it aboard a spaceshiop, and being aboard a spaceship doesn't make it SF.

This is one of the things that makes me crazy about the cultish love of the new BG. If you peeled the bogus SF veneer off of any part of the series, and set it in the here and now, we'd all think it was a pretty second-rate show. The president dealing with breast cancer while in conflict with a resentful military would be Lifetime TV's knock-off of The West Wing, Baltar and whatsername would be "Body of Evidence Lite" and the combat storylines would be second-rate Black Sheep Squadron. Flying an aircar past the window doesn't make it brilliant.

"and hoping that moving starfields or aircars outside the window will fool an audience into believing that it's sf, and that it's good, when it is in fact neither."

Okay, I can see how you could try to argue that "moving starfields outside the window" might fool people into thinking something is sci fi when it's not, (though I don't think that's accurate here), but how would it fool them into thinking it was good?

Because they seem somehiow to believe that these shopworn cliches become fresh, brilliant characterization if set in space. The mechanism baffles me.

So it's not your cuppa tea. Why does that make it horrible, an act of contempt, etc.?

It's not simply "not my cuppa tea." It's absolutely a case of people being paid huge amounts of money to do a job, not being willing to be bothered to do it.

You can go on all you want about how BG's failure to do _anything_ to differentiate the cultures of the Twelve Colonies from ours is a bold and deliberate storytelling choiuce, but I notice that it's bold and deliberate storytelling choice that saves them the trouble of thinking up something at all different, that lets them do their costuming at Chess King rather than hire a costume designer, lets them buy their props at Big Lots instead of designing abd building them. In short, it's a bold and deliberate storytelling choice that lets them do everything the cheap and easy way.

It's not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say,"Christ!"?

Yes, yes, I know, it wasn't in the script, the actor ad-libbed it. That doesn't excuse the flub, that exacerbates it! The actor didn't know enough about his character and his background to know that the word made no sense for him. Nobody explained it to him well enough for him to understand that he wasn't plying a guy from earth, Nobody could be bothered. And nobody on the set said, "Waitaminute! What does a guy from teh Twelve Colonies know about Christ? Let's do another take, and can you maybe say 'Gods' instead?" They couldn't be bothered. And on through post-production, editing, sound recording, and so on until it went on the air, nobody noticed it, nobody caught it, nobody fixed it. Nobody paid enough attention to see that it was there, or cared enough to do anything to make it right.

Like Attack of the the Eye Creatures, they just didn't care.

And that's every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn't nail together the boards.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 06:29 AM

PAD Notes:

"Unforgiven," on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch.

Yes, but it still wouldn't have been Science Fiction.

Posted by: Alex at October 4, 2005 06:33 AM

I think anyone who took the time to write a well thought out response to Erik's article is an idiot (or at the very least acting like one for the moment). Obviously Erik didn't put much thought into this article: it was emotionally fueled and fired off with little thought of the implications. Many of the statements Erik made contradict beliefs that he has held for years- hell, they contradict material he wrote just a month earlier!

In order to guess at what Mr. Larsen was feeling (I hesitate to use the word "thinking" here, since he most likely wasn't), we need to look at who this article's target was. I believe he's angry at himself. The entire On Fan's Opinion column is self indulgent to begin with- it is no stretch to see how this rant applies only to his own practices. I am a fan of the Savage Dragon (as well as a fan of Mr. David), and like most other SD fans I am acutely aware that Erik created the Savage Dragon Universe as an opportunity to play with Marvel and D.C.'s toys in his own sandbox. (Over time the universe evolved into something more original- just as Spider-man began as a shadow of Superman.) As he has stated before, Erik is a fan first and a creator second- that is why his own title is so enjoyable. It is a comic fan's fantasy come true. At the same time Mr. Larsen must realizes that his chracters are only interpretations of the originals as he has written on several occasions how the only history of a character that "counts" is the material that occurs in the regular continuity (and not alternate "elseworlds" reality). And thus we understand his time spent working on the "real" Marvel/D.C. heros that he loved as a child. And we also know of his fustration over having his contributions erased like they didn't count (I won't elaborate the whole Doc Octopus vs. Hulk controversy, but Peter is among the guilty for undoing parts of his history). Erik wanted a mark left at Marvel to show he was there. He didn't get it. And so he's pissed at himself. Let him cry in his own column and leave it alone- because in the end it doesn't involve anyone here.


[P.S. Visually the Dragon looks like the Hulk but the similarities end there. To say they are the same character is unjustified. The original Savage Dragon was an intentional ]

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 4, 2005 06:43 AM

PAD Notes:

"Unforgiven," on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch.

Yes, but it still wouldn't have been Science Fiction.


Actually, it would.

science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 4, 2005 07:00 AM

Just a couple of memories from writing classes all those years ago triggered by the recent thread.

First, all stories ever can be broken down even further than 7 or 8 basic plots. The essense of all drama is conflict, and there are only three basic conflicts, man vs man, man vs nature, and man vs self. All stories are combinations of these three in varying degrees.

Also, one of the most quantifiable measures of how well crafted a story is, is how easily the plot could be shifted to an entirely different setting without losing anything. It's done with Shakespeare and Bronte all the time. If it relies on SF, Fantasy, or other trappings too much for the story to function otherwise, it probably weakly written. Dune could just as easily take place in the Middle East with horses instead of worms. The Lord of the Rings books could be set during a fictional modern war with little effort.

And so on...

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 08:49 AM

I think I get Leviathan now. Y'see, as Rex points out, it's not the stories that make sci fi what it is, it's the setting. Because it can't be the stories. If we're trying to reach a human audience, we're stuck with the same old human stories that have been around for thousands of years. I guess Star Trek is science fiction not because of warp drives, phasers, and smooth/bumpy (pick your flavor) Klingons, but because the Federation is this somewhat utopian government that provides for all, controls the weather, doesn't use money, and seeks to peacefully explore it's environs without unduly disturbing them. In other words, a government impossible to attain, knowing what we do of human passions. And even within the fictional setting of the Trek Universe, not as much a reality as an ideal, much as we have today.

Oh, darn, I guess that means Star Trek isn't Sci Fi after all.

Leviathan, if you don't like BSG/Firefly whatever, for any reason, fine, don't like it. But don't make up reasons to say it's bad sci fi, or not sci fi, because the producers and writers aren't doing it the way you would. Personally, I consider it closed-minded to only see an emergency presidential succession ceremony occuring aboard a plane/spacecraft as an allegory for the LBJ succession.

Your comments on so-called mainstream drama also demonstrate that you fail to comprehend that the only thing that separetes sci fi from mundane stories is just the setting. Is Surface mainstream drama? Is Passions a mainstream soap? (I hope I got that right...what else would Spike watch?) Are Invasion and Threshold mainstream dramas? Or are they sci fi? Because based on what you're saying, I can't tell. You mention B5 as "good" sci fi...but the uniforms in B5 were straight out of a Janet Jackson video, and much of the clothing would have blended in nicely on most city streets (ok, maybe not the Vorlon robes). If your definition of Sci Fi means "things that you don't see everyday," then Buck Rogers, Land of the Lost, and Leave it to Beaver, not to mention Gilligan's Island, would all qualify as sci fi.

But while that may be the Leviathan definition, that's not what the rest of the world sees it as.

And what's with the comment from the producers of V? Are they also producing BSG? Otherwise, you're imposing the view of a big network from the 80s onto what most people consider to be some of the best TV sci fi to come along in a decade.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 08:53 AM

Question for Leviathan: As I said before, I agree with your criticisms of BG's use of contemporary mannerisms, costumes, and props. However, I'm curious as to why you keep saying it isn't science fiction. For all its flas, BG is still a show about space travel and the benefits and perils of advanced technology. The idea of people playing God by creating a new life and then having their creation turn around and bite them in the ass is a classic SF trope.

So what is it that makes it not SF? That you don't like it?

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 08:53 AM

"That's a bizarre leap to a straw-man argument. I want my sci-fi stories to Science Fiction. I want teh stories to require their science-fiction elements to be told at all. And I want them to make some kind of sense. Doctor Who, Star Trek, Babylon 5 -- Hell, even Lost In Space! -- have all managed to do this and still tell stories that humans can comprehend."

I'm really not sure what Leviathan is trying to say here. He was complaining first that the stories in BSG were too comparable to current of past human events...then he sites Doctor Who, Star Trek, and B5....three great shows that each used a sci fi setting to make commentary on...current or past human events?

I don't think I'm making a straw man argument. Either Leviathan is generating reasons to not like BSG because it just doesn't tickle his fancy, or he's looking at sci fi to have, I don't know, aliens? Because that's about the only thing that BSG doesn't have, when compared to those other genre shows. Unless you count the Cylons, which are kinda alien in that we're not sure their motivations match up with human understanding, although it would seem that they, in fact, closely parallel human response.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 4, 2005 10:31 AM

I think the main "problem" with Larsen article is people didn't read it.

Some people on here are assuming he's bitching about:

Good creative runs on company owned characters. (He's not. Erik loves Walt Simonson's Thor just as much as you do).
People leaving a regular paycheck to do a work for hire job (He's not, it was aimed at established freelancers).

People's "misunderstandings" had fuck all to do with his writing abilities. Erik was pretty straight foward and blunt with his message.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 4, 2005 10:31 AM

Leviathan wrote:
"The producer told him, "We don't care about the Sci-Fi fans. We don't have to. As long as we have spaceships and ray-guns, the Sci-Fi fans will watch. We just want to attract other viewers."

That's as may be, but what does that have to do with BG? Anything interview or statement I've read from Moore makes it clear that he loves the genre.

Me:
"Besides, there actually is more than a "slight gesture toward a semblance of culture," or at least there was in the 3 episodes I've seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can't remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before. "

Leviathan:
"That's the thin coat of paint on the surface."

Um, not really. Unless you're only interested in the setting itself, I don't see how something like that is just "a thin coat of paint." I really do not understand where you're coming from, sorry.

Leviathan:
"Because there's way too much of it, down to the bonehead stuff that would be easy to fix."

None of that has gotten in the way of my enjoyment of the show, so I don't see it as anything that needs to be fixed. Your mileage may vary, I suppose.

Leviathan:
"We know it's distant enough that (A) humankind has colonized a dozen worlds in different, distant solar systems, far out across the galaxy, and for those colonies to have forgotten us so completely that "Earth" is a half-forgotten legend more obscure to us than Atlantis. So we can safely assume a couple of thousand years, and, based on how obscure the "Earth" legend is, probably more like five or six thousand."

Actually, we don't know that at all. We don't know what the mechanism of connection is, or which way the flow of humanity went. (Remember, Kobol's considered to be the homeworld, Earth, one of the colonies.) Might even be some kind of parallel universe thing, who knows. It's too soon to say.

"There isn't the cultural diversity of a whole country."

So far, we've seen only a fraction of the 50,000 survivors, which in turn were only a miniscule fraction of the total population of the 12 colonies. Most of the time, we're with either the military or the President and her people. Given that we've seen only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, why should we expect to have seen the whole tapestry of Colonial culture? (And how do we know how diverse it was?)

Leviathan:
"You can't pick and choose what parts of the iconic image are communicated and what parts aren't. It carries its emotional weight in toto. That's what makes it iconic. You see LBJ being sworn in, and you see a country in crisis, and a small, venal, unworthy man stepping opportunistically into the shoes of a giant. It's all of a piece. Straczynski understood that, re-staging the LBJ swearing-in with President Clarke on Babylon 5, and we immediately knew that the Earth Alliance was screwed, that this man was going to sell us down the river. BG doesn't seem to want us to think that of its President, but put her in the same iconic position. That's just inept storytelling."

Hey, all props to B5, but I disagree that you can't do something like what Moore did. Maybe he did attempt to "pick and choose what parts of the iconic image [were] communicated," but it worked well enough for me. (Then again, maybe I'm just an inept audience member listening to an inept storyteller.)

Besides, part of the question posed by that image is: "Is this person up to the task that has been suddenly thrust upon them?" That's a major part of President Roslin's story arc, with that question hanging over her head. The audience knows it, the character know it, she knows it. That's partly set up by Moore's use of that iconic image. (Or in other words, there's more than one way to skin an icon :)

Leviathan:
"Nothing is wrong with mainstream drama.But it's not science fiction. A lot is wrong with derivative, unimaginive, mediocre mainstream drama, and none of it goes away when you set it aboard a spaceshiop, and being aboard a spaceship doesn't make it SF."

Unimaginative, mediocre, and derivative (in its perjorative sense) aren't terms I'd apply to BG, sorry. Again, your mileage may vary, but from what I've seen, this is pretty good stuff.

Leviathan:
"This is one of the things that makes me crazy about the cultish love of the new BG."

Well, I don't know if I'm up to the cultish love level. My earlier remarks were based on three episodes from late in season 1 that were aired on TV. Since posting, I've only seen the mini and the first couple of episodes. Sure, I'm ready to rave about it now, but my initial impressions weren't based on any kind of cultish love, or any kind of hype (I don't have cable, don't know anyone who watches it). BG's _earned_ it's good reputation in my book.

Leviathan:
"If you peeled the bogus SF veneer off of any part of the series, and set it in the here and now, we'd all think it was a pretty second-rate show. The president dealing with breast cancer while in conflict with a resentful military would be Lifetime TV's knock-off of The West Wing, Baltar and whatsername would be "Body of Evidence Lite" and the combat storylines would be second-rate Black Sheep Squadron. Flying an aircar past the window doesn't make it brilliant."

Sorry, I disagree with this. If this was set in a non-sci fi setting, but everything else was kept the same, I'd still be interested. Like PAD said, part of what's great about the show are the characters.

Leviathan:
"It's not simply "not my cuppa tea." It's absolutely a case of people being paid huge amounts of money to do a job, not being willing to be bothered to do it. "

Still not seeing any real evidence for the "not being willing to be bothered to do it" charge.

Leviathan:
"but I notice that it's bold and deliberate storytelling choice that saves them the trouble of thinking up something at all different, that lets them do their costuming at Chess King rather than hire a costume designer, lets them buy their props at Big Lots instead of designing abd building them. In short, it's a bold and deliberate storytelling choice that lets them do everything the cheap and easy way."

What's wrong with that? Since when is the quality of a story or a series necessarily a matter of the amount of money thrown at it? (C'mon, you like Dr. Who, how can this matter to you?)

Leviathan:
"It's not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say,"Christ!"?

Nobody paid enough attention to see that it was there, or cared enough to do anything to make it right."

Haven't seen (or don't remember seeing) that bit yet, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. If it's a mistake, big whoop, it's not like it brings the whole show crashing down. Unless you're watching it looking to get ticked off by it. Compared to all the things they got right in the show, by my estimation, that's a small thing.

Leviathan:
"And that's every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn't nail together the boards."

Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn't suit your tastes.

Sorry, man, not trying to be insulting or anything.

Posted by: Robin S at October 4, 2005 10:42 AM

Stew Fyfe wrote:
"What's wrong with mainstream drama? What's wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?"

Obviously, that precludes BSG from being "Sci-fi" in the same way that having noticable western elements stops Firefly from being sci-fi (an argument that I hear a lot).

Neither argument has any merit, of course. Does Leviathan want the show to have no drama? Or does he want writers to invent an all new kind of drama? My love of sci-fi stems from the fact that it provides different ways of telling teh same old stories, and it's a constant reminder that human nature doesn't change... whether you set the story on a fleet of ships that are all that's left of Earth's population or on a small cargo ship on the outskirts of the "civilized" world doesn't matter. The story does. I've not watched BSG, but a lot of people I respect like the story well enough, and for that reason alone, I hope it lasts many many years (though if I could trade it for Firefly, I'd do so in a heartbeat).

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at October 4, 2005 10:49 AM

ok..i'll admit to not having read all of the messages in this thread (and i ain't gonna)...so apologies if this has been addressed.

regardless of what Larsen's message is...when did it become appropriate for a professional in a given industry to address the public like that?

Hey, I'm no prude. There are very few words that I haven't used. But not at work. Not in a professional forum.

It just boggles my mind that one could be so unprofessional. Regardless of whether or not the title of the piece is One FAN's View (or something similar)...larsen is still a known entity in the field. A person in a position of authority (whether deserving or not).

Really? Was nobody else appalled at the language given that this is a professional in a particular field addressing the public through a forum dedicated to that particular field (which, IMHO, makes it somewhat of a professional address)?

wow.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 4, 2005 10:49 AM

>>"And that's every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn't nail together the boards."

>Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn't suit your tastes.

Some of the finest pieces of woodwork I've seen don't use nails at all, but pieces of wood that are fitted to lock together with one another. While it comes down to personal preference, I'd venture to say that it takes much more skill to work in this more traditional manner, than to hammer nails.

Fred

Posted by: Robin S at October 4, 2005 11:01 AM

Leviathan:
"It's not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say, 'Christ!'?"

I'm not a BSG viewer (I watch very little TV until it comes out on DVD), but I don't see this being a big deal. How many people today utter swear words that mean nothing to them? I catch myself all the time uttering completely nonsensical swear words (or the few Japanese words that I picked up back when I was seriously trying to learn the language). The words don't mean anything to me; they're just expletives that I've picked up. Do you honestly believe that there's absolutely no chance that the word "Christ" slipped down through the years?

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM

"Leviathan:
"It's not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say, 'Christ!'?""

Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance? Something that obvious doesn't get left in by mistake. This isn't like the chariot drivers in Ben Hur wearing their Timex's during the chariot scene, thinking they'd be too small to notice. By the time you get into the editing room with that scene, it's a little late to go back and reshoot the entire thing. This is a single utterance, and even if it was ad-libed into the scene, it'd take all of 30 seconds to reshoot it. Or even less to dub in a more Gods of Kobol approriate declaration.

So, if it's not a mistake, it must be intentional. And since the whole connection to Earth thing is one of the questions the show is following, it's either a pretty sizable clue, or a glaring red hering.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 11:39 AM

Regarding the "Christ" comment:

The more I think about the show, the more I'm convinced that their legend about Earth is greatly garbled. We'll likely find out that Earth is the lost homeworld, not the lost colony. The use of Earth's zodiac as a representation of the Lords of Kobol clinches it for me. The LOK were probably the original colony leaders who were elevated to godhood by later generations. If I were to make a guess, I would say that the heart of the cylons hatred of the humans is that the robots know that humanity has rejected their earlier monotheistic (Judeo-Christian) religion for a polytheistic faith.

I still think there should have been changes in style of clothes, but it doesn't fill me with the level of contempt that it does Leviathan.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 11:58 AM

"I still think there should have been changes in style of clothes, but it doesn't fill me with the level of contempt that it does Leviathan."

C'mon, Den. If you don't change the style of the clothes, it's obviously not science fiction.

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 12:04 PM

I miss Buck Rogers' jump suits. Or maybe I'd better say Col. Deering's jump suits. Or even that plastic chest thing Hawk had, and the feathered hair.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 12:07 PM

"Or even that plastic chest thing Hawk had, and the feathered hair."

Dude. Hawk's hair defines true science fiction tonsorial choices. I just hope I have hair like that in the future.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 12:09 PM

Bobb: I'm partial to the jumpsuits that Jane Badler wore on 'V'. Functional, futuristic, and tight as all hell.

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 12:13 PM

Gah, I forgot about those. And red is a much better color. And I bet they're thermally insulated, given how they're just big lizards and all.

I think I say the actor that played Hawk in one of those Truth ads recently. I think he wishes he had Hawks hair these days, too.

Say, shouldn't we be seeing some Trek OS miniskirts any day now?

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 12:35 PM

And the lizards had ray guns to go with their insulated jumpsuits. A show that just screams "I AM SCIENCE FICTION!"

It's funny that Mr. Hobbes up there is so against "non-futurey" science fiction. Perhaps BSG and 'Serenity' could make the cut if everything was in chrome. I'm thinking of some of my favorite science fiction series and movies, and most of the ones that really appealed to me were the ones that had a future that I found to be a reasonable extrapolation of today's society.

"Firefly" is most decidedly one of those (and for the record, "Serenity" kicks ass). I would also include the movie of "Alien Nation" (didn't particularly care for the series, but really enjoyed the novelizations - and I'm including yours in this, PAD, even though you had the temerity to work on something that wasn't creator owned). I think science fiction on TV is much harder to pull off. I never really enjoyed Star Trek of any sort (although I did appreciate the hostile dynamic on DS9 for the first few seasons), and I was as much a fanboy of anyone when it came to Star Wars.

I think the issue at hand with fiction of any sort is pretty simple: Does the story have characters you care about? There was a very brief debate about "Deadwood" on another thread, claiming it was one of the best-written shows on TV. That may be, but I don't give two shits about any of the characters, and I've watched the first five episodes.

What sucked me into 'Firefly' was that I was instantly interested in the characters of Mal and Zoe. Whedon's gift (in my mind) is his ability to tell you almost all you need to know about a character within the first few lines of dialogue out of that character's mouth. Not many writers can do that.

I've not seen BSG, but would like to. Unfortunately for me and my aged mind, trying to remember to watch any series on a weekly basis is almost impossible (I'm giving myself bonus points for actually watching "Lost" two weeks in a row). What I have seen on BSG, which annoyed the shit out of me, was the camera work.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 01:15 PM

And I bet they're thermally insulated, given how they're just big lizards and all.

Actually, being cold-blooded, lizards wouldn't get any benefit from a thermally insulated suit. We mammals have internal heat sources and insulation gives us the benefit of being able to better retain our body heat. Lizards have no internal body heat, so they could walk around in an insulated suit and still freeze to death.

Of course, maybe the suits had an internal heat source to warm them in cold temperatures.

Oh and Erin Grey in a jump suit = only redeeming quality of Buck Rogers.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 01:21 PM

Oh and Erin Grey in a jump suit = only redeeming quality of Buck Rogers.

That's only because you never heard my uncle's imitation of Twiki.

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 01:32 PM

"Of course, maybe the suits had an internal heat source to warm them in cold temperatures."

Naturally, I assumed that a race sophisticated enough to develop giant flying saucers and neato shades would include suit heaters.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 02:06 PM

That's only because you never heard my uncle's imitation of Twiki.

And if I'm lucky, I never will. :P

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 02:07 PM

Naturally, I assumed that a race sophisticated enough to develop giant flying saucers and neato shades would include suit heaters.

IRRC, the shades were useless against using mirrors to reflect light in their faces, so I wouldn't be so sure.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 02:11 PM

I don't know, man. For an intrinsically unfunny guy, that was a hilarious imitation.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 02:12 PM

"IRRC, the shades were useless against using mirrors to reflect light in their faces, so I wouldn't be so sure."

How can you say that? They had frickin' lasers!

Posted by: indestructibleman at October 4, 2005 02:20 PM

i think there is a legitimate distinction to be made between "hard sci-fi" and most of the sci-fi we see, much of which could be termed space opera.

Philip K. Dick is an excellent example of hard sci-fi.

Dr Who certainly had its hard sci-fi moments, but a lot of it was adventure/mystery stories on different planets/different times.

i really enjoy good hard sci-fi. i also really enjoy good space opera.

an excellent hard sci-fi story would be nigh impossible to change to another setting. i don't think this makes it a lesser work.

trying to say that hard sci-fi is better than soft sci-fi or vice versa puts one dangerously close to those people who would argue that "realistic" drama is inherently superiour to sci-fi/fantasy/horror.

btw, Larsen is a prick.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 02:32 PM

Posted by Rex Hondo at October 4, 2005 06:43 AM

[I wrote:]

PAD Notes:

"Unforgiven," on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch.

Yes, but it still wouldn't have been Science Fiction.

Actually, it would.

science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

You've found an incorrect definition. If your story doesn't require "speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets," etc. in order to work, it isn't science fiction.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 02:41 PM

And, if the story is about robots bent on destroying humanity as they pursue them in spaceships, how again is that not SF? I might agree that, as indestructibleman said, it's not hard SF, but it's still SF.

It just seems readily apparent that your definition of "not SF" is "anything I don't like."

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 02:52 PM

Main Entry: science fiction
Function: noun
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

That's from Webster's. Not that I expect Leviathan to provide anything concrete, but care to tell us who defines sci fi as requiring "speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets," etc. in order to work?"

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 02:53 PM

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 08:49 AM

I think I get Leviathan now. Y'see, as Rex points out, it's not the stories that make sci fi what it is, it's the setting.

No, Bob, it's the stories. Not the three-word abstraction that all stories can be thematically described with, just the stories. And it's perfectly simple: If your story could be told without SF tropes, it isn't science fiction.

If only surface or background details differentiate your story from a Lifetime TV movie about breast cancer, or West Wing episode, or Black Sheep Squadron, it's not science fiction.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 4, 2005 03:00 PM

No, Bob, it's the stories. Not the three-word abstraction that all stories can be thematically described with, just the stories. And it's perfectly simple: If your story could be told without SF tropes, it isn't science fiction.

If only surface or background details differentiate your story from a Lifetime TV movie about breast cancer, or West Wing episode, or Black Sheep Squadron, it's not science fiction.

So, what (in your mind) qualifies as science fiction?

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 03:25 PM

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM

Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance?

Because Moore said, "That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn't know about it until it went on the air."

So he cares so much about the show that he let one of the first episodes air without even watching all of it.

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 03:37 PM

"Because Moore said, "That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn't know about it until it went on the air.""

And he said that where?

Posted by: BrakYeller at October 4, 2005 03:44 PM

Jamie Coville: "I think the main "problem" with Larsen article is people didn't read it."
See, now that's just the point I was alluding to eariler... When you're making an argument, you're attempting to persuade people to come over to your way of thinking. There are several ways to do this, including supporting your arguments with facts, couching your arguments in a manner palatable to your audience, and being aware of the opposition's arguments while making your arguments better than theirs.
Larsen did none of the above; pissing off your audience by calling them names and disparaging their point of view does nothing to win people's support for your cause. In fact, depending on the venom in the delivery, it can make people actively disbeleive everything you say, simply because you're so offensive. Yeah, Larsen was blunt and straightforward with his message, but that bluntness of delivery also happened to obliterate whatever message he was trying to get across, because now you're insulted by how he's speaking to you. Jamie, you may see such abuse as a good argumentative tactic because it raises eyebrows and grabs your attention, but after a while you become the boy who cries wolf... all you have is bluster without backup.
So don't tell me I misread Larsen's column... if Larsen can't get his point across because he's too busy trying to be offensive, that's *his* fault, and not *mine*. It's the writer's responsibility to get the thought out of their head and into mine clearly, and that goes double on editorial or opinion pieces like columns... and if you can't do that, maybe you don't need to write that particular column. Write one on how peas taste yummy instead, or something; I don't know, I'm not Erik Larsen.

Posted by: BrakYeller at October 4, 2005 03:46 PM

(Oops. Apparently I still have much to learn about HTML tags. Sorry, all.)

Posted by: Chadwick H. Saxelid at October 4, 2005 04:08 PM

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM

Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance?

Because Moore said, "That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn't know about it until it went on the air."

So he cares so much about the show that he let one of the first episodes air without even watching all of it.

Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 03:37 PM
"Because Moore said, "That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn't know about it until it went on the air.""

And he said that where?

If the comment is about Tigh saying "Jesus" during the pilot of BSG then, if I recall correctly, it was made on Moore's blog at the Battlestar Galactica webpage. Moore explained that the line managed to slp through because 1) It was a minor detail (i.e. not unlike the numerous continuity goofs that can be found in just about every movie ever made) and 2) There countless more important production matters that distracted from it. The producer didn't catch, the director didn't catch it, the editors didn't catch it...probably because it is such an overused term that the flub slipped past. Not unlike how Mark Hamill evidently called our "Carrie!" instead of "Leia!" at the end of Star Wars. Or so I have heard that he did.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 4, 2005 04:09 PM

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 4, 2005 10:31 AM

Me:
"Besides, there actually is more than a "slight gesture toward a semblance of culture," or at least there was in the 3 episodes I've seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can't remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before. "

Leviathan:
"That's the thin coat of paint on the surface."

Um, not really. Unless you're only interested in the setting itself, I don't see how something like that is just "a thin coat of paint." I really do not understand where you're coming from, sorry.

There's no depth to the Colonial's polythesitic system, nor the Cylon's monotheistic system. You could re-name them Catholic and Protestant, change a few lines of dialogue, and tell the same story.

Leviathan:
"We know it's distant enough that (A) humankind has colonized a dozen worlds in different, distant solar systems, far out across the galaxy, and for those colonies to have forgotten us so completely that "Earth" is a half-forgotten legend more obscure to us than Atlantis. So we can safely assume a couple of thousand years, and, based on how obscure the "Earth" legend is, probably more like five or six thousand."

Actually, we don't know that at all. We don't know what the mechanism of connection is, or which way the flow of humanity went. (Remember, Kobol's considered to be the homeworld, Earth, one of the colonies.) Might even be some kind of parallel universe thing, who knows. It's too soon to say.

We do know that the split between the 12 Colonies and Earth happened long enough ago that "Earth" is a near-forgotten legend. We also know that, if our life on this Earth was founded by the survivers of that ragtag fugitive fleet, it was long enough ago that we don't remember them at all -- Except Glen Larsen, of course.

So the times I was talking about still work.

"There isn't the cultural diversity of a whole country."

So far, we've seen only a fraction of the 50,000 survivors, which in turn were only a miniscule fraction of the total population of the 12 colonies. Most of the time, we're with either the military or the President and her people. Given that we've seen only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, why should we expect to have seen the whole tapestry of Colonial culture? (And how do we know how diverse it was?)

What we see is what we get. What we see is modern-day LA. If they go on to show enough to make it modern-day USA, what of it? They're still asking me to believe that an extrasolar civilization that's been parted from us for millenia will have a culture exactly like our own.

Leviathan:
"You can't pick and choose what parts of the iconic image are communicated and what parts aren't. It carries its emotional weight in toto. That's what makes it iconic. You see LBJ being sworn in, and you see a country in crisis, and a small, venal, unworthy man stepping opportunistically into the shoes of a giant. It's all of a piece. Straczynski understood that, re-staging the LBJ swearing-in with President Clarke on Babylon 5, and we immediately knew that the Earth Alliance was screwed, that this man was going to sell us down the river. BG doesn't seem to want us to think that of its President, but put her in the same iconic position. That's just inept storytelling."

Hey, all props to B5, but I disagree that you can't do something like what Moore did.

I didn't say you can't film a scene re-creating a famous historical one. I said you can't limit what the recreation brings to the audience to just those elements that you want it to convey. Which you can, of course, if you simply create a significantly different kind of scene in its place. Of course, writing your own material is harder...

Leviathan:
"It's not simply "not my cuppa tea." It's absolutely a case of people being paid huge amounts of money to do a job, not being willing to be bothered to do it. "

Still not seeing any real evidence for the "not being willing to be bothered to do it" charge.

Just look at the "ad lib" nobody caught below:

Leviathan:
"but I notice that it's bold and deliberate storytelling choice that saves them the trouble of thinking up something at all different, that lets them do their costuming at Chess King rather than hire a costume designer, lets them buy their props at Big Lots instead of designing abd building them. In short, it's a bold and deliberate storytelling choice that lets them do everything the cheap and easy way."

What's wrong with that? Since when is the quality of a story or a series necessarily a matter of the amount of money thrown at it? (C'mon, you like Dr. Who, how can this matter to you?)

It's not how much cash is thrown, it's how much effort. Doctor Who proves that ingenuity and effort can overcome the tiniest of budgets, and produce innovation. BG proves that no amount of money can overcome the lack of ambition to innovate.

Leviathan:
"It's not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say,"Christ!"?

Nobody paid enough attention to see that it was there, or cared enough to do anything to make it right."

Haven't seen (or don't remember seeing) that bit yet, but it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. If it's a mistake, big whoop, it's not like it brings the whole show crashing down. Unless you're watching it looking to get ticked off by it. Compared to all the things they got right in the show, by my estimation, that's a small thing.

So how big does a mistake have to be before it's worth catching? What does it tell us that nobody even bothered? The problem isn't that it's a series-destroying mistake, the problem is that it was an obvious one that could have been fixed easily in many different parts of the process, and nobody cared enough to bother, or even notice, until it was on the air.

Leviathan:
"And that's every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn't nail together the boards."

Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn't suit your tastes.

Only if the chair doesn't suit my tastes because the legs aren't really attached, and if you try to sit in it you'll fall down and get a boo-boo.

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 04:16 PM

Getting back to Larson:

Reading his article, I get that he may have thought he was challenging his peers to create more original characters rather than let the industry stagnate on the same old, same old. But, as Brakyellar and others have said, in doing so, he:

Insulted other creators for doing work-for-hire instead of creator-owned materials.

Insulted readers for buying company owned characters than supporting creator-owned characters.

I realize that Larson, like many of the other Image founders, doesn't believe that he writers are necessary, but if you really want to affect change in the industry, you can't start by insulting the very people you are trying to persuade.

Is he right that the comics industry needs to broaden the diversity of its product beyond the handful of characters that dominate the big two? Sure, but after his obnoxious attitude towards fans and other creators, who cares?

Larson isn't the only creator who thinks it's clever to be write articles insulting his own audience. I've noticed others who have written articles with a similar tone. I don't get how people who make their living telling stories don't understand how to communicate without being obnoxious.

Posted by: Bob Jones at October 4, 2005 04:20 PM

I'm just a poor, dumb retired Sergeant so business things like contracts and customer service and shipping and things of that nature make my head spin. So, I was wondering if there is a comics industry agreement that, when a book has to be shipped late, is it then mandatory that it ship under the IMAGE imprint? I'm just wondering since they have so much experience in that area, you know, shipping late.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 4, 2005 04:23 PM

BrakYeller: "Just a quick thought for all the Larsen defenders out there: when your fandom has to come to your defense to explain to people what you really meant..."

Feel free to assume that I give a crap about Larsen's work or the man himself. I do not. I merely think there's a point worth discussing surrounded by lots of people having fun insulting each other. Ripping Larsen a new one is not constructive. Larsen doing the same is as well. It's a waste of time. Talk about something that matters.


Alex: "I think anyone who took the time to write a well thought out response to Erik's article is an idiot (or at the very least acting like one for the moment)."

Thank you. Ever so kind.


Charlie Griefer: "Was nobody else appalled at the language given that this is a professional in a particular field addressing the public through a forum dedicated to that particular field (which, IMHO, makes it somewhat of a professional address)?"

I was not. Professionals are people just like anyone else. Let em rant and rave if they feel like it.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 4, 2005 04:26 PM

Bob Jones: "I'm just a poor, dumb retired Sergeant so business things like contracts and customer service and shipping and things of that nature make my head spin. So, I was wondering if there is a comics industry agreement that, when a book has to be shipped late, is it then mandatory that it ship under the IMAGE imprint? I'm just wondering since they have so much experience in that area, you know, shipping late."

Are you kidding? Do you really think Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and every other publisher doesn't also have late books?

Posted by: Rat at October 4, 2005 05:43 PM

Up above, Leviathan makes some points about the new Galactica, and things that don't make it science fiction. The best science fiction isn't that which makes a point of saying it's science fiction, it's that which makes you forget that it's science fiction. Define for us science fiction as a genre, please. One of the things with good sci-fi is that it lends itself to drama, comedy, suspense, whatever. When I watch a show, do I care about the production values and the characters's costumes? A little, but mostly because I work in TV and want to see what other people are doing. First and foremost, however, I care about the characters and the story. Show me one decent science fiction story out there that can't be told in another genre. Don't get all hung up on labels, lest you get one hung on yourself.

Oh, and, speaking as someone who works in TV, who has produced a few things in my time and who knows how much time and effort it takes to do just a five-minute music video let alone an hour of TV, you really don't have the time to watch the final product in more than a perfunctory way. Tell us, oh Grand Opiner Leviathan, just how many things have you yourself produced?

Posted by: Sylv at October 4, 2005 07:27 PM

Hi. I found this through another comics thread and I've been drawn into the BSG debate, mainly because I watched the opening mini-series and a friend of mine wants to do a marathon of the first season.

I didn't really care very much about any of the characters on what I saw of BSG*, only the situations they were in. The new president has potential, but I'll see where they go with her.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Leviathan on the inexplicably contemporary trappings being absolutely frustrating. It's not just that the culture in BSG has, say, coffee mugs or pens or what not. Little things like that make sense. It's the degree and frequency with which some of the bigger similarities to our culture occur that turns me off their universe. I would have liked at least a few token nods at making things different after the centuries have gone by. And seriously, I mean token. Make up a different card game other than poker, give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I'd be happy. It DOES feel like lazy writing, to me, when they keep those sort of things the same (Whether or not it really is lazy scripting or a deliberate choice on the part of the writers, I can't presume to know).

Comparing BSG's costumes/technology/culture/etc... to those in Star Trek and Babylon 5 is a little disingenous. Those shows had militaries based out of Earth and its living culture. The colonies in BSG have been centuries, maybe even millenia removed. To me, the problem is that the show's internal logic is stretched almost to the breaking point. I don't think important question here is "Is BSG sci-fi" but rather "Is BSG *believable*?"

I know it may seem silly, but for the most part you need to be able to suspend your disbelief with any sci-fi or fantasy story over the parts you know aren't real. So long as something can be explained away logically somehow, whether by technology or culturally or whatever, a viewer doesn't have to worry about it. BSG doesn't quite do it for me on that point.

Let's take "All aliens speak English in some sci-fi stuff. That's just as crazy as anything on BSG!" as an example. The thing is you can make a blanket excuse for those aliens in some settings. Maybe (like in B5, although there were a handful of species that used mechanical translators) they're in a place built and staffed by humans that also speak English, so most of them have learned English as a courtesy or just to get by. Maybe, like in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, someone's discovered a handy universal translator. So long as it's explained away somehow, you can accept it and not have it niggle the back of your mind for the rest of the show.

But BSG (at least in the miniseries) didn't do anything to explain away the similarities in language and government and so on**. To me, it's not a logically consistent universe. In that sense, it made the drama, the excitement, the danger of the show feel a little lame because every so often I'd be jolted out of if and go "What? They're either not from earth or they've been gone thousands of years. That makes no god damn sense." Which is a shame, because as a sci-fi/military thriller where the people had recent or ongoing ties to earth that made their earth-like culture make *sense*, I'd eat the series up with a spoon. But I can't believe in the universe they've set up wholeheartedly, and that's a shame.

*Especially that little girl in one of the colonies that was being left behind to be devestated by the Cylons because they couldn't get them out in time. Holy manipulative trying-to-tug on my heartstrings. Yeah, I know she was onscreen in the miniseries for all of 2 minutes but bear with me. It's all I've seen so far.

**Really, the biggest difference was in the religion mentioned at the end, which seemed to have very little, if any, impact in how people acted during day to day life compared to how they do in the mainly montheistic USA today. That really disapointed me, since a wildly different religion would or should mean a different set of values, social structure, etc...and I'd love to see the ramifications of that.

Posted by: Nytwyng at October 4, 2005 08:25 PM

A couple of quick points, Sylv...

Make up a different card game other than poker,

They did. It's called "Pyramid," and is a throwback to the original series.

give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I'd be happy.

While the titles are culled from Earth military, the structure is - and has been since the original series - "just a *bit* off" from Earth military rank structure.

Posted by: Peter David at October 4, 2005 08:28 PM

"Not unlike how Mark Hamill evidently called our "Carrie!" instead of "Leia!" at the end of Star Wars. Or so I have heard that he did."

No, he didn't. I know. He's a friend and I asked him.

PAD

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at October 4, 2005 09:48 PM

Well,now I'm glad I lost the post I was working on (due to an 877 caller and a faulty modem), since the posts which have shown up since I started are interesting. I had several things to say even before that, since I skipped the internet for one day and 150+ posts showed up ....

First off - I thought I had read that popular myth about Star Wars disputed before; cool that PAD can give it to use straight from the horse's mouth :)

Walt Simonson - I still consider him THE Thor writer, but, while I liked his art on Thor, I'm aonther who didn't like his art as much on X-Factor - less and less as it went on ....

Glad to hear others starting to say that they liked "The Train Job". In retrospect, it may have had a little too much of the Western angle for the first exposure of everyone to the show; but personally I like it as well as many other episodes, probably better than a few. Besides the above-mentioned engine-ing, it features favorite lines such as Zoe's "Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing."

I think insiderman has a good point; the whole definition of "science fiction", and people's varying interpretations of that - one's "science fiction" may be another's "soft SF", one may only consider one definition to be SF at all, etc - may be getting in the way here. And arguing about whether Battlestar is or isn't science fiction appears to be getting in the way of some good points Leviathan is making.

I was going to defend Leviathan as I could see a point in his(or her) comments and s/he appeared to be getting ganged up on. But, as others, including sylv and I believe Den earlier have seen the same problem, I'll just add my agreement. For this civilization, so far removed in time and/or space from us that Earth is a barely remembered and largely unknown legend, to have so many specific facets of our current culture present is like making a film about the (American) Civil War with all of the soldiers in green camos and firing M-16s. It's like if there had been no explanation for the gangster era-patterned world they came across on the original Star Trek - parallel evolution extended to incedulity-breaking lengths. Now, it may ultimately turn out that there is, possibly, an explanation for this - though it's an overdue one, I'd say - but at the moment the fact that these colonies appear to be living largely in, as Leviathan said, LA 2005 culture, is jarringly distracting and seems indiciative of poor conception, and I can see how Leviathan could conclude that it was caused by lazy writing.

Now, I haven't been able to watch enough of the series to try to dispute the opinions of its fans - the most I can say is that I tried to watch it on several occasions and never felt compelled to continue for long. But clearly Leviathan has watched it, and researched it, and has said that he previously enjoyed Ron Moore's work; and I can see how s/he could take the setting problems, combined with other difficulties like apparent carelessness and indifference in editing, and be frustrated that a show is being acclaimed which s/he found so disappointing and cynical in its "SF". Like I said, I'm not going to argue that it's not a worthwhile show with those who enjoy it and have seen far more of it than I; but I feel that Leviathan, and others, are making valid points which shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

To return to the start - of this thread-hijacking - I'm not really trying to prove Firefly's "superiority", Jonathan (the other one)(not sure if you were addressing me, but Leviathan really hasn't said much about Firefly, and your post was right after mine) - just taking issue with the words you put in my mouth by saying
"but I think WE can agree that BSG is MARKEDLY BETTER as science fiction, and as television," (caps mine); as I, among others, clearly, don't agree that it's BETTER. As I've said, I haven't seen all of BSG, so - while I have pointed out the problems I had with it - I won't presume to judge its worth. I can live with "separate but equal" so long as no one is trying to say that _I_ called BSG a "markedly better" work than Firefly :)

And, nytwyng wrote:

"With Firefly, the characters are the thing for me. The story - in and of itself - serves to allow me to spend time with these people and informs their own personal stories. I am emotionally invested in them. (And, anyone sitting near me during Serenity the other night could have seen as such. "I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.")"

Right there with you, buddy. Right there with you ;) :(

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 4, 2005 10:12 PM

Luke K Walsh

RE: Leviathan

Personally, none of my issues with his/her/whatever's posts have anything to do with Levi's not liking BSG. Levi can dislike BSG all day long and into the night.

My only issue has been the repeated assertations that not only is BSG not SF, but that it's complete and utter crap and anyone who likes it has been "duped" into doing so. And, really, it's only the last bit that I take issue with. I have no problem with anyone not liking the show, or thinking that it's "Not really SF *sniff*". It's when they move from the realm of having an opinion to believing that that opinion is rock-solid fact, and therefore anyone who dares dispute this Holy Truth is a poor victim of a 'con job'. If only they could be made to see the Truth...

If you don't like a show, fine. If you don't like a show to the degree that it pains you that others do, then I humbly submit that you're spending far too much time and energy on it...

Posted by: Patrick Calloway at October 4, 2005 10:53 PM

I feel I should also add that I had many of the same reactions to the contemporary culture elements of BSG, particularly during the miniseries. People walking around Caprica wearing suits and ties, pushing strollers. The Vipers being called 'planes'. The lack of laser weaponry.It all bugged me.

But I was intrigued enough by the first ep to stick with the mini all the way. And, honestly, I had mixed emotions even at the end of the mini. There were many parts I liked, and almost as many that I was unsure of. But I had enough of the former that when it was announced that it was going to series, I decided to check it ouot. (Besides, as a Stargate fan, I was already going to be watching SciFi Fri night anyway, so I might as well hang around for another hour and give it a shot.)

I found that BSG developed into what I think is one of the finest shows on TV at the moment, not just finest SF shows, but finest period. The things that once bothered me, I know actually like, as part of the mosaic of the world that they have developed.

Are there imperfections? Of course there are. That's part and parcel of every human endevour. There hasn't been a show that's ever not had them. Does that mean that the people involved don't care? If we were to accept that hypothesis, we'd have to think that every production team on every show that ever there was felt the same way. No, it's just a feature of anything created by people.

Now do I think that everyone has to love the show as much as I do? Not at all. Everyone's tastes are different, and personally, I think it'd be an awfully dreary world if everyone liked the same things. I just try to respect other's opinions when I can (so long as those opinions don't include the notion that I'm a duped victim for not agreeing with them *g*), and I'd take it as a kindness if others would do the same...

(What? I never said I didn't like Firefly too... *g*)

Posted by: Den at October 4, 2005 11:39 PM

give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I'd be happy.

Actually they do. In the US navy, a captain outranks a commander. On BSG, it's the other way around. And the rank of colonel doesn't belong in the navy at all.

but I feel that Leviathan, and others, are making valid points which shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

As someone who also agrees with some of his points, I can say that I'm dismissing them out of hand, but I don't see how just because the show has flaws, that means it "isn't SF" or that anyone who does enjoy it despite the flaws is being "duped."

Quite frankly, that attitude smacks of elitism, an "either you like what I like or you're fool" kind of attitude.

That I can't agree with.

Posted by: Stephanie C. at October 4, 2005 11:39 PM

Oh man, that... that was beautiful. I've always loved your writing (especially Supergirl, wow!) and now I respect you as a person. I've been reading immature comments about this VERY immature (and very, very whiney) "article" and yours is the first that actually hit it on the head and hit it well.
I love comics so, so much and they've helped me through some incredibly hard times in my life recently. But then I'll go online to talk to my fellow fans, and I see so much displaced negativity. Sharing opinions is one thing, raging & whining about peoples tastes and choice of reading material just boggles my mind. Especially stooping to that kind of language and jock-bully routine of talking big to make yourself seem somehow right in your crazy idea is amazing. That a full grown man and a published writer would lack any kind of clarity, taste and tact makes me feel kinda bad for him.

I started out in this medium with 'indie' creator-created comics, but I never looked down on the people who loved anything Wolverine was in- and I never will. Today I enjoy both big superhero comics and little homemade 'zines, and I love them all equally. If it's quality, it's quality- it doesn't matter if it originated with that writer or not. Mr. Erik the viking might want to take a second look at his priorities, and ask himself why this very small non-issue enrages him so.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 5, 2005 12:59 AM

Apologies for contributing to the thread hijacking. Should be the last one from me, I hope.

Leviathan:
"There's no depth to the Colonial's polythesitic system, nor the Cylon's monotheistic system. You could re-name them Catholic and Protestant, change a few lines of dialogue, and tell the same story."

Not really, no. As far as the depth of either system is concerned, I'm expecting that to be explored, to a degree over the course of the series.

Leviathan:
"What we see is what we get. What we see is modern-day LA. If they go on to show enough to make it modern-day USA, what of it? "

Not the point I was trying to make, actually. Apologies for being unclear. My initial point was that I just couldn't understand why you felt it was necessarily LA in space. Because of the buildings used in the Helo/Caprica scenes? (I'm pretty sure it's filmed in Vancouver, anyways, so shouldn't that be "B.C. in space", and who cares if they show enough to make it modern-day Canada? :)

My point in the quote above was that it's not surprising we've only seen a small part of the diversity of Colonial culture, USA-like or otherwise.

Leviathan:
"They're still asking me to believe that an extrasolar civilization that's been parted from us for millenia will have a culture exactly like our own."

I still think this is an unresolved plot point, and the relative time frames are open to speculation. Nothing wrong with that for the time being. No worse, for example, than various characters on Farscape pointing to the remarkable similarities between humans and Sebaceans without having that question be resolved til Peacekeeper Wars years later.

Leviathan:
"I didn't say you can't film a scene re-creating a famous historical one. I said you can't limit what the recreation brings to the audience to just those elements that you want it to convey. "

Seemed more like you were saying that the audience will necessarily have one particular reading of an historically grounded iconic image, and that the only proper use of such images are those which take into account something close to a one-to-one correspondence between the original, historical event and the new, fictional event. That's what I read from your lauding of JMS's use of reference to the same historical moment in B5.

In other words, if Moore is guilty of assuming that the audience won't read further connections between Roslin and LBJ, and that Moore is at fault for not expecting that the audience will expect Roslin to be as bad a president as LBJ, than JMS is just as guilty for assuming that the audience will make those connections, and won't stop at the more immediate sense of the historical image which I described earlier.

(Not that I believe that either Moore or JMS made a bad choice in alluding to LBJ's swearing in - it works to different effects in the two different series. For me, at least.)

Apologies if the above is not what you meant, but that's how it read to me.

Leviathan:
"Which you can, of course, if you simply create a significantly different kind of scene in its place. Of course, writing your own material is harder..."

So you're saying JMS screwed up or was, ahem, lazy in his staging of Clarke's swearing in.

Leviathan:
"Just look at the "ad lib" nobody caught below."

Yes, because only lazy people filled with contempt for their audiences make mistakes.

Leviathan:
"It's not how much cash is thrown, it's how much effort."

Yeah, you're right. Doesn't seem like a lot of effort went into BG. Bunch of slackers.

Leviathan:
"Doctor Who proves that ingenuity and effort can overcome the tiniest of budgets, and produce innovation."

On its good days, perhaps. Not always though.

"BG proves that no amount of money can overcome the lack of ambition to innovate."

If you're looking for innovation in surface details (oh look, clocks, ties, phones), maybe.

Leviathan (on the Christ thing):
"So how big does a mistake have to be before it's worth catching?"

Bigger than that, at least.

Leviathan:
"What does it tell us that nobody even bothered? The problem isn't that it's a series-destroying mistake, the problem is that it was an obvious one that could have been fixed easily in many different parts of the process, and nobody cared enough to bother, or even notice, until it was on the air."

Still doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's a small mistake, easily fixable or otherwise. They happen, in art and in life. If you want to see the utterance of a single out of continuity word as damnably symptomatic of systemic laziness and contempt, I'm sure nothing I say at this point can dissuade you.

Leviathan:
"Only if the chair doesn't suit my tastes because the legs aren't really attached, and if you try to sit in it you'll fall down and get a boo-boo."

This here chair's doing a fine, fine job of supporting me, no boo-boos here.

Seriously, though. If you don't like the show, cool enough. It's pretty clear, from what some others have posted, that the "anachronisms" (not quite the right term, but close enough), are distracting for some other viewers as well. Would the show be better if they changed more of the props? Maybe. For viewers such as yourself, definitely. For me, not really. The core premise has enough of an out that I'm willing to suspend my disbelief.

And I've seen enough lame sci fi shows where the creators/show-runners/what-have-yous have created doodads and whatzits even settings that are different, and even occasionally innovative, but haven't come up with compelling characters or narratives that might make use of such trappings. (For me, that would characterize Star Trek when it's at its nadir - forehead aliens, anyone?) I'd rather watch something like BG where the creators, crew, cast, etc. have focused on telling compelling stories about interesting characters that make me want to keep watching, episode to episode.

Like I've said before, your mileage may vary. But I just can't buy into the "they're lazy, you're duped" argument (TLYD for short?).

Put it another way. I think Firefly was a decent show that had some potential, but the existing episodes are kinda overrated by genre fans. I liked some of the characters a lot("I am a leaf" indeed), but found others to be Whedon cliches, if well-executed and well-acted ones. There were some good eps, and some bad ones. (I'm in the anti-Train Robbery camp. It's the reason I didn't watch the series when it was on the air.) Sometimes, when it's at its worst, I find Whedon's writing (or the writing for his shows) to be really irritating. I have similar, stronger really, feelings about Buffy, which I've never been able to get into, try though I have.

Clearly, both shows work better for a lot of people than they do for me. (Or in the case of Buffy, it works for others, but doesn't work at all for me.) Nevertheless, I don't think that the people who do like them have been duped, handed gold-lacquered manure, sold the Brooklyn Bridge, or forced to sit on collapsible chairs. Just because I don't like the cut of the Emperor's suit, don't mean he's out strutting in the buff.

In the opposite direction, I think Deadwood's probably the best thing on television right now, with incredibly compelling characters and stories, told with great style and panache, and I don't get how people can think otherwise, but they do. And that's just the way it is.

Anyhoo, enjoyed the debate. You've really spurred me on to watch more of the series, and I've moved from liking it to loving it and becoming a real BG fan, so thanks, I guess. Peace.

(And lest I get flamed by Whedon fans, Angel was a fantastic show, and Serenity was close to perfect.)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 5, 2005 03:03 AM

Joe Zhang: Anyone who doesn't like Walter Simonson's art is a putz.
Luigi Novi: No. Anyone who doesn’t like Walt’s art simply has a different reaction to it than you do. Period.

Bobb: I guess I'm a part-time putz. I started out hating Simonson's work, especially X-Factor. His Fall of the Mutants stuff seemed rushed and underdone. Then I saw his Thor stuff, and I started liking him. Maybe he just does Norse better than Spandex? I dunno.
Luigi Novi: I had a similar experience, also not liking his X-Factor, but with me, it was a subsequent book that changed my feelings about his art, it was being in his Visual Storytelling class at the School of Visual Arts (where Weezie often was present to assist). I then began looking at his art in a new way. I began to see the flow of his line, I appreciated the minimal but competent-when-used cross-hatching, and the dynamic movement of the action. Maybe it was the inking on X-Factor that gave an initial bad impression.

dan: Work for hire IS creatively inferior to self-owned/created projects.
Luigi Novi: A pretty bizarre assertion, given that the vast majority of the most popular and beloved characters still being published today were made work-for-hire and not creator-owned.

dan: It's artistically inferior the same way rap "sampling" is inferior when the song is built on riffs/melodies created by other bands. Work for hire (meaning working on previously created characters) provides a ready-made spring board, so the new talent doesn't have to start from scratch.
Luigi Novi: Which would be significant if starting from scratch was really that important, compared to the quality of the writing of the story and characters. Green Lantern was a pretty generic superhero until he became relevant during the O’Neil run. Wolverine was a pretty one-dimensional beserker with elevated strength and speed and gloves with retractable claws with them until Chris Claremont and John Byrne—not the guys who actually created character—made him more interesting. Under your theory, which puts all the focus on superficial and irrelevant considerations instead of substantial ones of content and substance (pretty much the philosophy of most of the Image Founders), the work of the actual creators of GL and Wolvie was superior to that of the work of those who DEVELOPED them.

dan: The old notion that "everybody's got a Batman story in them" tells us a whole lot more about Bob Kane than it does ourselves. It tells us his character was very well made. The same can't be said about, say, Brother Power the Geek.
Luigi Novi: An interesting notion, given your omission of Bill Finger’s hand in developing of the character.

Peter David: So by that logic, Michelangelo's work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel--entirely work-for-hire and using previously created characters--is intrinsically, artistically and morally inferior to "Savage Dragon #1.

Scavenger: Dude, have you seen the boobs on the chick in Savage Dragon #1? 'nuff said!
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but Mike’s rendition of a nude Eve in the right center section of the Chapel has a pretty smokin’ bod.

David S: Does Mr. Larsen remember what happened when Neil Gaiman created some new characters for Spawn when he wrote for that title and had major problems getting renumerations for them? Does that make HIM a pussy?

Luigi Novi: I think Larsen was talking about self-publishing your own creations in your own books. Not creating characters in someone else’s book.

David S: That's interesting. I was under the impression that he was talking about BOTH! He may have been pushing for the FIRST career choice, but he was also name-calling people who pursued the SECOND!
Luigi Novi: Perhaps the column read differently to you and I. Given that most of the column was bile and vitriol anyway, it’s hard to say what exactly it meant. I could be wrong, though. :-)

Comic pundits had been periodically covering the aftermath of the "guest writers" issues of Spawn that included the creations of new characters for the book like Angela and Medieval Spawn/Cagliostro, who made an important appearance in The Spawn Movie! The fact that Neil wasn't renumerated for his creations that became incorporated into a series that was created by someone else isn't as different IMHO as creating new villains and guest stars(am I the only one around here who remembered that Steve Gerber's "Howard The Duck" started out as a one-shot cameo in "Fear," Man-Thing's first series?) for an established "comic book icon" who stars in a book created by The Top Two Comicbook Villains, Marvel & DC Comics, at least according to the "prophet" Larsen!

Or do you feel that only Marvel/DC have a monopoly on dismissing creators as "writers-for-hire?" At least they get usually paid for their work before they're dismissed as "hired help." What was McFarland's excuse?

BrakYeller: Just a quick thought for all the Larsen defenders out there: when your fandom has to come to your defense to explain to people what you really meant by/might have meant by/got out of your "argument," you've done a piss-poor job of presenting your case --such as it may be-- and pissed off your audience to boot.
Luigi Novi: Precisely.

Jamie Coville: I think the main "problem" with Larsen article is people didn't read it. Some people on here are assuming he's bitching about: Good creative runs on company owned characters. (He's not. Erik loves Walt Simonson's Thor just as much as you do). People leaving a regular paycheck to do a work for hire job (He's not, it was aimed at established freelancers). People's "misunderstandings" had fuck all to do with his writing abilities. Erik was pretty straight foward and blunt with his message.
Luigi Novi: No one here said that Erik meant either of those two things. I read the column. I didn’t misunderstand a thing. Erik viciously and clearly insulted people who only do work-for-hire and do not attempt to produce creator-owned material. That was his message.

Charlie Griefer: Was nobody else appalled at the language given that this is a professional in a particular field addressing the public through a forum dedicated to that particular field (which, IMHO, makes it somewhat of a professional address)?

Ralf Haring: I was not. Professionals are people just like anyone else.
Luigi Novi: But they are expected to act professionally in a public setting, which for a writer writing an opinion column, means utilizing certain tools like eloquence, a well-chosen vocabulary, solid reasoning to illustrate and buttress an argument, internally consistent viewpoint, and so forth, as well as exhibiting certain exemplary behavioral traits like intelligence, fairness, open-mindedness, and maturity.. Writers, after all, should show that they can WRITE. Copious insults and profanity spewed capriciously at fans and other creators for reasons entirely prejudicial doesn’t cut it.

Ralf Haring: Are you kidding? Do you really think Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and every other publisher doesn't also have late books?
Luigi Novi: Like Image did?

Posted by: Russ at October 5, 2005 03:57 AM

Ummm, What exactly does Erik think is going to become of the classic icons of the past (Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, etc, etc..)if all the current artists and writers working for Marvel and DC suddenly quit to start publishing thier own stuff? 22 blank pages a month?

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 5, 2005 04:32 AM

Oh, and to toss in my two cents in, admittedly late, about Buck Rogers costuming...
Erin Grey may have been hot, but it was Pamela Hensley that jump-started me into puberty.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: BrakYeller at October 5, 2005 04:43 AM

Ralf Haring: "Feel free to assume that I give a crap about Larsen's work or the man himself. I do not. I merely think there's a point worth discussing surrounded by lots of people having fun insulting each other." I agree completely: there's an important issue to be discussed there, and any relevence that issue has is now buried under the sturm and drang of the reaction to Larsen's delivery. Which is a shame, I agree.
And I didn't mean to imply that you ought care about Larsen or his work; the post was more geared toward explaining to Larsen's defenders why people were upset about his column. Personally, I can take him or leave him, but it becomes much easier to leave him when he starts malarky like this.

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2005 07:08 AM

I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists. And artists will understand what he is talking about. End of story.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 5, 2005 07:34 AM

Doesn't take an artist to see what he was saying. Namecalling is pretty self-explanatory. And he wasn't only talking to artists. It may have been directed at them, but he posted it publicly in the most obnoxious and insulting manner possible, knowing that many other people would read it.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 08:15 AM

"I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists."


From Erik's article.

"Look what Stan Lee and Jack Kirby contributed to the comic book field."

"Do you think Frank Miller regrets doing Sin City?"

"You get to put a bullet through Blue Beetle-- a character you didn't create or help create-- but you got the opportunity to destroy."

Seems to be a few refs to writers in there as well. But even if it's just pointed toward artists it's still a point poorly made and poorly backed.

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 08:52 AM

"I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists. And artists will understand what he is talking about. End of story."

The underlying intent behind Larson's words extends and applies to more than just the comics field. He's not just talking about artists. He's not just talking about writers. He's talking about everyone. The basic message of his piece is that if you're doing work that someone else generates, you're not really giving it your all. Face it, each of us has some creative spark inside that would love if we could nurture it more. There's about a million things I could name you that I'd rather be doing today than the things I get paid to do...and I love my job. But the fact is, of the million and one things that I could be doing with my time, one million of them won't get me a paycheck, and one of them will. So guess which one I choose to do? And despite Larson's claims that, simply because I'm not excercising my efforts to develop my own work, I'm not doing hald-assed job. I'm doing the best that I can, and at the end of the day, I'm proud of what I do.

To have Larson sitting on his bum, chastising me and others because we haven't hit the lottery, or otherwise come into the resources that allow us to pursue our dreams, rather than live and cope in reality, is insulting. It's a comic equivilent of "let them eat cake," displaying an absurd disconnection from reality.

Posted by: Den at October 5, 2005 08:53 AM

I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists. And artists will understand what he is talking about. End of story.

So, artists understand talking like a dick? I'm sorry, but that is about the most assinine statement I've read in a long time. Read the quotes above, he is clearly taking shots at writers. You know, the people who actually come up with the stories? I realize Larson has long felt that writers have no right to exist, but come one!

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 09:02 AM

When I first watched the BSG mini, there were a lot of things that put me off. The "Space, Above and Beyond" exterior shots, the use of modern Earth clothing, the absence of the distinctive sound of original BSG blasters...the turbo button from the Vipers. "By your command..."

But if I had wanted all that, I could have just skipped the new show and waited for the DVDs of the original. But this was a new show, and I wanted to give it a try. Can the presence of modern sets/clothing/props take you out of the illusion? Sure. But BSG, for all the money Leviathan suggests was thrown at it, is a made for TV series. It doesn't have $300 million to spend for 2 hours of screen time. They have to take shortcuts...the Viper bay is way smaller than they probably would want it to be. I'm sure they would like the Raptor prop to look like it was hovering, and not rolling around. It's likely a lot cheaper to use traditional clothing, weapons, and other mundane props than to have a prop shop custom make everything. If the storyline in BSG were less compelling to me, all those little irritants would probably get to me, too. But I do find the story compelling, I find the acting to be top notch, and it's one of the few shows that I anticipate watching every week.

And for those that tell me that I'm being "duped" into liking a piece of gold-plated crap, I respond with "don't let your inability to see beyond the limitations of a TV production get in the way of a good show."

Posted by: Robbnn at October 5, 2005 09:43 AM

I'll admit to a certain in-the-box kind of thinking. To me, comic books ARE the Big 2. When I've considered writing for comics, the only real urge was to write for DC. I liked much of Marvel - and Oz Squad, Strangers in Paradise and a few other independents really shine - but the only sandbox that interested me was DC's. The appeal is to play with the toys of my youth. "My own stuff" would be novels and screenplays.

I am impressed with writers and artists who create their own comics, I can enjoy their work, but for me the desire to write a new character just isn't there (which is good, since any such work of mine would be doomed by failure... I am deeply impressed with writers who can pull off a long running series of ANY character. That's a level of inventiveness I find amazing. Harder, even, than soap opera writing (which, surprisingly, is difficult if only because you only get a day or two to write the next episode. I did it for a year and it just about killed me).

Hmmm. Hardly worth two cents... but there it is...

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2005 10:20 AM

I mean it: "I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists. And artists will understand what he is talking about. End of story."

Is a writer not an artist? I mean ALL artists not only pencillers!

Think about it. The man knows what he is writing about! Todays entertainment biz is working with remakes and nearly no one is putting something new to it.

If you are an artist you have something own to show... if you are not... you are working with something a true artist has created.

It IS that simple!

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 5, 2005 10:26 AM

Chris, your first statement was simply incorrect and typed without any proof of your claim. Your last post has left me scratching my head, since it is not only unclear, but really not that simple.

Fred

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 5, 2005 10:45 AM

Chris: I think you all do not understand the article Erik has written. He only was talking to artists.
Luigi Novi: Yet another Larsen apologist who is here to tell us what Larsen "really meant," despite evidence to the contrary. Funny how Peter or even a churl like John Byrne don't need people to do this for them, but Larsen is such a incompetent and unprofessional commentator that he needs armchair interpreters to read all sorts of "real meanings" in his poorly-written column for the unwashed masses that merely go on what he actually said.

Posted by: Den at October 5, 2005 10:53 AM

Thank you Luigi, I couldn't have said it better myself.

When Larsen learns how make a coherent argument without resorting to being obnoxious, I'll care what his point is. Until then, I don't need any of his apologists to "explain" it to me.

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2005 11:11 AM

I explained nothing. I only wrote what I read in that article. He wrote what I feel when reading (most) of todays comics or looking at actual movies. Most is shit or based on some old ideas which where much better than the remaked one.

Where are todays creative minds?

It seems there are only very few around today.

I can understand Erik Larsen wrote this. He is crying out loud so people will hear it.

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 11:26 AM

"Where are todays creative minds?

It seems there are only very few around today."

Has there EVER been a time when there were more than a few minds deemed creative? One of the things that makes greatness valuable is its rarity. For every PAD (one of the few writers that has been able to get me to laugh out loud to a scene written in a book that I had to put it down) there's a dozen writers that are incapable of writing a decent funny scene. I have a short list of authors that I absolutely love...and dozens more that I don't care at all about. To steal from the Incredibles, Larson sounds like he wants everyone to be super...which really would make no one super.

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2005 11:33 AM

Where are today's creative minds, Chris? Right where they've always been. Trying very hard to be heard. If all of the movies abd comics today are crap, why do you waste your time?

Posted by: Robbnn at October 5, 2005 11:40 AM

I finally read the article.

Fair warning, I went to college with Erik Larsen. Didn't know him, really, but we ran into each other at Mike's Place where we bought our comics. My initial, ungraceful opinion was "mouthbreather with the nerve to be arrogant". Towering intellect he was (and is) not.

That said, his column was a ham-handed, football-coach attempt at encouragement to those artists (writers or "drawers") who desire to do their own thing but haven't had the guts. It reminds me of the soccer coach of my youth who called me a pussy because I didn't run as fast as he wanted. Hate soccer, and sad to admit, hate that coach to this day.

Really, to take it as more than that, to hold his unintended arguments up to the light and refute them is the same as making fun of cripples or mentally challenged children.

In our little league, a child with Down's Syndrome plays on a team. It was never announced that we were to treat him well, but every pitcher lofts the ball in, and everyone cheers when he hits. I suppose if he broke down and screamed nasty invective, we'd still shrug and realize that's just part of the deal.

Or, you know, you can verbally beat on him. Which ever.

Posted by: Den at October 5, 2005 11:41 AM

I can understand Erik Larsen wrote this. He is crying out loud so people will hear it.

But, Larsen's point is lost under his heaps of bile aimed at the very people he's trying to persuade. And you coming into this forum and saying that "artists will understand" and that the rest of us ignorant masses just don't get it, doesn't help his case either.

If Larsen wants to be an advocate for more creativity, then he should first learn how to make an intelligent argument without calling people "pussies."

Of course, I've never been impressed by his comic book writing or his pencilling for that matter, so I'm not surprised that this is the best argument he can come up with.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 11:45 AM

"I explained nothing. I only wrote what I read in that article. He wrote what I feel when reading (most) of todays comics or looking at actual movies. Most is shit or based on some old ideas which where much better than the remaked one."


Fine. But that's not what Erik wrote.

His main point came across as you had to be doing creator owned to be doing something good that would give the industry a legacy from you and you where a pussy if you didn't. He didn't address quality in and of itself at all.

Your point doesn't support his case either. I can, as I'm sure you can, point to any number of Big two books that are better written and more creative then any number of creator owned books. I can even find the odd remake that is better the the source subject it was remade from.

You defend his case by pointing out what crap is out there. That's a poor argument (and a big straw dog line to argue in detail). Since much of the crap out there is also creator owned (like Savage Dragon) it only serves to damage one of Erik's bigger points.

Many creative and skilled writers and artists are working on many Big Two books and will give a great deal to the industry and leave it a quite nice legacy that many books (like Dragon) will never do. What is given to the industry has nothing to do with ownership. It has to do with skill and quality.

Erik's points may have some basic standing behind their asking but his statements and the ideas he uses to back them are dead wrong and his style to convey them are child like at best.

It's that simple.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005 11:45 AM

Luigi, you can expect people to behave however you want, but those expectations are set by you and are limited in scope to you.


Ralf Haring: "Are you kidding? Do you really think Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and every other publisher doesn't also have late books?"
Luigi Novi: "Like Image did?"

Yes, EXACTLY like Image. They are no worse or better in that regard than any of the other majors or minors.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 5, 2005 11:54 AM

Chris:I explained nothing. I only wrote what I read in that article. He wrote what I feel when reading (most) of todays comics or looking at actual movies. Most is shit or based on some old ideas which where much better than the remaked one.

Jerry C:You defend his case by pointing out what crap is out there. That's a poor argument (and a big straw dog line to argue in detail). Since much of the crap out there is also creator owned (like Savage Dragon) it only serves to damage one of Erik's bigger points.

You could also go so far as to point out that Savage Dragon is a prime example of the aforementioned "derivative crap".

Posted by: Knuckles at October 5, 2005 11:54 AM

Yes, EXACTLY like Image. They are no worse or better in that regard than any of the other majors or minors.

Ralf: The guy who made that point was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Robbnn at October 5, 2005 11:58 AM

Ralf,

No, I'm sorry, that is simply not true. Image wasn't occassionally a week or two late on a few things, they were constantly MONTHS late on almost EVERYTHING. Retailers, poor guys, would order them in droves, have them pushed out by months and then suddenly a dozen giant titles came out the same week, murdering their cashflow. It was ugly, ugly, ugly. (And while quality improved over the years on some titles, they were crap then. Another retailer problem, since people would dump the titles in droves. Thank goodness they were normally returnable because of being late, but that didn't really eleviate the cashflow problems).

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 12:00 PM

"Yes, EXACTLY like Image. They are no worse or better in that regard than any of the other majors or minors."


Nah....

I don't think I ever waited a year for a DC/Marvel book.

Or got the books out of order because the were late and then printed (numbers and story wise) out of order.

Or waited for a book that was late and then arrived fleshed out with more adds then story.

Naw.... The Big Two were never as bad as Image was.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 5, 2005 12:11 PM

"I don't think I ever waited a year for a DC/Marvel book."

Kevin Smith's Spider-Man/Black Cat series is one off the top of my head. That said, the examples from the Big 2 are much, much fewer.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005 12:24 PM

Marvel is the butt of most jokes nowadays about late books. Throw a rock and you'll hit someone joking about late Marvel books. DC is better, but they're no stranger to the updated shipping list. I'm still waiting on the last two issues of Walt Simonson's Elric miniseries a year later. I mostly order collections from Dark Horse and they are almost always a month or three late, although I did recently get one that was solicited for February.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 12:29 PM

Guys, don't get me wrong. Marvel and DC were/are bad but Image was the gold Standard for messing up.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 5, 2005 12:38 PM

Quesada's DD:Father schedule is a perfect explanation for the importance of timeliness that the guys from Marvel has. Joe has said on na few occassions that he'd prefer to wait on lateness on a big name than have a lesser known put out a book, because that book still sells more copies. Up until recently, it seemed to be a nonissue for him.

The camps falling on either said of this argument seem pretty convinced of the validity of their opinions. Though most of the incrdibly late Marvel books (DD:Father, Black Cat,etc) can be said to be of mediocre quality if one is being generous. A rare exception of a late book that was a great read is Ultimates.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 5, 2005 01:10 PM

"Guys, don't get me wrong. Marvel and DC were/are bad but Image was the gold Standard for messing up."

Word.

Posted by: The Perfessor at October 5, 2005 02:24 PM

Boys, Boys (and girls): Seriously, here's the thing on one level I’m with Peter (Hey Peter, you still here?) I feel that Erik’s article was simply way too harsh and insulting. However, I have to side with Erik (if only for this one point). I read the article and thought about what I have done in the field, and the answer came back to me, not effin much.

I believe that I can do better (should do better) but I simply haven’t and that’s bad. So on this level I found it motivating. Needless I agree with Peter in that I am a HUGE Spider-Man fan, and would love to craft a story or three about my favorite hero. I think that doing so would be simply enormous, and would not be at all embarrassed if I wound up scripting a Spidey story, but never creating anything original.

Here’s my reason: Some years ago I went to see Joan Rivers live. As warm-up acts she had another comedian, and a singer. The Comedian I had heard of and seen doing stand-up on one of those TV comedy specials. The singer I had never heard of, until halfway through his act he stated that he had a single top-10 hit.

He went on to say that he had the song in his act for years removing it because it was his only top-10 hit. Eventually he put it back because he finally realized that it may be his only top-10 hit, but it was one more than everyone in his audience had.

Or, to put it another way, the Super group Kansas no longer commands top-dollar, rule the airwaves, or play to sold-out stadiums anymore, but I just saw them play at a local regional (small) music festival and guess what? It totally doesn’t matter because they still get to play music every day, instead of selling Real Estate.

Ultimately, it shouldn’t really matter, some guys have what it takes to create something interesting out of whole cloth, and some guys don’t. You can’s (or shouldn’t) denigrate an excellent carpenter simply because he isn’t Frank Lloyd Wright, and can’t design buildings. It simply isn’t fair.

The Perfessor

Posted by: Chris at October 5, 2005 02:27 PM

Ok, there are some good points here!

I only see it a little different. I can fully understand all arguments here, but what Erik did with this article is: We are talking about it. Something is rolling here. I really think this was what Erik Larsen wanted with his very direct article.

As a creator myself I feel a little like after reading "Wanted" from Mark Millar... "Fucked in the A.." because I am one of those guys who talk to much and do not make my own comic book which I am dreaming of since I was a kid. Instead I am working as an artist for some BIG BOSSES who have bigger cars and houses than me.

For me I can say: I needed this words from Mr. Larsen to wake up. I think this article was not meant for other readers like me (which means with the same background)

Posted by: Rick Keating at October 5, 2005 02:28 PM

"Not unlike how Mark Hamill evidently called our "Carrie!" instead of "Leia!" at the end of Star Wars. Or so I have heard that he did."

No, he didn't. I know. He's a friend and I asked him.

PAD


A friend of mine belongs to the "he said 'Carrie' "camp (and I have to admit that when Luke gets out of his X Wing after returning from having destroyed the Death Star, it _sounds_ like he said 'Carrie.' However, I keep insisting he was calling for his mechanic, _Larry_, but my friend doesn't buy it.

Just curious, what _did_ he say, if he remembers?

Rick


Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 5, 2005 03:14 PM

Chris: I explained nothing. I only wrote what I read in that article.
Luigi Novi: No, you imbued the article with a meaning that was never in it to begin with. When you say that “He wrote what I feel when reading (most) of todays comics or looking at actual movies,” it is clear that you simply projected your own feelings onto the column, rather than look at what he actually said. In what way can “An open letter to comic book creators everywhere” (the very first line of his column) be translated into “He only was talking to artists”? In what way can

“That's pathetic. What have you done, which is really yours? What characters will you leave behind? What can you point to as being something near and dear to your heart? What work are you most proud of? Now, I'm not saying that Savage Dragon is the greatest creation in the history of contemporary pictorial literature. But at least it's something I did. It's something where I can say, I did this run on my book and it was all me and nobody else and it's something which I own.

…be translated into a critique of the overabundance of remakes and lack of newness?

Simple. In the exact same way that one looks at a windmill and sees a giant, or at a naked guy walking down the street and seeing an emperor in brand new clothes.

By seeing what they want to see, rather than what’s really there.

Larsen didn’t say anything about most stuff being based on some old ideas or the question of where today’s creative minds are. To say that any of this is in his article is an interpretation so blatantly loose that it functions virtually as a lie.

But if you can quote me some passages from that column and show me how they correlate (translate) into the whimsical and arbitrary interpretation you’ve conjured up, please do so.

Chris: He is crying out loud so people will hear it.
Luigi Novi: Much as the Beattles did when they produced that album for Charles Manson, or that Doberman when he barked at David Berkowitz.

Ralf Haring: Luigi, you can expect people to behave however you want, but those expectations are set by you and are limited in scope to you.
Luigi Novi: Nope. The standards I described are universally recognized as professional ones by people throughout the working world, and those who do not abide by them are not taken seriously, and quite correctly so. The idea that any of the traits I described were somehow invented by or recognized solely by me requires you to ignore reality. A fairly objective criteria for success in doing one’s job is whether it accomplished what it was intended to do. If Erik wished to encourage the industry to produce better material, or even make Image look more attractive for potential submissions, then he failed miserably. As the public voice of a company, insulting fellow creators who chose a different path than his is incredibly unprofessional and flat-out stupid. That’s not “my” standard, it’s what any reasonable person with a shred of professionalism would agree with.

Ralf Haring: "Are you kidding? Do you really think Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and every other publisher doesn't also have late books?"

Luigi Novi: "Like Image did?"

Ralf Haring: Yes, EXACTLY like Image. They are no worse or better in that regard than any of the other majors or minors.
Luigi Novi: Okay. Please give me examples of lateness by Marvel or DC that is comparable to the lateness of Image’s books in their first years of operation.


Posted by: Sylv at October 5, 2005 03:28 PM

>>give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I'd be happy.

>Actually they do. In the US navy, a captain outranks a commander. On BSG, it's the other way around. And the rank of colonel doesn't belong in the navy at all.

My mistake then. That part (and the card game being Pyramid instead of poker, although if they're using the same suites and numbering that'd be a turn-off to my nitpicky mind) flew right by me (Either that or I just showed myself wrong, and I need more visible or drastic changes to be happy with the series' set-up).

Someone pointed out the timeline on BSG may not be what the colonists think it is, that a lot less time than they think has gone by since their occupying of the planets. I think I'd like that as an explination, although I'd wonder how founding colonists (or whoever they originally were) were turned into gods so quickly.

Out of curiosity, have they expanded on their polytheism? Do the different gods have different functions, worshippers, ceremonies, etc...Is there any religious strife or schisms within the community? It's such an intruiging premise that I hope hasn't been underused (Leviathans' comments on the religion being window dressing have me worried, I do admit).

...man, sorry about the thread hijacking but it's just so nice to be in a place where you can talk sci-fi shows with articulate posters (Also, I think everyone else has exhausted all the viewpoints I could think of on the Larsen column debate).

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005 03:43 PM

Luigi: "...insulting fellow creators who chose a different path than his is incredibly unprofessional and flat-out stupid."

So? So you think it's unprofessional and stupid. So you won't buy his books if you're a reader or work with him if you're a pro. So what? That's fine. That's exactly what should happen if that's the way you feel. You and I have no vested interest in Mr. Larsen mainting a good working relationship with other people. I don't care if he burns his bridges or insults other people. It has absolutely no impact on my life.

People are allowed to be stupid.

Posted by: Den at October 5, 2005 03:50 PM

There has been some discussion on their religion. The president believes their sacred texts are the key to finding Earth, while Adama regards it simply as a tool to give the masses enough hope so they won't stop fighting for survival.

Much of their religion revolves around the number 12: 12 colonies, 12 Lords of Kobol, both of which are represented by the 12 symbols of the Zodiac (as seen from Earth, which gives credence that Earth is the true planet of origin).

The LOK themselves are loosely based on the 12 gods of the Greek pantheon. Athena had a tomb on Kobol, indicating that the LOK were at one time human or at least had a mortal form.

Bits and pieces of their faith have surfaced throughout the run.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 5, 2005 03:52 PM

People are allowed to be stupid.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should encourage it, either.

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 03:55 PM

"People are allowed to be stupid."

Except when they're stupid in a business sense. Which, ultimately, is the arena Larson has entered. You can look at the whole Image bunch as see what has been repeated, and what will likely continue to be repeated, in other business models the world over: the rank and file getting "promoted" into a manager position, when they lack the qualifications and skills to effectively perform that job.

Larson is a very talented artist. He's a decent story-teller. Niether skill-set needed for either of those tasks contributes well to managing anything. His explosion shows this. If his goal was to inspire, to lead, it fails because most people that read his aritcle will see on his lack of effective, professional communication, and instead see a vulgar, whiney adolescent. His message gets lost in the tantrum. It would be entirely different if Larson personally wrote checks to his audience...in that case, his anger would translate to fear in his audience, and maybe provide inspiration of a different source.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005 04:16 PM

Bobb: "Except when they're stupid in a business sense."

No, even then. Everyone should be allowed to be stupid unless their stupidity is causing harm to others. Larsen ranting on a webpage hurts no one.


Bobb: "You can look at the whole Image bunch as see what has been repeated, and what will likely continue to be repeated, in other business models the world over: the rank and file getting "promoted" into a manager position, when they lack the qualifications and skills to effectively perform that job."

I do not think that is an apt comparison at all. Larsen owns his own business. Everyone should be able to do that regardless of whether or not they wind up being good at it.

Posted by: Leviathan at October 5, 2005 04:23 PM

Posted by Den at October 4, 2005 11:39 PM

"but I feel that Leviathan, and others, are making valid points which shouldn't be dismissed out of hand."

As someone who also agrees with some of his points, I can't say that I'm dismissing them out of hand, but I don't see how just because the show has flaws, that means it "isn't SF" or that anyone who does enjoy it despite the flaws is being "duped."

They're two things, both subtly different than your summation here:

A: The flaws that make it not SF are just that. It's not that it has flaws at all, it's the result of the specific flaws: Those flaws are, quite simply, that it is transplanting stories that are perfectly workable as meanstream fiction into space, as if the mere presence of spaceships and robots makes it SF. It doesn't. To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work.

B: As it's not SF, anybody who says, "It's SF!" (With or without "good," "great," "magnificent," etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it's something it isn't. Is there a better definition of "duped" than that?

Posted by: Leviathan at October 5, 2005 04:28 PM

Posted by Stew Fyfe on October 5, 2005

Me:
"So how big does a mistake have to be before it's worth catching?"

Stew
Bigger than that, at least.

Okay, I'm done with you.

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 04:35 PM

"To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work."

Leviathan, you've cited B5, Dr. Who, Star Trek, I think, as examples of shows you consider to be sci fi. What, then, are the fictitious elements that these shows are utterly dependant upon? Because I would say that there isn't a single B5, Trek, or Dr. Who story that ever been written that you couldn't remove the sci fi elements from and tell essentially the same story. The sci fi elements might enhance the story, or might create a credible suspension belief, but the story isn't dependant upon it.

Posted by: Den at October 5, 2005 04:40 PM

To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work.

That is your opinion and not one shared by everyone. It it were, then about 90% of the Twilight Zone isn't SF then, because Sterling told many stories that could have easily been transferred to another setting. Dune isn't SF because the basic plot of a war between two houses over a scarce resource could easily be told in the middle east.

My point is, you are giving your opinion and, without supporting it, presenting it as cold hard fact and then telling people they are being "duped" if they happen to share a different opinion. That's insulting and I object to it just as much as I object to Larsen's insulting creators who don't share his views on creativity.

To me, SF, like all literature is about exploring the human condition and the rockets/robots/etc are just tools to explore ourselves and our relationships, not the story itself. If it gives you some kind of smug satisfaction to call me "duped" for holding that opinion, so be it.

Getting back to BSG, yes, there are episodes whose plots could be transferred to other genres, but the overall premise of the show is clearly SF: our own creations coming back to destroy us.

Posted by: Bobb at October 5, 2005 05:05 PM

"but the overall premise of the show is clearly SF: our own creations coming back to destroy us."

This isn't even solely in the realm of sci fi. There's all kinds of current events that you could link to our creations coming back to destroy us. Maybe with less malice, but the ideological warning is the same. It's a lot more exciting and interesting to me when it's a race of cyborgs instead of some genetically mutated strain of plague, but that's just me.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 06:58 PM

"A: The flaws that make it not SF are just that. It's not that it has flaws at all, it's the result of the specific flaws: Those flaws are, quite simply, that it is transplanting stories that are perfectly workable as meanstream fiction into space, as if the mere presence of spaceships and robots makes it SF. It doesn't. To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work.

B: As it's not SF, anybody who says, "It's SF!" (With or without "good," "great," "magnificent," etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it's something it isn't. Is there a better definition of "duped" than that?"

Hmmm. I don't know about all that. I think that you're wrongly deciding that your definition of what is and isn't SF for you is the rule for everybody else rather then just your POV.

Harlan Ellison has written some of the most well known SF in literature and TV. Much of it could be told in mainstream fiction with only a few minor tweaks to the story. Good SF (much of it) has always been very human based stories told in a setting where human issues can be examined in detail against a backdrop where we don't always see what we're really looking at the first, second or fifth time.

The Day the Earth Stood Still deals mostly with human fear and the nature of man during the Cold War years and the War Years of its day. Very little in that story would need to be junked to tell it as a pure fiction story. Hell, if the hero of the piece were human you would even throw in the debate of just what is a and when terrorist.

Forbidden Planet is basically The Tempest by William Shakespeare. The thing the story hinges on was fantasy tweaked into technology. It also hinged on the human element.

Babylon 5 was 90% transplanted WWII storytelling with another 8% being key historical points. Maybe 2% of the story absolutely depended on the fictitious scientific elements to work. All of it depended on the examination of the human nature.

Asimov's Robot series (an all time favorite of mine) and his Empire series are held up as classics in SF almost totally across the board. Both dealt with a great many human issues. Both could be told quite well as mainstream fiction with only minor changes.

I could keep going (and going and going and going). Are the fans of all the above, and so much else like it, idiots who have been duped into enjoying those stories? Would you stand up and discount so much of SF, classic mainstays of SF at that, just so you can discount Battlestar and insult its fans? That's rather shortsighted on your end.

Why not try this argument instead. You don't like it because it just doesn't work for you.

I loved Farscape with a mighty passion. I knew many who didn't. I don't like Star-Gate Atlantis. I know many who do. We agree to disagree and we don't insult each other as you seem to like to do. We find common likes to enjoy talking about and occasionally debate, civilly, points about things we don't. We can disagree on and debate the things that make the BSG a total turn off to you, a show that I'm indifferent to one way or the other and "the best SF show ever" to many based really on nothing more then personal taste. But, please, don't be so dull as to create bogus rules for what is and isn't SF for the rest of us to follow and then insult us when we don't.

*************************************************

Den: "It it were, then about 90% of the Twilight Zone isn't SF then, because Sterling told many stories that could have easily been transferred to another setting."

Old debate. Actually I go with "isn't" here. TZ is more in the line of dark fantasy. The Outer Limits more hard SF.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 5, 2005 07:26 PM

Okay, I think I'm done here.

I've already did an indepth response to Peter's original post on a comicon thread. In short, when he does talk directly about Erik's column he makes some faulty assumptions.

No big surprise, many of PADs fans following his post here are going by those same assumptions.

That folks most folks on Millar's board, Bendis board, Comicon and Fanboy rampage didn't make these same assumptions is telling.

Anyway, the two major faulty assumptions are:

1. Erik was talking about "material" (ie good comics) when he was talking about characters.
He wasn't saying work for hire comics are bad, nor was he insulting readers who enjoy them.

2. Erik's column was addressed to established comic pro's that only do work for hire books and have never done anything else. While Erik does have an established artist becoming writers bias, I don't think they were the only people he was talking to. In fact I think there are about 10-15 pro's he was talking about.

Beyond that, I don't see swearing as a big deal. I've read worse in Preacher.

And Erik's column is called 'One Fans Opinion' so I see no reason to be shocked when he speaks as a fan. Especially when he's always talked that way.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at October 5, 2005 08:38 PM

Once again, Jamie (may I call you Jamie?), the point is that Mr. Larsen professes to be a writer by trade, as well as an illustrator. As a writer, it is his responsibility to write in such a way that his meaning is difficult to misconstrue, not difficult to discover. If his words have needed this much explanation by his apologists, then he has failed miserably as a writer. Given this, it becomes very hard indeed to greet his dismissal of anyone else's work with anything besides derision and mockery.

And, of course, if he has succeeded as a writer, then his meaning has been plain, and he was indeed insulting anyone who does not have the wherewithal to self-publish. If you think it's easy to do so, ask Wendy and Richard Pini some time. Richard especially will regale you at length with tales of the early days of WaRP Graphics. Mr. Larsen and his friends had the freedom to do so primarily because they had spent their time until then working on company-owned projects and characters. He then has the gall to call anyone who does not yet have that freedom, that luxury, a "pussy", who is "sitting on [his] fat ass", failing to produce "anything of note". The parts in quotes are directly from Mr. Larsen's piece - it's not that hard to understand, unless he really is bad at his self-chosen job...

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 5, 2005 09:15 PM

Sigh, I shouldn't be repeating myself yet again, but I guess I will.

First, yes you can call me Jamie. :)

On to your points.

That PAD and his fans misunderstood his column doesn't tell me that Erik is a bad writer. It tells me that Peter misunderstood it and his fans and gone along with it. I've already mentioned most people on other message boards understood it just fine.

Again, Erik doesn't say working on work for hire is bad, just *only* working on work for hire is bad. Erik himself has done work for hire. He even went back to it for a brief period in the late 90s.

And once more, he meant established freelancers.

To say unestablished freelancers should turn down a good gig on work for hire books and only do creator owned books is extremely silly. I have to question why somebody would just assume that's what he meant - especailly when he never said it.

It's also especially weird when Larsen's own history and his past writings on breaking into the industry indicates he believes otherwise.

I mean - why the hate?

Posted by: Josh Bales at October 5, 2005 09:24 PM

And Erik's column is called 'One Fans Opinion' so I see no reason to be shocked when he speaks as a fan. Especially when he's always talked that way.

What Larsen talks like is an ass. Doesn't matter if he's excused for what he says because he's speaking as a fan. We've all seen how fans who spew ignorant and nasty opinions are treated -- justifiably so, we all collectively shake our heads and a lot of people challenge (some at great length) these wrongheaded sentiments. LArsen should be treated no differently just because he's a pro.

Also, Larsen is basically implying that work-for-hire comics crap by virtue of the way he so juvenilely insults work-for-hire-creators.

If he thinks these guys -- and girls -- are so "pathetic" and a bunch of "pussies," then he clearly doesn't have that much respect for the books they work on. He completely rips on the Big Two, referring to their "corporate pissing contest," says that people who work for those companies are just "sucking on the corporate teat" and only "capable of painting by numbers," plus a whole bunch of other vitriol.

I guess since these bunch of work-for-hire- "pussies" haven't created "jack shit," they should just "break free of the shackles" and "show [Larsen] what they've got." Then maybe they too can "live the dream."

That said, I am curious as to what Larsen's next column will be like. I'm sure it'll be chock-full of apologies and good-tidings.

JAB

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 5, 2005 09:35 PM

I don't hate Larsen. I simply wish he'd get back to writing Savage Dragon. I haven;t seen a new issue in months. The most recent story was taking place during the presidential election.

Fred

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005 09:39 PM

Josh Bales: "What Larsen talks like is an ass. Doesn't matter if he's excused for what he says because he's speaking as a fan. We've all seen how fans who spew ignorant and nasty opinions are treated -- justifiably so, we all collectively shake our heads and a lot of people challenge (some at great length) these wrongheaded sentiments. LArsen should be treated no differently just because he's a pro."

I agree completely! People should ignore those other fans too! ;-)

Posted by: mike weber at October 5, 2005 10:32 PM

Posted by Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005

People are allowed to be stupid.

"You're supposed to be stupid, son. Don't abuse the privilege." (Warren Oates to Daniel Stern, "Blue Thunder")

Posted by: Jerry C at October 5, 2005 10:58 PM

"I've already did an indepth response to Peter's original post on a comicon thread. In short, when he does talk directly about Erik's column he makes some faulty assumptions.

No big surprise, many of PADs fans following his post here are going by those same assumptions."


Sorry, no. Read it before PAD posted about it and had just about the same reaction. Read it two or three times since as I've been posting on points Erik tried to raise.

Erik's idea was most likely wanting to ask creators who have never done creator owned to give it a shot. Fine.

But Erik shot himself in the foot with his mouth. His point was lost in the insults slung at anybody who doesn't do creator owned and by his rather faulty logic and poorly supported arguments.

His main "what have you got" point is blown apart just by the history of the medium. He points out a number of comic icons that were created back when (for work for hire) and acts a though nothing has been created since then at, for example, The Big Two.

There have been a number of major and minor creations made in the worlds of the work for hire books that do a pretty good job of showing what many creators have. Creators have created and left a legacy for others. They have given to the industry with new creations and concepts. Are they as big as, say, Batman or Superman? No. But that doesn't support Erik's point as there are damn few, if any, creations from the creator owned pool that are that big either.

Are creators "pussies" for not doing creator owned works? No. I know many good writers (only a couple of pros though) who can't draw stick figures worth spit. I know more then afew artists that are fantastic but can't come up with a good story or can't script to save their life. What's wrong with these guys knowing what they can't do and putting their efforts into something that they can be proud of and know that people will enjoy?

Explain why you think that a guy who has zero writing talent would be better served putting out a book with real purrtyy pictures but zero content story/script/plotwise. An artist owes his audience his best work if he wants you to plunk down your hard earned cash. How is he or she fulfilling that obligation better by putting out substandard work because they can rather then by working with a gifted writer on a book or character he/she enjoys and does well.

And spare me the "growth" argument. An artist can grow quite well as an artist without ever becoming a writer. More then a few outside the comics field do it all the time. Writing (badly) without the skill to do so just because you can get away with it doesn't equal growth.

Explain how somebody who isn't interested in being (or is just plain no good at being) a business man is better served by dealing with shipping issues, overhead, publishing concerns, etc then by dealing simply with the act of creating their art? Not everybody has a good head for business or wants the headaches that come with it. That's not being a pussy. That's focusing your efforts where you feel you can do your best and/or be your happiest.

Erik's piece was filled with half thought out ideas, poor support for those ideas and petty bile to spit at those who don't see the world as he does.

That's not misunderstanding Erik's open letter. That's reading this piece after having read his many others and then calling a spade a spade. Erik's 90% full of it and the 10% of him that isn't is often flooded out of view by the way he chooses to convey his points.

Like I said once before....

His fault, not ours.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 5, 2005 11:43 PM

Sylv wrote:
"and the card game being Pyramid instead of poker, although if they're using the same suites and numbering that'd be a turn-off to my nitpicky mind"

I'd have to go back and rewatch, but I'm pretty sure the markings on the cards are different. The names of the hands are definitely different.

"Someone pointed out the timeline on BSG may not be what the colonists think it is, that a lot less time than they think has gone by since their occupying of the planets. I think I'd like that as an explination, although I'd wonder how founding colonists (or whoever they originally were) were turned into gods so quickly."

That was probably me. Don't know how much stock should be put into what I say, given how far off my Lost hypotheses were last week. Still, for what it's worth, in the original series (excluding Galactica 1980), the only clue to the actual timeframe occurred at the end of the last episode.

Starbuck's been in a small observation dome, scanning space for possible signals from Earth. At the end, he hasn't found anything, and Cassiopeia and/or Apollo convince him to come down and join whatever revels are going on, Starbuck leaves and just misses seeing the television transmission from the first U.S. moon landing. So at the very least, it took place after 1969, our time.

Sylv:
"Is there any religious strife or schisms within the community? It's such an intruiging premise that I hope hasn't been underused (Leviathans' comments on the religion being window dressing have me worried, I do admit)."

There's been some friction between Roslin and Adama, but really cool thing, I think, is the fact that it's the Cylons who are monotheistic, the sincerity with which they seem to hold to their beliefs, and the way in which Six is working over Baltar from that perspective. Normally, you'd expect that it would be the evil bad guys who have the goofy, made up, mystical religion.

Den wrote:
"Much of their religion revolves around the number 12: 12 colonies, 12 Lords of Kobol, both of which are represented by the 12 symbols of the Zodiac (as seen from Earth, which gives credence that Earth is the true planet of origin)."

I hadn't thought of that. Interesting, given the way the Zodiacal names are even integrated into the colonies' names (Caprica, etc.)

And we also know, from Zarek, that Apollo is the name of one of the Lords.


Posted by: Den at October 6, 2005 12:02 AM

I mean - why the hate?

Good question. Why did Larsen write his article in such a hateful manner?

It's not a matter of misunderstanding whether he was talking to established creators or new ones, it's that he presented his argument in such an obnoxious and insulting manner, that I don't care.

Posted by: dave w. at October 6, 2005 12:24 AM

I've been gone for a few days and fast forwarded to answer this comment by Mark Butcher(sp)-I'm not going to go back and look). But I would be GLAD to sell my extra Image stock at two for a buck. I've been having a hard time trying to sell any back issue Image comics and I have them at five for a buck.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 6, 2005 12:30 AM

Luigi Novi: "Okay. Please give me examples of lateness by Marvel or DC that is comparable to the lateness of Image’s books in their first years of operation."

Here's a list I culled from my preorders for the last year. I only list the publishers once. Each one is relevant until the next publisher is listed. All of the comics listed missed their solicitation month. Lord knows how many were late but were still published within the same month. That's too much effort to track down. I barely order a fraction of the output of any publisher and yet it is readily apparent to me that lateness is not a problem that only afflicts any one publisher.

January 2005: Berlin #11 (D&Q), Samurai Executioner v4 (Dark Horse), Adam Strange #5 (DC), Superman #213, Seaguy tpb, Grimjack v1 (IDW), Battle Hymn #2 (Image), Invincible v4, Noble Causes #7, Rising Stars #24, Astonishing X-Men #9 (Marvel), Captain America #3, Iron Man #3, New Avengers #3, Planetes v4.2 (Tokypop)

February 2005: Conan v1 (Dark Horse), Katsuya Terada's Monkey King v1, Spyboy: Final Exam tpb, Usagi Yojimbo v19, Adam Strange #6 (DC), Superman #214, Terra Obscura v2 #6, Stray Bullets v1 (El Capitan), Battle Hymn #3 (Image), Noble Causes #8, Wildguard tpb (shipped early!), What If tpb (Marvel)

March 2005: Hipira tpb (Dark Horse), Milkman Murders tpb, Samurai Executioner v5, Adam Strange #7 (DC), Superman #215, Battle Hymn #4 (Image, still hasn't shipped), Noble Causes #9, Hero v1 (Speakeasy, still hasn't shipped)

April 2005: Adam Strange #8 (DC), Jon Sable v1 (IDW), Battle Hymn #5 (Image, still hasn't shipped), Noble Causes #10, Walking Dead v3, Captain America & Falcon #14 (Marvel), Powers v8

May 2005: Blade of the Immortal v14 (Dark Horse), Samurai Executioner v6 (still hasn't shipped), The 49ers tpb (DC), Planetary #23, Noble Causes #11 (Image), Phantom Jack tpb (Speakeasy)

June 2003: Concrete v1 (Dark Horse), Ballad of Halo Jones tpb (DC), Noble Causes #12 (Image)

July 2005: Hip Flask: Mystery City (Active Images), Samurai Executioner v7 (Dark Horse, still hasn't shipped), Stray Bullets v3 (El Capitan, still hasn't shipped), Grimjack v3 (IDW), Hammer of the Gods v2 (Image, still hasn't shipped), Noble Causes v4, Sea of Red v1, Young Avengers #6 (Marvel)

August 2005: BPRD: The Dead tpb (Dark Horse), Concrete v2 (still hasn't shipped), Devil Chef tpb (hasn't shipped yet), Expatriate tpb (Image, hasn't shipped yet), Astonishing X-Men v2 (Marvel, hasn't shipped yet), Young Avengers #7

September 2005 (all of these will neccessarily not have shipped yet): Chosen tpb (Dark Horse), Conan v2, Samurai Executioner v8, Samurai: Heaven & Earth tpb, A History of Violence (DC, shipped early!), Astro City: Dark Age #4, Grimjack: Killer Instinct tpb (IDW), Jon Sable v3, Invincible v5 (Image), Ring of Roses tpb, Saint Germaine v1, Young Avengers #8 (Marvel)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 6, 2005 12:36 AM

Again, Erik doesn't say working on work for hire is bad, just *only* working on work for hire is bad.

And why the hell should anybody give a damn what Larsen thinks?

Here's a better idea: let writers & artists do what they enjoy.

If they enjoy working *only* on work for hire, then everybody else should fucking live with it.

Larsen should stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: dave w. at October 6, 2005 12:46 AM

Aside to Bill Mulligan. I agree with you-STARBRAND was enjoyable. I would go see a movie. Maybe with Tom Welling(sp-Smallville).

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 6, 2005 01:00 AM

Forgot to address Leviathan's sci fi definition yesterday, so I'm not quite done yet, sorry all. Scroll past if you're bored.

Leviathan to me:
"Okay, I'm done with you."

Glad to see my comments about tolerance and open-mindedness didn't fall on deaf ears.

Look, there's no need to be rude. I was a little sarcastic in parts of my last response, sure, but I don't think I went out of my way to insult you. (Apologies if I did.)

And the one tiny bit you did bother to respond to was actually written in utter sincerity - it takes much more than one single word mistakenly uttered over the course of 13 hours or so of a series to make me think that the creators are lazy, full of contempt, etc. Which means the smoking gun you were holding up isn't so damning as you want it to be, for me at least. (If you had BG producer quotes similar to those from the V producers, then you might have something.)

Seriously, L, take a deep breath. If you're ticked, sorry, not my intent. Just trying to point out why I think you're wrong about some things.

So. Your SF definition and all that.

Leviathan:
"Those flaws are, quite simply, that it is transplanting stories that are perfectly workable as meanstream fiction into space, as if the mere presence of spaceships and robots makes it SF. It doesn't."

So it's mainstream fiction you wish to set it in opposition to, not other sorts - westerns or fantasy or noir or Chinese swordplay or what have you. Why is that? What is it about mainstream fiction that is so antithetical to science fiction as to irrevocably contaminate it? (And just how much mainstream content is required to do so?)

If it's not just mainstream that is the offender, and the presence of any stories workable in any other genre prevent it from being SF, then there's very little "real" science fiction indeed. The possibilities of recasting sci fi stories as fantasy stories alone would wipe out a huge percentage of what most people would call science fiction.

Take this a step further. If such boundaries may be set for science fiction (if you can tell the story in another genre, it ain't science fiction), shouldn't they also be set for other genres as well?

But if that's the case, we get all kinds of free-floating stories, books, films, that couldn't be considered part of any genre - Seven Samurai, for example, can't be a jidai-geki, because it can be done up as a western, but Magnificent Seven can't be a western because it can be done up as a jidai-geki. Or a Pixar cartoon, with bugs and stuff, or a Roger Corman movie with spaceships and robots and aliens and starfields in the window.

It gets kind of silly, I think. (And if you would say that only science fiction is blessed/cursed with such a restriction, why is that the case?)

Leviathan:
"To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work."

Just curious, where is your definition coming from? I've been poking around, looking for who came up with it, and haven't found anyone so far. Especially the "utterly dependent" bit. And what do you mean by "utterly dependent"? Give an example. As someone else pointed out, B5 is out.

Also, what do you mean by "fictitious scientific elements"? Does this mean that real scientific elements can't form the basis for a sci fi story? (Do some stories therefore retroactively cease to become sci fi at some point?)

Anyway, here's a good bit from John Clute, Peter Nicholls and Brian Stableford, who at least know a bit about the genre: "There is really no good reason to expect that a workable definition of sf will ever be established. None has been, so far. In practice, there is much consensus about what sf looks like in its centre; it is only at the fringes that most of the fights take place. And it is still not possible to describe sf as a homogenous form of writing."

That's from around 1992, and maybe you've since cracked the case, so to speak, but I'm not convinced of that. (And though you're perfectly entitled to your own definition, the fact that there is such disagreement on this matter hurts your next point.)

Leviathan:
"B: As it's not SF, anybody who says, "It's SF!" (With or without "good," "great," "magnificent," etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it's something it isn't. Is there a better definition of "duped" than that?""

Well, you haven't proved the first part ("it's not SF"), so it's not at all clear that people have been made to think that it's something that it's not, so the second part of your statement is out, so that's not a very good definition of "duped" you're offering. Sorry.

Contrariwise, if your definition is indeed the one true definition, which a lot of people apparently don't hold to, to their detriment, then there's a lot of people calling a lot of things science fiction when it's not. (B5, for example.) In which case, there's a whole lot of duping going on. In which case, why does BG, one case among many, tick you off so much?

Cheers,

Stew

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 01:22 AM

"1. Erik was talking about "material" (ie good comics) when he was talking about characters.
He wasn't saying work for hire comics are bad, nor was he insulting readers who enjoy them."

Well, first he specifically cites stories ABOUT the characters (fill-in issues, the fate of Blue Beetle), so you're wrong there. Second, he didn't say literally the words "work for hire comics are bad." He said people who are confining their activities to it are gutless, pussies, and sucking at the corporate teat. So I would hardly call it flattering. And third, I don't recall saying he insulted the readers, so that's pretty much irrelevant.

"2. Erik's column was addressed to established comic pro's that only do work for hire books and have never done anything else. While Erik does have an established artist becoming writers bias, I don't think they were the only people he was talking to. In fact I think there are about 10-15 pro's he was talking about."

And that is your Erik-preferential assumption, based upon nothing except your own belief, and contradicted by the text of the piece itself. To say nothing of the fact that even if he WERE talking to long-time pros, that doesn't make it less insulting.

"That PAD and his fans misunderstood his column doesn't tell me that Erik is a bad writer. It tells me that Peter misunderstood it and his fans and gone along with it."

Ah. See, there's the whole interpretive thing again. Your interpretation is that this board consists of nothing but lock-step fans who parrot my every opinion...which displays towering arrogance toward the posters here not to mention staggering ignorance of the many arguments that have run rampant across this board.

"I've already mentioned most people on other message boards understood it just fine."

Really. "Most people." Considering the sizable number of scathing comments I've seen about Larsen, I find that questionable at best. Of course, in the circular argument of your world, those people on other boards who concur with my view are doing so only because they have no capability of forming an opinion independent of mine.

PAD

Posted by: dave w. at October 6, 2005 01:23 AM

MyTwoCents. Walt Simonson + Thor = Great. Simonson + X-Factor=not so much.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 6, 2005 01:23 AM

Y'know, I've been thinking on it for a couple of days, and the ONLY instances that really spring to mind where the story is ENTIRELY dependent upon the fictional scientific elements are pretty much any Trek episode where they've written themselves into a corner they can't get out of without the deus ex machina of a last-minute transport.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 6, 2005 01:48 AM

Yeah, I've been trying to think of some to, but there's always another way to go about the story without fictional scientific elements. Even something like "Nightfall." The revised story might not be as good or as interesting, but that's neither here nor there.

Plus, they apparently deliberately stuck something like that into the BG mini-series, as kind of a joke - when Apollo does the generator thingy to save Colonial One from the nuke attack. Moore says with bemusement in the commentary that it's a lame joke about technobabble that no one realized was a joke.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 6, 2005 01:53 AM

Den wrote:
"Getting back to BSG, yes, there are episodes whose plots could be transferred to other genres, but the overall premise of the show is clearly SF: our own creations coming back to destroy us."

Not that this is necessarily or uniquely SF either, but so far, one could also say the overall premise of the show was voiced in the first lines of dialogue in the mini:

Six: Are you alive?
Ambassador: Yes.
Six: Prove it.

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 02:25 AM

Just for kicks, I went back to the Comicon.com thread and counted the number of people (including both myself and Jamie) who disagreed and agreed with Larson.

Number who disagreed with Larsen or thought he expressed himself badly: Seven.

Number who agreed with Larsen or had no problem with his phrasing: Five.

So, Jamie, when you said "most people" understood his intent and agreed with him...that claim is right up there with where you said Larsen was only talking to veteran creators.

PAD

Posted by: Mark at October 6, 2005 07:06 AM

Jamie wrote:

"And once more, he meant established freelancers.

To say unestablished freelancers should turn down a good gig on work for hire books and only do creator owned books is extremely silly. I have to question why somebody would just assume that's what he meant - especailly when he never said it."

I have to question why you assume he only meant established freelancers - especially when he never said it.

Or are your assumptions somehow superior to those of others?

Posted by: Rex Hondo at October 6, 2005 08:04 AM

Ever since reading the article, and all through the thread, there's been a fault in Larsen's logic on the tip of my brain that I just couldn't put my finger on until now.

Where I think he missed the logic train is in assuming that just because the artists aren't creating any new super heroes, they aren't creating ANYTHING new.

Now, the artists that I know don't restrict themselves to a single form of artistic expression. Heck, some of them do stuff they never intend to sell. They just do it for the joy of making art.

Now, I'm not familiar enough with Larsen to know for sure whether he's so artistically limited that he ONLY does comics, there's nothing saying that Artist X isn't drawing comics to pay the bills while he pursues his love of abstract expressionism on his own time, after paying his rent.

-Rex Hondo-

Posted by: Bobb at October 6, 2005 09:03 AM

"Y'know, I've been thinking on it for a couple of days, and the ONLY instances that really spring to mind where the story is ENTIRELY dependent upon the fictional scientific elements are pretty much any Trek episode where they've written themselves into a corner they can't get out of without the deus ex machina of a last-minute transport."

Rex, deus ex machina, as the language might suggest, is an ancient concept. It's most apparant with something like a transporter rescue ("Scotty, now vould be a gud time"), or timely divine intervention from Zeus. But it also can be portrayed in the timely collapse of a weak floor, thus sparing our hero an untimely beheading. Or the sudden arrival of the cavalry. The mechanics may be different, given the "rules" of your story, but the effect is the same.

This is why I and I think others have an issue with Leviathan's definition of what makes sci fi a distinctive genre. Purely traditional sci fi introduces an element of literal science fiction...transporters, space ships, etc. They are integral to the story, but the basic story elements are not dependant upon them. They can't be. There isn't a single story, sci fi or otherwise, that you can transplant the basic elements of into another genre. Sci fi is what it is because the rules of the story are different from what we expect from a modern setting. Instead of needing the have the cavalry ride over the hill to provide rescue for our heroes at the last moment, we can have them transported aboard the ship that we THOUGHT was crippled in scene 23. Except Scotty was able to get the warp drive on line in record time (again) and provide a surprise rescue. But the basic story is "surprise rescue." The sci fi nature of the story allows us to provide that rescue in a different fashion, but that doesn't change the basic elements.

Posted by: Bobb at October 6, 2005 09:09 AM

"It tells me that Peter misunderstood it and his fans and gone along with it. I've already mentioned most people on other message boards understood it just fine."

There's a world of difference between not understanding something, and not agreeing with something. I understand Larson's point just fine. I just don't happen to agree with it at all.

And calling a blue sky red doesn't make it red. Larson stopped being a fan a long time ago. Trying to couch his opinion as the same as "just a fan" because of the title of his column is like trying to convince me that a blue sky is red, just because you keep calling it red.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 6, 2005 02:43 PM

Leviathan: As it's not SF, anybody who says, "It's SF!" (With or without "good," "great," "magnificent," etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it's something it isn't. Is there a better definition of "duped" than that?
Luigi Novi: Yes. Those people are not “made” to think anything. They simply have a different aesthetic reaction to the show than you do, and to make such a harshly prejudicial value judgment about people based on the entertainment they like is arrogant and presumptuous.

The fact of the matter is science fiction is determined by its definition. Not by whether its elements “have” to be there. If it has those necessary elements, then it’s sci-fi. Your statement that it is not sci-fi if it doesn’t “have to have” that setting is false a personal opinion, and a value judgment, not a fact.

Jamie Coville: And Erik's column is called 'One Fans Opinion' so I see no reason to be shocked when he speaks as a fan.
Luigi Novi: He is not just a fan. He’s a prominent creator in the industry, and the publisher of one of the largeset comic companies in the country, and therefore, that company’s public face.

Jamie Coville: I've already did an indepth response to Peter's original post on a comicon thread.
Luigi Novi: Can you provide the url to that?

Jamie Coville: Again, Erik doesn't say working on work for hire is bad, just *only* working on work for hire is bad.
Luigi Novi: And he is wrong, both for his judgmental attitude towards those who have no interest in creator-owned material, and the vitriolic and poorly-reasoned way he expressed it.

Ralf: Here's a list I culled from my preorders for the last year…
Luigi Novi: Okay let’s see……Hmmmm…….so when I ask for company books most comparable to Image in their early years of operation the company whose late books are the most numerous on your list is………IMAGE!

Am I missing something here?

13 of the books you mentioned were DC, and of those, 3 were Wildstorm, which was originally an Image studio, and therefore its business practices descended from Image, leaving 10 books from DC’s core company.

11 of those books were Marvel.

But 21 of those books were Image! Far from disproving my point, you just proved it.

And putting aside the fact that some of the books you mentioned were trade paperbacks, were do not throw off a monthly schedule like a late issue of a monthly book, I asked you if other companies’ lateness was comparable to that of Image in its early years.

So how many late books did Image have in 1992 and 1993? You didn’t list figures for that.

I’m guessing it was more than 11 or 13, and possibly more than 21.

Posted by: Bobb at October 6, 2005 02:47 PM

Did Image even put out 21 books in 1992 and 1993?

Posted by: Leviathan at October 6, 2005 03:05 PM

Look, to say that SF doesn't have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre:

If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?

Posted by: Nero Farr at October 6, 2005 03:06 PM

I think people are reading too much into Erik's comments.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 6, 2005 03:07 PM

Bobb wrote:
"They are integral to the story, but the basic story elements are not dependant upon them. They can't be. There isn't a single story, sci fi or otherwise, that you can transplant the basic elements of into another genre."

Yeah, that's part of what I was griping about. Those basic, translatable story elements at the core of the narrative seem to be what he's called "mere surface."

Bobb:
"Sci fi is what it is because the rules of the story are different from what we expect from a modern setting. Instead of needing the have the cavalry ride over the hill to provide rescue for our heroes at the last moment, we can have them transported aboard the ship that we THOUGHT was crippled in scene 23."

And I think this might be part of his problem with BG (is it BSG?). Some of the plot threads have been deliberately been set up to play out without recourse to sci fi resolutions, placing within the sci fi setting plotlines that could easily play out in other genres.

I really doubt there will be a technobabble cure for Roslin's cancer, for example. But she's facing this disease while having suddenly become president of what are possibly the only 50,000 humans left in existence, due to a multi-planet nuclear attack from rebellious, religious robots which has sent the human refugees fleeing across the cosmos with scant supplies in ill-suited spaceships. To me, that sounds like science fiction.

Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 6, 2005 03:20 PM

Leviathan:
"Look, to say that SF doesn't have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre"

What do you mean by "require"? Must they be integral to the initiation, development and resolution of the plot, so that such a plot is entirely impossible in another setting or genre, or is it enough that the sci fi elements are present?

For example, sure, you could do a story about a large group of human refugees fleeing a holocaust in a genre other than SF, but in BSG, the cause of the holocaust is a group of robots earlier constructed by the humans. So the sci fi element is present, is part of the inciting action, development and, presumably, the resolution. This particular manifestation of the "fleeing refugee" story incorporates sci fi elements, makes use of them in the development of some of the subplots (e.g. Baltar's Cylon detector) and in order to enhance some of the themes (e.g. the question of whether or not the Cylons are truly "alive" is not so immediately and obviously answerable), and thus, in its present form, requires those elements. Another variation could be done without them, but it would play out with differences, some minor, some major.

Nevertheless, on a more general level, certain elements of the story don't require sci fi elements - a people are attacked and nearly wiped out, don't have the resources to fight back, and so they run.

Leviathan:
"If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story? "

I don't think anyone's trying to say something like this.

Maybe it would help clarify things if you could point to something that you, specifically, do consider to be science fiction.

Posted by: ERIK LARSEN SAYS at October 6, 2005 03:23 PM

[b]ERIK LARSEN[/b] WRITES:

Here’s my take on it:


[i]Erik, you ignorant slut

I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there's a nice article about "Fallen Angel," complete with more artwork from issue #1.[/i]

Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.

By the way--Peter's opening line is in reference to an often repeated remark from the news section of Saturday Night Live years ago. It was my first line from the infamous "Name Withheld" letter well over a decade ago.

[i]And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own--which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned[/i]

The point being--what, exactly? This only confuses the issue since most of these people mentioned had no other available options.

[i]...just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are "pussies," resting on their "fat asses" and failing to "show (Erik) what (they've) got."[/i]

Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names. In case Peter didn't notice, this column was written THIS year--not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn't expressly say that "creators" shouldn't create wherever they are.

[i]Now I haven't bothered with Larsen's previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of "But I digress" for transitions.)[/i]

Peter seems to have forgotten the fact that, while he does utilize the term "but I digress..." he didn't coin it. It's a perfectly useful phrase and it's one that I use regardless of anybody else using it. I also use the term "to be continued" from time to time. Yet another string of words Peter didn’t coin but attempts to put his stamp on. Tell you what, Peter--you come up with a new term (I know, I know--actually create something new--it's a tough concept for you to wrap your brain around) and I'll make an effort NOT to use it.

[i]But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address...

Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer "hold back," I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it.[/i]

Well, no--it didn't. In that column, Peter took words out of context--as he did here--and put HIS interpretation to them. The two columns have nothing to do with each other.

[i]Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that--freed of the shackles of the main companies--all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes.[/i]

Peter might as well have said the same thing to Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko in 1961. It would have been a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now. The fact of the matter is (and was) that we liked superheroes and just because it's something HE might not do on his own--it doesn't mean that it's something WE shouldn't do on our own.

[i]Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.[/i]

But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN'T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN'T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN'T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN'T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?

It's a ridiculous statement.

Maybe superheroes were the furthest thing from your mind yet you created "Sachs and Violens" shortly after the debut of Image and it had all the trappings of a superhero comic from the foxy babe in tight clothing to a gun toting muscle man both of whom wore essentially superhero-like uniforms and had catchy codenames. Should somebody have said that Peter David and George Perez SHOULDN'T have created Sachs and Violens because they were just more superheroes and there are plenty of those already?

Should somebody let the pot know that the kettle is black?

[i](This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. "Sachs & Violens," "Soulsearchers and Company," "Fallen Angel," plus my novel creations such as "Sir Apropos of Nothing" are nothing like my other comic book work.)[/i]

Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ass dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful "costumes" and do extraordinary things--much like superheroes.

And what of those Image superheroes? Spawn is more of a horror book. Savage Dragon had as much in common with Hill Street Blues as it did with Green Lantern and the others were wildly different (in some cases) than anything that had come before.

And what's the point exactly? That Peter thinks he's "better than all of us" because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?

[i]Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?

Okay. Fine.[/i]

Clearly this ISN'T "fine" with Peter or else he wouldn't have brought it up.

[i]Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said.[/i]

Peter's the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his "I did everything first" rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?

[i]Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it.[/i]

Well, no--it might help if you actually read it. It's about not giving anything new--about not bringing something new to the table. Sure, I did go on at some length about the reasons why a person who wanted to do something new should try to do it in a place where they can own it--but really, it was as much about creating something new--period. When was the last time an icon was created at DC or Marvel? It's been a while. They're both cruising along with characters that are 30 or more years old.

[i]If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you're just not trying hard enough and you're a wimp and pussy.[/i]

Again, failing to actually read what I wrote, Peter has taken to putting words in my mouth. Taking isolated words out of context, yet again, Peter fails to grasp even the simplest point.

[i]Which I'm sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven't owned any scripts they've written, ever.[/i]

Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.

[i]What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be...jealousy?[/i]

Huh?

[i]Well, let's check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on "Aquaman" that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his...[/i]

Except that it wasn't and it didn't. Again, Peter likes to paint himself as the victim. It's not all about him. Aquaman was in free fall when Peter was on it. Sales were going down month after month. Once he left the book sales went up briefly but then continued in the direction in which they were headed--down.

As for my goals on the book--they were largely to try and make the underworld kingdom of Atlantis a place that wasn't populated by humans walking around on the ocean floor and instead give it its own look and feel. I added a number of (gasp) new characters and tried to do something new with it.

[i]and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn't want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod.

?

Maybe he's the fox dismissing those grapes as just too damned sour.[i]

Peter forgot to mention my successful runs on Spider-Man, Wolverine, Thor and the Defenders. The tactic of leaving out things that don't support harebrained theories is tried and true, I'll admit--but it doesn't wash in an industry where the facts are so close at hand.

[i]Or maybe he's just shilling for Image, with "Show me what you can do" as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine.[/i]

Again with the word--fine. And again, it's not said with much conviction.

In the article I singled out creations and creators from numerous companies. Seems that Peter skimmed that part. But I'd be lying if I didn't say that I think Image is the best deal in town.

[i]Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I'd say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jackass isn't the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone.[/i]

So--who's resorting to name-calling? Pot--is that you again--calling the kettle black?

[i]Well...almost everyone.

Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever...God bless 'em.[/i]

If a creator has nothing of his or her own to offer--I quite agree. If, however, they're sitting on their own Spider-Man and they go to their grave sitting on their own Spider-Man--I think that's pretty sad.

[i]There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hell does ANYONE get off bitch-slapping people who are living out their dreams...the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with?[/i]

I did what?

[i]And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive "peachy."[/i]

It's not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn't. I'm not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I'm saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion. It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same. He might as well just come right out and say, "Hey, I stepped out on my own and it was rewarding and fulfilling and all that but you stick it out on Hawkman. Don't even think about being successful outside of your little box."

[i]It deserves a "well done you" and "welcome to the club" and "stick with it."[/i]

They do indeed--it might also be nice of them to know that there are other options out there and that they don't have to spend their entire careers as veal living out of somebody else's box.

[i]It doesn't deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.[/i]

Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I'm not sure where the "jock" analogy keeps coming from. Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child--but looking at him now--I kind of doubt it.

I've heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same. Like the delivery or loathe it--the message IS getting out there. Creators HAVE options.

[i]And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.[/i]

I never said they were friends.

[i]Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.[/i]

It most certainly can be more cowardly. It's called the fear of failure.

And yes--it IS noble to stick it out at a job in order to provide for your family. Plenty of people have been forced to do that over the years and they've been forced to keep their comments to themselves when they wanted to speak out.

But there are people who have "made it" in this business--who've stacked away plenty of dough and who still clutch desperately to the corporate tit and contribute nothing other than more of the same.

Peter ISN'T one of those.

It seems Peter doesn't have a Spider-Man or Hellboy or even a Savage Dragon in him but at least he's TRIED to do some creator-owned stuff even if they weren't entirely successful.

[i]Just one fan's opinion.

PAD[/i]

So--how is it okay for Peter to use the name of MY column in his rant when I'm not supposed to use "but I digress...?" What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander? Where's the equity in that?

_________________

[b]-Erik Larsen[/b]
Publisher
Image Comics

http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?p=138125#138125


Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 6, 2005 03:25 PM

Leviathan: Look, to say that SF doesn't have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre: If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?
Luigi Novi: Um, no, now you're changing around what you originally said. You said that science fiction is not science fiction if the story can be transplanted into another genre, and if therefore, the science fiction setting isn't required to tell the story. The fact that you do not think the stories in BG do not have to be told in a scifi setting does NOT make it not science fiction. If it's set in space on spaceships, then it's science fiction, period. That is because it conforms to the definition that someone provided up above. That definition did not say anything about whether the story in question HAD to be told in that setting.

By now asking if a story is a mystery if he never solves a crime, you are changing the metaphor, by now instead talking about PLOT. This like asking if a story set in outer space is not sci fi if they don't go into outerspace. Well, if they don't, Leviathan, then no, it's not. But you never said that they never go into outer space in BG. You said that they don't HAVE to set it there, which is not the same thing. The fact remains that because they ARE in outerspace on ships fighting robots, then it is a science fiction show. Your mistake is in defining sci-fi as a value judgment instead of by definition.

Please try keeping your analogies consistent, okay?

Posted by: Knuckles at October 6, 2005 03:30 PM

Ouch.

Glenn: I don't suppose you could edit Erik's bulletin board tags, could you?

Posted by: Knuckles at October 6, 2005 03:31 PM

As the lack of bold and italics makes my poor, aged head hurt.

Posted by: Bobb at October 6, 2005 03:32 PM

"Look, to say that SF doesn't have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre:

If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?"

First, I didn't say that SF doesn't require it's SF element to be SF. But that's not what Leviathan said, either. He said "To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work."

But bringing in mystery stories I think clarifies the issue. Sci Fi isn't a type of story...it's a setting, a genre. There's really no such thing as "just" a sci fi story. There's action, drama, comedy, romance, mystery, etc. A mystery is a type of story, and the setting can vary. Sci fi, as a genre, includes the whole range of story types, just like any other story.

So to that end, there's the other genres: Western, fantasy, modern, medieval, etc. And you can set different types of stories within those genres. But those essential stories can be told in different genres with little actual change to the meat of the story.

So, to wrap up, yes, if you remove the SF elements from a story, you no longer have a SF story. But to say that the story of Unforgiven, set on Mars in the year 2432 instead of the 1800s, wouldn't be a sci fi story is to misunderstand what sci fi is...a setting, not a type of story.

Posted by: Mike Bunge at October 6, 2005 03:40 PM

The fact that Mr. Larsen refers to his run on Defenders as "successful" leaves me laughing too uncontrolably to respond to anything else he writes.

But just one more thing. Erik Larsen and the rest of the Image crew need to remember one simple thing. Their success is almost entirely built on a fluke of timing. They, with some exceptions, aren't guys like Moore and Miller who produced work of such outstanding quality in the 80s that financial rewards followed. Mr. Larsen and the Image crew produced work that hit at the right time in a speculator boom and that is what accounted for much, if not almost all, of their success. If they had tried to launch Image just a few years earlier or a few years later, their success would have been of a much different quality.

Mike

Posted by: Alex at October 6, 2005 03:44 PM

Spot on, Nero.

Anybody here read Warren Ellis' last column on CBR? No?

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=1

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 6, 2005 03:54 PM

Erik Larsen: Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.
Luigi Novi: Right, because on his own blog, Peter shouldn’t try mentioning his upcoming work, because doing so is somehow evil, right? As for making a point, I don’t see how mentioning his work has anything to do with making a point.

Erik Larsen: Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names.
Luigi Novi: Peter did no such thing. You did a good job of calling lots of other people names all by yourself, without any help or portrayal by Peter.

Erik Larsen: In case Peter didn't notice, this column was written THIS year--not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn't expressly say that "creators" shouldn't create wherever they are.
Luigi Novi: Sure you did. What else is “sucking on the corporate tit” supposed to mean?

Erik Larsen: Peter seems to have forgotten the fact that, while he does utilize the term "but I digress..." he didn't coin it. It's a perfectly useful phrase and it's one that I use regardless of anybody else using it. I also use the term "to be continued" from time to time. Yet another string of words Peter didn’t coin but attempts to put his stamp on.
Luigi Novi: He isn’t attempting to put his stamp on it. He’s alleging that your use of it is an intentional reference to him. Whether this is the case, however, I don’t know.

Erik Larsen: But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN'T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?
Luigi Novi: Hellboy seems more like a supernatural investigator in the vein of X-Files rather than a superhero.

Erik Larsen: Maybe superheroes were the furthest thing from your mind yet you created "Sachs and Violens" shortly after the debut of Image and it had all the trappings of a superhero comic from the foxy babe in tight clothing to a gun toting muscle man both of whom wore essentially superhero-like uniforms and had catchy codenames.
Luigi Novi: Sachs and Violens don’t resemble superheroes in the least to me, nor did that book resemble superhero books. To each his own.

Erik Larsen: Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ass dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful "costumes" and do extraordinary things--much like superheroes.
Luigi Novi: Apropos of Nothing doesn’t resemble a superhero at all, nor does he wear a flashy costume. Fallen Angel doesn’t resemble any of Peter’s other work either. It’s fallacious to argue that different examples of a creator’s work aren’t going to have some commonalities. But if you focus solely on something superficial like costumes—which, as aforementioned, not all of them had (What was Violens’ costume?), then you can use relativism to say that anything looks like anything else.

Erik Larsen: And what's the point exactly? That Peter thinks he's "better than all of us" because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?
Luigi Novi: No, he was saying that it was wrong of you to insult people who don’t have any interest in creative work. This statement by you is just another Straw Man that you conjure because you don’t want to read what he actually said, which was clear.

Erik Larsen: Peter's the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his "I did everything first" rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?
Luigi Novi: The problem isn’t that he’s self-centered. It’s that you seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem. Only someone with such a problem would read his column and interpret it to have anything to do with patting himself on the back, or implying that he “did things first.” The clear opinion he made is that your behavior is hypocritical.

Erik Larsen: Well, no--it might help if you actually read it. It's about not giving anything new--about not bringing something new to the table.
Luigi Novi: And if you tried focusing your column on that message, maybe that message would’ve gotten through.

But you didn’t.

And it did not.

And you came off as a profane, bigoted, childish ass.

Not to mention deludedly hypocritical, for chiding him for not reading your column, when you allege all sorts of ideas in his column and that any intelligent reader would see are not in there.

Peter David: Which I'm sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven't owned any scripts they've written, ever.

Erik Larsen: Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.
Luigi Novi: It has everything to do with it. You criticized creators for not producing creator-owned work. Peter pointed out that many, if not most of the greatest works of art in history and in other media are not creator-owned.

Peter David: Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I'd say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jackass isn't the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone.

Erik Larsen: So--who's resorting to name-calling? Pot--is that you again--calling the kettle black?
Luigi Novi: “Mindless jock” arguably describes the tone of your column. “Gutless”, “pathetic” and “pussies” does not, on the other hand, describe creators who do not do creator-owned work.

Erik Larsen: If a creator has nothing of his or her own to offer--I quite agree. If, however, they're sitting on their own Spider-Man and they go to their grave sitting on their own Spider-Man--I think that's pretty sad.
Luigi Novi: And where did you establish that that was the case? Who are these creators sitting on their own Spider-Man whose existence you established as a matter of fact so sufficiently that it was justifiable to call them “Gutless”, “pathetic” and “pussies”?

Erik Larsen: It's not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn't. I'm not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I'm saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion.
Luigi Novi: But that isn’t what you SAID.

Erik Larsen: It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same.
Luigi Novi: To argue that Peter has done this is so blatantly dishonest that one can only marvel at the severe mental hernia one must suffer from to read Peter’s column and come up with this interpretation. Please, tell me where Peter ever said this?

Erik Larsen: Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I'm not sure where the "jock" analogy keeps coming from.
Luigi Novi: It comes from the tone and language that you utilized in your column, a point with Peter made clear—had you actually read it.

Erik Larsen: Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child--but looking at him now--I kind of doubt it.
Luigi Novi: Well, now that’s certainly relevant to an intelligent discussion. Sure, Erik, you know how to write a column and debate a point.

By using fat jokes.

You da man.

Erik Larsen: I've heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results.
Luigi Novi: It was not merely provocative. It was insulting.

Peter David: Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.

Erik Larsen: It most certainly can be more cowardly. It's called the fear of failure.
Luigi Novi: Or lack of interest.

Erik Larsen: So--how is it okay for Peter to use the name of MY column in his rant when I'm not supposed to use "but I digress...?"
Luigi Novi: No one said that you’re “not supposed to use” the phrase “But I Digress.” That’s a notion completely of your own invention. That you turn a comment by Peter on how “clever” he thinks your use of it is into the Straw Man of “not supposed to use it” shows how intellectually dishonest you are, and how incapable you are of holding a rational, intelligent discussion on any idea of merit.

Posted by: Arco at October 6, 2005 04:27 PM

I can pretty much second everything Luigi Novi just said. Mr Larsen seems to miss a lot of points.

And as others have pointed out: some people like to create new characters. Good luck to them. Others are perfectly happy working on existing characters. Good luck to them too. Why on earth does Mr Larsen assume that every creator out there wishes to create his own thing and break away from the corporate owned characters?

If someone has no interest in doing something, then the choice not to do it is not cowardice. You just don't want to do it. What, everyone 'should' want what Mr Larsen thinks they 'should' want?

And I'm not prude about bad language, but name calling just as a cheap trick to gather attention is just an ugly way to go about. I don't find it 'gutsy' or 'bold' or 'daring', I just find it rude. And the way almost every line with 'pussy' in it was separated as if proudly proclaiming "Yes I actually SAID that! Ain't I cool??" well, it was kind of juvenile. While reading, I couldn't help but hearing the entire thing read by a 'Butthead'-type voice.

And now jokes about PAD's weight pass for witty repartee?? Good grief... Well, that actually fits perfectly with my above observations I suppose.

Posted by: Bobb at October 6, 2005 04:33 PM

"True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same."

Nice to know that when attempting to communicate through the English language, you either have to be rude, insluting, and provactive, or syrupy sweet. I'll cease my efforts to use reason and logic when attempting to make my point from here on out.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 6, 2005 04:46 PM

But hey, guys, he "inspired dozens of professionals" (and more than a few members of his own board)...

You know what? I want to open my own business. But I'll be dipped if I'll shuck my entire job and open it and expect that to feed my family. Businesses need to be built, as do careers. If you want to wrote your own books, great. You built your career to the point where you could do that. Not all pros are at that point.

And to answer the questions:

Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN'T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? No, because the character isn't a superhero, and Mignoal is also bringing something very unique to the market. I also happen to think Mignola is badass.

Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN'T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? I won't say "shouldn't", but I don't think it would be missed if it hadn't been created. I've only read the first year or so, but it was pretty damn derivative and really didn't bring anything new to the market. It was also (in my opinion) very poorly written until McFarlane started bringing on real writers. I have no idea what state it is in now.

Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN'T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Hell no. But that, again, is a unique creation.

Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN'T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Like "Spawn", I won't say you shouldn't have, but I will say you could simply not have published it and no one would have been the wiser. Nothing new was brought to the table with this book. I'm glad you love making it, but it's not doing a whole lot to transform the genre.

Posted by: Lan at October 6, 2005 05:17 PM

Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.

It's his own website. He doesn't need an excuse or a reason to plug his own work. You of course, manage to use your article as a means to promote Walking Dead and Invincible quite readily.

The point being--what, exactly? This only confuses the issue since most of these people mentioned had no other available options.

If you count unrealistic options as options, then they had plenty. For most creators, accepting the greatly diminished sales (that companies like Image offer on the average) and working off a percentage is not a realistic option.

Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names. In case Peter didn't notice, this column was written THIS year--not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn't expressly say that "creators" shouldn't create wherever they are.

No, you infer that the creations are inherently less impressive if not creator owned.

Well, no--it didn't. In that column, Peter took words out of context--as he did here--and put HIS interpretation to them. The two columns have nothing to do with each other.

How in the world did he take anything out of context with the original column? I read the column when it was new, it seemed dead on. You guys were "holding back"? Gee. That's just great. And all those fans who were supporting your inferior work, they weren't worth your best effort. And when you finally cut loose and give it your all, you produce nothing tangibly different than what you did when working for corporations. Only less frequently. You and the rest of the Image crowd of the early 90's put your foot in your shared mouth and were called on it.

Peter might as well have said the same thing to Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko in 1961. It would have been a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now. The fact of the matter is (and was) that we liked superheroes and just because it's something HE might not do on his own--it doesn't mean that it's something WE shouldn't do on our own.

It would be a stupid argument. And it's one that no one introduced but yourself. No why? Because these people did not work on superhero material exclusivly. They DID branch out and work in other genres. Have you? Not visibly.

But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN'T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN'T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN'T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN'T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?

You can create them. The problem is when you trumpet about as if it were some bold new move. It wasn't then and it isn't now. There are real creators out there taking actual risks and making actual bold moves. Nothing Image publishes qualifies.

Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ass dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful "costumes" and do extraordinary things--much like superheroes.

Umm.. You obviously haven't read the material in question. Have you?

And what of those Image superheroes? Spawn is more of a horror book.

Sure it is.

And what's the point exactly? That Peter thinks he's "better than all of us" because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?

That's simply your own paranoia talking.

Peter's the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his "I did everything first" rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?

Maybe you should go back and read his original article. You obviously failed to comprehend it the first time if you are that blinded to the similarities.

Well, no--it might help if you actually read it. It's about not giving anything new--about not bringing something new to the table.

That's not what you said in your article at all. If that was your intent, you failed to make it clear.

Again, failing to actually read what I wrote, Peter has taken to putting words in my mouth. Taking isolated words out of context, yet again, Peter fails to grasp even the simplest point.

They are your words. If you have to stand over the shoulder of your readers and explain what you mean, then you have failed as a writer.

In the article I singled out creations and creators from numerous companies. Seems that Peter skimmed that part. But I'd be lying if I didn't say that I think Image is the best deal in town.

And you show that bias in your article. If you can't see that for yourself, there's nothing anyone can say to you to convince you otherwise.

I did what?

You bitch-slapped the people who are living out their dreams...the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with. It was pretty clear the first time.

It's not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn't. I'm not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I'm saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion. It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same. He might as well just come right out and say, "Hey, I stepped out on my own and it was rewarding and fulfilling and all that but you stick it out on Hawkman. Don't even think about being successful outside of your little box."

Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I'm not sure where the "jock" analogy keeps coming from. Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child--but looking at him now--I kind of doubt it.

Dude, lay off the Home Run pies before throwing out the fat jokes. Seriously. Your habits have become the jokes at parties. Your skinny nerd days are slipping quite rapidly behind you.

I've heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same. Like the delivery or loathe it--the message IS getting out there. Creators HAVE options.

No kidding. As I recall, Peter David tried to point that out to you over a decade ago and was met with nothing but hostility.

It most certainly can be more cowardly. It's called the fear of failure.

Yeah right. This is coming from the perspective of someone who was dealt a very lucky hand. Frankly, it's much easier to break into creator owned material than corporate. But the pay is for shit and some people need to eat. Not facing up to the challenges presented by working with larger companies can easily be labeled cowardly as well. It's a matter of perspective.

And yes--it IS noble to stick it out at a job in order to provide for your family. Plenty of people have been forced to do that over the years and they've been forced to keep their comments to themselves when they wanted to speak out.

But there are people who have "made it" in this business--who've stacked away plenty of dough and who still clutch desperately to the corporate tit and contribute nothing other than more of the same.

Peter ISN'T one of those.

And? Peter does both corporate and creator owned work.

It seems Peter doesn't have a Spider-Man or Hellboy or even a Savage Dragon in him but at least he's TRIED to do some creator-owned stuff even if they weren't entirely successful.

If your measure of success is The Savage Dragon, then he seems to have been successful enough.

Posted by: Lan at October 6, 2005 05:19 PM

So much for quote tags. I despise this forum design. No edit function either.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 6, 2005 05:29 PM

Edit functionality would be swell. You just need to remember to use the HTML tags (although if memory serves, some are turned off).

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 6, 2005 06:19 PM

Luigi, you will notice that the list I prepared was drawn ONLY from books that I PERSONALLY preordered which is merely the TINIEST fraction of the output from any publisher. If I happen to order a greater percentage of books from any one publisher, then it should be expected that there would be a greater number of books in any comparative list I would draw from my preorders. You'll note that there were no Viz books on my list. This does not mean that Viz does not produce late books. It does not mean that they produce a lesser percentage of late books. All it means is that of the books that I preordered (if I ordered any at all) none of them missed the month in which they were initially solicited.

I have not "proved your point". I have not proved anyone's point. I have provided data to support my personal experience that EVERY publisher I order books from has more than just the occasional lateness problem. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Do you want more non-Image titles that have missed their solicitation? There are plenty more examples from books that I didn't order. Superman/Batman. Green Lantern: Rebirth. Elric. NYX. Daredevil: Target. Daredevil: Father. Spider-Man/Black Cat. Return of Donna Troy. Queen & Country. Red Star. Wolverine: The End. Ultimate Secret. Marvel Age Spider-Man. Flash. Outsiders. Monolith. We3. JLA/Avengers. There are literally hundreds of issues every year that are late. Feel free to search Newsarama for the shipping list updates they generally post weekly and you can see how many books are delayed.

You complain that I didn't provide figures for how many late books Image had in 1992 and 1993. You are absolutely correct that I didn't provide that. You'll also note that I have not provided ANY list for how many late books ANY publisher has had in ANY year. I have provided a list drawn from my PERSONAL preorders which must BY DEFINITION be a vast subset of the total ouput of any given publisher. If you want a list of all the late Image books for 1992 and 1993 or a list of all the late books by any publisher for any year, you are barking up the wrong tree. I can't provide you with such a list. I can't even provide you a similar list as the one I gave for the time period of 1992 to 1993 because that was long before I ever thought of preordering comics instead of just picking them up from the store.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 6, 2005 06:29 PM

OK.

It's official.

Erik is off his meds again.

:)

Posted by: Jerry C at October 6, 2005 07:09 PM

"Look, to say that SF doesn't have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly."

Who here said that? All we've said is that your narrow definition of what is SF and what isn't correct for anybody but you. I pointed out a number of classic SF stories that your narrow definition of SF would remove from the SF classification.

Under the definition that you laid you can't have an SF story. There are no SF stories out there that can not be tweaked a bit and transplanted into another genre. Even cyber-punk can be broken down and turned into westerns or gangster stories.

Hey, here's an idea. Name ten stories (TV, movie or book) that you consider true SF. Let us see if you can point out SF that adheres to your narrow definition or you're just looking for an excuse to slag on BSG.


"Transplant the argument into another genre:

If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?"


Actually, yes.

Columbo could take his know how elsewhere on his off hours, never get near a crime and still be written as mystery stories.

The Da Vinci Code is a mystery that deals with history. Gash's Lovejoy novels and the TV show based on them dealt with crime most of the time but some of the subplot mysteries (and the odd main thread plot) dealt with artifacts and antiques.

There are numerous mysteries out there that have nothing to do with crime. A number of writers use those subjects as inspiration. Their work is most definitely under the mystery genre.

Some ghost stories are mysteries as well as horror. Why is the ghost here and why is it doing what it's doing? Join our heroes as they search for the answers. Not all of those stories center around murder or crime (just most of the best ones do).

The TV shows History's Mysteries and Myth Busters both, to a lesser degree, fall partly under the definition of mystery. They are presented with a mystery and set out to solve it.

The point of that mini rant?

1) Your point about what makes a mystery is as faulty and limited as what makes SF.

2) Your use of this analogy underscores the weakness of your argument. A mystery can exist without crime and SF can exist quite nicely beyond the terms you have laid out for it.

BSG is SF in the classic tradition. It uses the settings and circumstances of outer space, technology gone bad and slight tweaks on contemporary cultures to create a canvas on which the creators can examine and extrapolate on the human element and human nature in a manner that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to do so. The fact that they only do a so-so job on it is another matter all together.

:)

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 07:20 PM

Most of the more obvious idiocies of your response, Erik, have been handled by others on this board. I see no need to reiterate them. I will, however, address the points they missed or simply didn't know:

A) Why yes, it would have been kind of stupid to talk to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby about diversity of comics back in 1961. That's probably because there were still monster comics and western comics and romance comics and mystery comics. So they would likely have said, "What the hell are you talking about?" You know...like people are saying about you.

B) "Sachs & Violens" were not created after Image Comics was created. They were created in 1991, and it simply took a while to get them into print in 1992. Then again, I feel the art of George Perez was worth waiting for, as I'm sure you'd agree. As for your assessment of my other writing, I think it reasonable to give it as much credence as I would anyone who doesn't actually read it.

C) I was unaware of your other recent work at Marvel. For that slight, I apologize. Your feigned confusion about your rejected Hulk proposal, however, is disingenuous considering you've not only discussed it openly, but I was slipped a copy for amusement value. Lord almighty, was that ghastly.

D) Sentence tense can be your friend. I never said you were slamming the founders of this industry. Notice the sentence that starts "In the world of Erik Larsen" is entirely in the present tense. What I was clearly saying was that those people who are doing work-for-hire NOW should be considered to be doing their best possible work NOW...just as Kirby, Ditko et al were doing THEN. Your contention is, basically, how dare they be doing essentially the same thing that Lee and Kirby did--create characters for a corporation that will own them outright--when they could be doing it for...well...you.

E) Nowhere did I say that people should NOT do creator-owned work. I said they shouldn't be made to feel like crap if they don't want to, or even if they're--God forbid--proud of what they are accomplishing. Nor did I ever say that Mignola should not have created Hellboy, etc., etc. What I said twelve years ago was that I, as a reader, simply WISHED that people were taking more effort to something OTHER than superheroes, just to have more variety rather than having a superhero chokehold. A sentiment that I would venture to say is mirrored by quite a few other folks. Nowhere did I INSULT the people who were content to do only superheroes, the way that...well...you did, vis a vis company owned characters.

F) "Always one to plug his own stuff." What a maroon. I plug my own material on my own website, you talk up how wonderful Image is on someone ELSE's website which hosts your column, and I'm plugging MY stuff? Sheesh.

G) "I know, I know--actually create something new--it's a tough concept for you to wrap your brain around"

Sachs & Violens. Fallen Angel. Soulsearchers and Company. Space Cases. Howling Mad. Sir Apropos of Nothing. The Hidden Earth. The cast of the three "King Arthur" books. Most of the cast of "New Frontier." More properties than you've created, Erik. More novels and television shows than you've written and, quite possibly, read. I think my brain is securely wrapped around that notion, thanks.

H) Likewise disingenuous is your contention that I'm just imagining your use of "But I digress" is a snipe at me. Let us quote you, from one of your earliest columns:

"I never understood later writers' desire to make the Hulk into, essentially, the same as everybody else: smart, handsome and loved by millions-- give me a Hulk that's as dumb as a post any day!

But I digress..."

Seems to me a reasonable inference on my part that choosing the title of my column is not some random selection on your part. However, when it comes to dumb posts, I will certainly defer to you on that score.

PAD

Posted by: Matt Adler at October 6, 2005 07:48 PM

It occurs to me that these public debates are a more effective way of hyping both Peter and Erik's work than any number of articles or columns on CBR :)

But I miss the days when you guys would go mano a mano at conventions.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 6, 2005 09:04 PM

Here is a direct quote from Erik regarding his column from his Savage Dragon forum:

"it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven't created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more."

And this from the Image board:

"I'm not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I'm saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion."

Is that clear enough for you folks?

And with that, I'm out of here. It's been a week and I'm tired of this.

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 09:06 PM

"But I miss the days when you guys would go mano a mano at conventions."

I don't. What a monumental waste of time that thing. Letting myself get sucked into that and becoming a part of the McFarlane hype machine. I was a serious nitwit for allowing that to happen.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 09:08 PM

"Here is a direct quote from Erik regarding his column from his Savage Dragon forum:

"it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven't created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more.""

Guess he liked your version of what he said better than what was actually written there.

PAD

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 6, 2005 09:16 PM

Or MAYBE that's what he meant in the first place and you misunderstood him?

Like I've been saying for the last week?

I really should quit this..

Posted by: Jerry C at October 6, 2005 09:22 PM

"Is that clear enough for you folks?

And with that, I'm out of here. It's been a week and I'm tired of this."


Yeah, it's been a week. It took him a almost a full week to explain, re-explain and then re-explain again before he found a version of what he said that looks nothing like what he said to begin with. For his next trick he'll explain how when he says "black" it was really "white" all along and everybody misunderstood and misquoted him.

Bravo.

Posted by: darrik at October 6, 2005 09:58 PM

"Yeah, it's been a week. It took him a almost a full week to explain, re-explain and then re-explain again before he found a version of what he said that looks nothing like what he said to begin with. For his next trick he'll explain how when he says "black" it was really "white" all along and everybody misunderstood and misquoted him."

And then he'll get killed in a zebra crossing!

(the joys of being a Hitchhiker)

Posted by: Lan at October 6, 2005 10:16 PM

"Is that clear enough for you folks?"

Yeah, if he had actually said that in his column, that would be great.

But he didn't. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: "An open letter to comic book creators everywhere". He reinforces this later in the article as well: "Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?"

What the hell kind of twenty year industry vet does that refer to?

Either Larsen is backpedalling, or he's simply a crappy writer. Either is certainly possible. But either way, the fault in regards to how his writing is interpreted lies fully with him.

Posted by: Jamie Coville at October 6, 2005 10:50 PM

But he didn't. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: "An open letter to comic book creators everywhere".

I already went through this with Peter on the comicon boards.

Everywhere means everywhere. It means Marvel/DC/Dark Horse/Devils Due/etc..

It doesn't say all comic freelancers, new and vets. If that's what he wanted you to think, he would have said that. Erik's not shy y'know?

He reinforces this later in the article as well: "Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?"

Followed by "An impressive run on a title, which you didn't create?" - it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro's that had likely done all of the following.

I understood that the first time around.

It's not rocket science you know? At this point I think this is just sad. I'm half way convinced some folks just want to argue and are saying whatever is required to continue to argue.

And of course one must never admit they might have made a mistake. We just assume he said white because we've been arguing that's what he said, especially now that we realize he didn't.

Sad.

Posted by: Peter David at October 6, 2005 11:09 PM

"Either Larsen is backpedalling, or he's simply a crappy writer."

Can't he be both?

"Followed by "An impressive run on a title, which you didn't create?" - it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out)."

Behold! Behold as the rules of grammar bow before the might of Jamie!

It wasn't "all one sentence." It was three sentences (technically, three sentence fragments.) The reasonable reading, especially since it was directed "to comic creators everywhere," was that it was designed to be insulting to as broad a range of possibilities as could be managed.

And if that's not what Erik intended, well...the crappy writer option is always available. If he'd like to run his future columns past me so that I can point him in the direction of what he MEANS to say rather than what he's ACTUALLY saying, I'd be happy to accommodate him.

PAD

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 6, 2005 11:46 PM

Erik is off his meds again.

I'm wondering if he was ever on them.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 7, 2005 01:05 AM

Ralf Haring: I have not "proved your point". I have not proved anyone's point. I have provided data to support my personal experience that EVERY publisher I order books from has more than just the occasional lateness problem. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Luigi Novi: And I responded by asking you point-blank if this “occasional lateness” is anything like Image in its early years. You then responded to that question by saying yes, and then proceeded to list books which, I thought were meant to buttress that assertion. But they didn’t. Image was the worst offender of the books you chose to list, and you didn’t make any comparison to 1992 or 1993.

Now you’re trying to shift the point away from my original question, and saying it’s about “occasional” lateness, when that wasn’t my original question.

Of course every company has “occasional” lateness. So what? Was anyone here debating that point? The point was that Image was a particularly egregious offender in this regard when it got started, despite its vaunted claims of moral superiority to work-for-hire companies in general and Marvel in particular.

Jamie Coville: Is that clear enough for you folks?
Luigi Novi: But he didn’t SAY those things in his COLUMN. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need the Rosetta Stone to clue into this?

Jamie Coville: Or MAYBE that's what he meant in the first place and you misunderstood him?
Luigi Novi: Or maybe if that’s what he meant he should’ve SAID it to begin with, instead of being an incompetent columnist and relying on backpedaling and apologists to translate it for him when this “latter” meaning wasn’t clearly conveyed? What part of this are you not getting?

As far as this “what I really meant” crap goes, this reminds me of an exchange I had with a letter writer in the Union City Reporter named Elaine Flood, who, touching upon the then-recent court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to force atheist schoolchildren to recite a pledge with a reference to God, said that she simply couldn’t comprehend that all human beings who died on 9/11 were not praying in their final moments to God, any god, to spare their lives. She repeated the usual anti-Separation of Church and State fallacies, such as the notion that people cannot say “Under God” in school (which is not what the ruling said), that this would lead to loss of religion (it would not) and that loss of religion means loss of values (it doesn’t), etc. I responded with a letter in which I refuted these fallacies, and she then backpedaled, accusing me of cynicism and negativism, and claiming that she was “merely suggesting that most of the victims of September 11th” prayed to someone.” I then responded with another letter in which I pointed out that no, that’s not what she said, that was simply the more legitimate and less insulting idea that she was using to cover up the original one, since her original wording did not convey a “suggestion”, and conveyed the idea that all that 9/11 victims prayed, not “most” of them.

But there’s another, more subtle point that disproves her backpedaling assertion, and that’s the fact that when writing a letter or opinion column, generally a writer tries to make some type of point, analysis, or observation, which may not be totally obvious to the reader. Sometimes a writer will try to convey a point in a way that may present it in an angle that may make it appear different than it previously did to readers. In short, writers go out on a limb.

But what’s out on a limb about the idea that “most of the victims of 9/11 prayed to someone”? That’s hardly a bold statement; it’s arguably TRUE. Similarly, what’s out on a limb about Erik Larsen saying that anyone who’s been doing work-for-hire for a while should try doing creator-owned material? Well, nothing. It’s a pretty reasonable idea, and had Erik said that, no one would’ve reacted badly to it. It is for this reason that I reject his after-the-fact rationalization that this is what he was originally trying to say. Quite aside from the criticism that he should’ve said that to begin with, it’s not really much a statement that would even require a column. It’s for this reason that I don’t think that that’s what he was trying to say. It’s just the smokescreen he’s using to revise history.

He also talks about creators who may be sitting on they own Spider-Man-like icons. Excuse me? Where did he establish that there were any such creators? Has Erik been peeking into the portfolios of creators all over the industry? And has he noticed them sitting on creations? And how has he determined that they will achieve the iconic status of Spider-Man? More importantly, are these secretive creators so numerous that they justify an entire column about them?

I don’t think so.

Larsen is backpedaling, plain and simple.

And those trying to argue about what he “really” meant are deluding themselves.


Posted by: Guido at October 7, 2005 02:49 AM

It doesn't say all comic freelancers, new and vets. If that's what he wanted you to think, he would have said that. Erik's not shy y'know?
By that same logic:
It says to comic book creators everywhere, with no distinction between new and vets. If he wanted to make that distinction, he would have/could have/should have said that.
No distinction implies you're talking about the whole lot and if that's not what the writer means, he's a sloppy writer. And if it IS what he means, it simply invalidates your argument.

Posted by: jacob at October 7, 2005 04:45 AM

one comic book pro rudely jokes the other is fat, while the other pro mocks his storytelling inabilties. hard to believe these two once worked on a comic book together. (man, do i love those Hulk days. people jumped on the bandwagon with Mcfarlane's spidey, which i love too, but i felt the Hulk had the better story lines and i felt special like i was reading or discovered something that no one else appreicated first.)

wow, this is beyond a disagreement of view points, i don't like confrontation, luckily i am not caught in the middle. there's not going to be a mutual ground for the other on anything, i suppose. maybe i am not expressing myself well enough here, but is there anything good to come of this? what's the name of that succesful motivational coach on TV? i wonder what advice he'd offer? maybe he'd tell PAD to pitch something to Image, i dunno.

let's face it, people can argue till their blue in the face who the better storyteller is, who's right, who's wrong, who meant what, et al.
BUT PAD is, hands down, the superior writer. larsen doesn't have a chance against PAD. and coming here is like calling a talk show and talking shit to the host, you can't win anyway, so why bother? i don't even think larsen could express himself any more clearer in person, though. i am more disappointed larsen wouldn't apologize for his unprofessional comments.

this has indeed been a learning experience for me.

Posted by: Lan at October 7, 2005 05:22 AM

"Followed by "An impressive run on a title, which you didn't create?" - it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro's that had likely done all of the following.

I understood that the first time around."

Peter already pointed out the flaws in your comprehension quite well. But you accuse me of deliberately edited Larsen's statement in order to further my own interpretation, which leaves me feeling obligated to respond. You want to try to point out the rules of grammar? The ones you supposedly understand. Well, lucky for you to be living in Larsen's head where all things are spelled out for you, despite the actual meaning being something polar opposite from what his actual words state. Larsen designates several independent scenarios without any indication that the targets of his wrath must meet every one of them equally. He chose to structure his paragraph as did. And he chose poorly. Again, either he is backpedalling, or he is a crappy writer. Or as has been suggested, he's a crappy writer backpedaling. Regardless, the failure to communicate lies with the one communicating. Those reading his words are limited to reading the words following the rules of the English language, not the rules of "what Larsen meant but did not say".

Try reading his statment without your bias. Larsen said what he said. I understand he might not have actually MEANT what he said, but that's his failure, not anyone else's.

Posted by: darrik at October 7, 2005 07:31 AM

"But he didn't. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: "An open letter to comic book creators everywhere". He reinforces this later in the article as well: "Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?"

What the hell kind of twenty year industry vet does that refer to? "

Rob Leifield?

Posted by: Jerry C at October 7, 2005 08:55 AM

Jamie Coville:

"He reinforces this later in the article as well: "Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?"

Followed by "An impressive run on a title, which you didn't create?" - it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro's that had likely done all of the following.

I understood that the first time around."


Now, let us count the sentences below.

"A few pretty pictures? Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two? An impressive run on a title, which you didn't create?"

Funny, I count four (sorta) sentences there. Granted, only three of them were used for that back and forth but that's still two more then one.

That strange view of yours on how the world looks and what numbers are may explain why you can "understand" Erik so well.

His statement did include a broad range of creators. How many 20 year vets only have a few fill in issues or a few covers to their credit? Most 20 year vets started out by being given fill in issues, minor books and the odd cover before they were ever trusted with any sort of long run on a major series and have lots of fill ins and covers to their credit. That statement read like it was aimed at newer guys as well as old pros.

You want us to admit that we made a mistake because we read what Erik wrote without going, "Gee.... This is what he wrote but I know he musta REALLY meant this. :)"

How about we meet you half way? I'll admit that Erik may not have meant his bit to be so poorly written as to not convey his desired points or come off as stupid as it actually did if you admit that it was just plain poorly written. I think that's fair.

Maybe you could also admit that he should have thought more about what he was saying then about how he could say it in a shocking manner. Maybe then he wouldn't have added one more listing to his rep as the over all comic book industry idiot/class clown.

Posted by: Bobb at October 7, 2005 09:11 AM

Who's got some psychology experience here? Isn't there something about the human psyche that says that your first reactions are generally the most honest? That's been true in my experience. It's why the internet is both a wonderful and dangerous tool. We're all free to browse, read, react, and even interact. The danger is that you're liable to put down your initial, honest, brutal thoughts. And the more riled up you are over the topic, the less likely you are censor yourself, to check your words and tone to make sure that you're actually saying what you want to say.

And sometimes, what you want to say needs to be tempered by reason and good sense. I've personal experience with the end of along friendship because someone told me how they truly felt, when it might have been better to wait for their passions to pass, and temper their words. So when I see Larson "explain" now what he *meant* to say, and see that there are subtle yet significant differences between what he claims to have meant, and what he actually wrote. The thing is, his first words are "out there." He can't take them back. And I'm inclined to believe that his first words are a more accurate reflection of his true feelings. His follow-up is just damage control. He's seen the negative reaction some have had, those that are unwilling to make excuses for him.

I'm tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean. People that seek to express their thoughts in a public forum need to assume responsibility for their words. If Larson had a specific target for his opinion, then he needed to be more direct. He used the literary equivilent of a scatter-gun when he wanted a sniper rifle. I don't know if that quote Jamie posted came with an apology for all the folks that felt stung by random Larson-shot, but he certainly owes them one.

Posted by: Bobb at October 7, 2005 09:25 AM

"it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven't created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more."

Hm, mostly. Which means it was partly NOT shooting at established guys. Even in his explanation, Larson validates many of the criticisms leveled at him. Maybe, just maybe, if Larson hadn't chosen to use a tone that was insulting and invective, more might have been inclined to but him some slack. But since he chose to come out guns a blazin, no one should be surprised that some of us have responded in kind.

Posted by: Peter David at October 7, 2005 09:55 AM

"But what’s out on a limb about the idea that “most of the victims of 9/11 prayed to someone”? That’s hardly a bold statement; it’s arguably TRUE."

Perhaps. Then again--and apologies if this sounds insensitive--I suppose it depends on how elastic one's definition of praying is. I mean, I'm sure many people (possibly most) were saying "Oh God." If one counts that as prayer, okay. But there were probably just as many who were saying "Oh shit" with equal fervor, so...

PAD

Posted by: Bobb at October 7, 2005 10:14 AM

There's certainly nothing like a life-threatening situation to encourage someone to find God. On the other hand, I think most of the folks in that boat believed all along, they just had issues or questions.

But for folks that truly don't have a faith to follow, and I'd be willing to bet there were at least a few among the 9/11 victims, I doubt that they'd suddenly change their minds when faced with impending doom. It's maybe comforting to those that believe that you have to make an active declaration of faith in order to gain access to Heavan to think that we all repent in our own way before our final moments, but to think that everyone does is sorta arrogant.

Posted by: Peter David at October 7, 2005 10:27 AM

"But for folks that truly don't have a faith to follow, and I'd be willing to bet there were at least a few among the 9/11 victims, I doubt that they'd suddenly change their minds when faced with impending doom."

I guess it hinges on whether you believe the oft'-quoted words of Father Cummings, a WWII Chaplain who said, "There are no atheists in the foxholes." A quote that, the last time I used it on the internet, got me hate mail from atheists.

PAD

Posted by: HMC at October 7, 2005 10:43 AM

If you look at type the people Larson chooses to criticise in his article one line reads

"You get to put a bullet through Blue Beetle-- a character you didn't create or help create-- but you got the opportunity to destroy. "

This is obviously a reference to DC's Countdown ton Infinte Crisis and must be therefore a reference to at least one of the writers Greg Rucka, Judd Winnick and Geoff Johns. Of those three, Greg Rucka has created the Atticus Kodak series of novels and his creator owned comics Queen and Country and Whiteout, Judd Winnick is resonsible for Barry Wheen, Boy Genius. Now this leaves Geoff Johns, who admittedly as far I known seems to have dome all his work for the big two but it does included original horror serries The Possessed as well as creating a number of new charcters including the present Star Girl. So these creators that Larson critised by implication do actually seem to add to the body of charcaters and do at least be partly original work. Also none of them are even 10 year vetrans in the field let alone 20 I am not sure why get singled out.

Posted by: Matt Adler at October 7, 2005 10:49 AM

I don't. What a monumental waste of time that thing. Letting myself get sucked into that and becoming a part of the McFarlane hype machine. I was a serious nitwit for allowing that to happen.

Well, it essentially made you the leader of the writer camp, in the whole "Do comics need writers?" debate, and being the representative of your entire profession ain't a bad place to be, profile-wise.

If look at that, and the U-Decide thing, one would have to say that controversy is good for business. There are a lot of writers who keep their mouths shut, and just fade off the radar till they can't get an assignment from anyone. You've been in this business for more than 20 years, and you're getting a brand new Spider-Man book and a brand new X-book. I see a linkage.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 7, 2005 11:07 AM

Bobb:

>Who's got some psychology experience here? Isn't there something about the human psyche that says that your first reactions are generally the most honest? That's been true in my experience. It's why the internet is both a wonderful and dangerous tool. We're all free to browse, read, react, and even interact. The danger is that you're liable to put down your initial, honest, brutal thoughts. And the more riled up you are over the topic, the less likely you are censor yourself, to check your words and tone to make sure that you're actually saying what you want to say.

Certainly, one's initial inner response tends to be the most honest, though by the time that it sees print online, I'm not so sure.

My 2 biggest concerns regarding common unhealthy traits that I've seen online over the past dacade are:

1) The addicitve mindset that this super-quick communication and resource provider feeds into.

2) The huge breakdown in communication and interpersonal skills that has occurred due to the lack of any significant consequences in this realm. I've counseled individuals who have had fights and/or "made up" with another person via iming. It boggles my mind that this is a fairly common practice among adolescence and college-aged people. One needn't go far to find online bullies (Who, for the most part, wouldn't have the courage to speak the words to someone's face.) *Talk about the ultimate example of passive aggressive behavior or displaced anger!* Careless words are thrown around quite often and when called on it, many respond that they don't know the person, so it isn't "real" or it invalidates their inappropriate behavior.

Anyways... this could be a huge discussion, but though the initial response being typed out online, I believe that this plays a relatively minor influence in the actual interactions we see here.

Fred

Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2005 11:38 AM

"I'm tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean."

Shit, Bobb, I'm tired of having to explain what I mean.

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 7, 2005 11:39 AM

>>"I'm tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean."

>Shit, Bobb, I'm tired of having to explain what I mean.

Huh?

;)

Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2005 11:42 AM

"Of those three, Greg Rucka has created the Atticus Kodak series of novels and his creator owned comics Queen and Country and Whiteout..."

Rucka's also a Mariner fan, so that makes him A-OK in my book.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2005 11:46 AM

I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it's a wonder I haven't been knee-capped.

Posted by: Bobb at October 7, 2005 11:52 AM

"I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it's a wonder I haven't been knee-capped."

I hope your spouse doesn't lurk here, then. You may find yourself an unwelcome "guest" waiting for you at home someday =P

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 7, 2005 11:58 AM

Knuckles:

> I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it's a wonder I haven't been knee-capped.

At least you understand that consequence. ;)

The frightening aspect to this phenomenon is that many of the younger generation would be surprised to be knee capped or at an anger response that seems quite resonable to those of us who have grown up with face-to-face interactions.

**Side note, the nice thing about a significant other is when you hear the voice of reason behind you, telling you to just let a thread/argument/tirade go.

Posted by: Ralf Haring at October 7, 2005 12:38 PM

Luigi: "Now you’re trying to shift the point away from my original question, and saying it’s about “occasional” lateness, when that wasn’t my original question."

I'm sorry, the original post in this whole thing was a jab at Image chiding them for having lateness problems. I thought this was unduly harsh since they are far from the worst offender with regard to lateness. If that's not what you're talking about, then I don't know why we're having this discussion. I'm sorry I didn't implicitly take your use of the past tense to only refer to the distant past and not a broader view of a publisher's history.

Posted by: Robert Shacklock at October 7, 2005 02:48 PM

No wonder most everyone in the comic scene hates Erik Larsen. Out of all the comic creators out there, there have been a few I just didnt like. Maybe it was the style they used or the way they treated fans, but there is always something they did that you can say something good about. I cant do that about Erik Larsen. Maybe they arent showing what they have to Erik Larsen because he might steal the idea or maybe the creators dont want to be associated with Image.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 7, 2005 02:52 PM

"...but there is always something they did that you can say something good about. I cant do that about Erik Larsen."

That's not true at all.

He left several books so that better creators could come on board and do GOOD work on them.

That was something good you can say about him.

;)

Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2005 03:50 PM

"I hope your spouse doesn't lurk here, then. You may find yourself an unwelcome "guest" waiting for you at home someday =P"

As long as it wasn't Oprah, I'd be ok with it.

Posted by: Bobb at October 7, 2005 04:08 PM

You kidding. "You get a car! YOU get a car! You GET a CAR! " Oprah can visit anytime she likes.

Posted by: Knuckles at October 7, 2005 04:27 PM

Seriously, I'd have to think about it.

Posted by: Robbnn at October 7, 2005 05:15 PM

You guys are giving him waaay too much credit, and blowing a dumb thing into a big thing.

Larsen is a crummy writer. He tossed off the column in about twenty minutes and didn't bother to re-write for clarity. Like Bobb said, it's a knee jerk column to fill space. To think he was intentionally insulting individuals gives him way too much credit.

Posted by: David S. at October 7, 2005 07:29 PM

Peter David: Which I'm sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven't owned any scripts they've written, ever.

Erik Larsen: Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.
Luigi Novi: It has everything to do with it. You criticized creators for not producing creator-owned work. Peter pointed out that many, if not most of the greatest works of art in history and in other media are not creator-owned.

David S.: He did more than THAT, Luigi. Peter has said in numerous BID columns that during the Rennaisance Period, there WERE no self-employed artists! They had patrons and did mostly contract-labor in the form of "portraits." Here, he's saying that TV writers are writers-for-hire BY DEFINITION!

What Peter DIDN'T say, but it's ALSO true, is that even best-selling short-story writers, novelists, poets and singer/songwriters usually have to buy back their works from the publishing houses that LEGALLY OWN THEM before they can obtain enough SERIOUS money to self-publish any future works (and that's just their POPULAR works). The Image guys didn't even have to do THAT to become "successful." Just convince some investors that their "Marvel" fans will follow them to any title that they're working on, especially if they OWN IT! And he calls Peter a self-promoting fool! Look in the mirror, pal!

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 8, 2005 10:00 AM

True, David.

Peter, do you or anyone else here know if there's a transcript of that debate between you and McFarlane? I was not present at that convention, and would very much like to see exactly what was said. Thanks. :-)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 8, 2005 10:37 AM

Peter, do you or anyone else here know if there's a transcript of that debate between you and McFarlane? I was not present at that convention, and would very much like to see exactly what was said. Thanks. :-)

They had a full transcript in a CBG once. I thought that it was once posted here but I may be quite wrong.

It was a slam dunk. PAD is being modest by not reprinting it every week, which is what I, poor sport that I am, would be doing.

Posted by: Jerry C at October 8, 2005 11:17 AM

Luigi Novi,

Give me a week if you can't find it yourself. I think I know somebody who still has a few old CBG copies of that debate (and a few other IMage/PAD things).

If she still has them then I'll scan them into my computer and we can work out how to get them to you then.

Posted by: Robert Shacklock at October 8, 2005 04:38 PM

"He left several books so that better creators could come on board and do GOOD work on them.

That was something good you can say about him."

You got to be kidding right? He leaves books because sales drop and fans hate him. Any creator that has to take over after him has an incredible mess to clean up. Thats not a good thing. A good thing is if Erik Larson never touches a book you enjoy.

When I heard he was doing Teen Titans for 2 issues I had my retailer take it off my list. Funny thing is the shop owner said a few other people had done the same thing.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 8, 2005 09:23 PM

Jerry, thank you very much; I really appreciate it. If you want to email it to me, you can do so at nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com. :-)

Robert Shacklock: When I heard he was doing Teen Titans for 2 issues I had my retailer take it off my list. Funny thing is the shop owner said a few other people had done the same thing.
Luigi Novi: Teen Titans? Aren' t you confusing him with Rob Liefeld?

Posted by: Knuckles at October 8, 2005 11:57 PM

"Luigi Novi: Teen Titans? Aren' t you confusing him with Rob Liefeld?"

Other than Larsen having a somewhat better grasp of physiology, what's the difference?

Posted by: Robert Shacklock at October 9, 2005 12:30 PM

As a matter of fact I am! Im a noob, please put me down.

Posted by: Peter David at October 13, 2005 06:13 PM

Posters attempting to impersonate others will be deleted, as will all responses to such posts.

So all involved in such endeavors are advised to save their efforts.

PAD

Posted by: BSB at October 13, 2005 06:45 PM

I sent off an e-mail to Larsen telling him that I thought his column sucked. He responded that I should read it again. Even the big words. My response was that I read an issue if Savage Dragon once, and I have not had any interest in reading anything he writes since. But that I did go back and scan the column, and the biggest words I could find were independants and contemporary. And that if those are big words to him, then that explains a lot about his writing. His response "You win, you have proved to be a bigger jerk than me".

Kind of makes me proud.

Posted by: Jason K at October 13, 2005 10:46 PM

God I read his new column. I wonder if any of the creators who are emailing him singing his praises are those who already have a creator owned project in mind and are using the opportunity to get in good with Larsen. Has any creator come out and publicly supported Larsen?

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at October 13, 2005 11:04 PM

So all involved in such endeavors are advised to save their efforts.

Well, there went my "Humorous Post of the Day" to waste. :)

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 17, 2005 10:40 AM

Jerry? Any word yet? :-) I still haven't been able to find it. Thanks.

Luigi

Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 21, 2005 03:50 AM

If Larsen is trying to enlist the talent of writers, artists and comic creators, he has an odd way of showing it.
His current FLAT offer for 'completed' creator owned material is $6000 for fully completed book pitches.
Lets see bargain that entire $6000 between a writer, an illustrator, a colorist, and a letterer and you barely have enough cash left to ship the pitch.
Break that down even further to the amount of hours that each one of those creators spent to give their best effort to the 'mighty one', just for the point of possibly getting it reviewed.
Do the math: $6000 divided by 28 fully scripted, drawn, inked, colored, lettered pages, and a cover all created by a possible 4 or more different hard working individuals, who are just attempting to get their creation in print.

WOW! thank you MR. Larsen, that $214 per page offer is so gracious and gollyg won't my child, wife or family be happy when I bring home my share of 53 whole dollar bills on each page! and to think it only took us 3 months to complete it!
We're all gonna be rich comic book creators. Lets all chant it like a mantra!

Don't ya wanna start singing "CumbahYa my Larsen"?
Doesn't it just make you want to run right out and create your next property for IMAGE?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at October 21, 2005 06:45 AM

Waitaminute. What exactly is that six grand for? Just the initial first issue of the book? Since Image publishes creator-owned material, wouldn't the creators also get the profits from the sales of the book?

Posted by: Fred Chamberlain at October 21, 2005 10:56 AM

Luigi, yes. Some creators walk away with a great deal of money for successful books. Walking Dead is a cash cow. Those who produced books that didn't sell many copies were left with little financial benefit to show for their efforts.

Posted by: Bobb at October 21, 2005 11:27 AM

"Those who produced books that didn't sell many copies were left with little financial benefit to show for their efforts."

"WOW! thank you MR. Larsen, that $214 per page offer is so gracious and gollyg won't my child, wife or family be happy when I bring home my share of 53 whole dollar bills on each page! and to think it only took us 3 months to complete it!"

Is there anything wrong with this? Doesn't the publisher bear the costs of printing and distributing a book? Sure, it may take a team 3 months to put together a fully complete book pitch, but unless they're either students, or have some independant wealth which allows them to not work in order to pull in a paycheck, that time probably accounts from them having day jobs. We know it doesn't take 3 months to create a ready-to-print comic. It can't...or at least, there are plenty of teams that manage to script, pencil, ink, and color a book each month. Leaving plenty of time for printing and distribution. So what you're actually looking at is 2-3 actual weeks of real, 8 hour a day work. $53 per page comes out to some $1,166. For what really should amount to less than a month's work, that's actually fairly decent pay for a project that's essentially just an idea, and hasn't sold a single issue yet.

Add in that, if the creative team IS holding down other jobs, and working in their off time to produce the book, that's just extra money on top of their normal paycheck, so it's not like someone's kids are going without food because Image isn't paying enough for the right to publish new ideas.

And when it DOES get published, Image bears the costs, right? Meaning, if the book fails to sell, it's Image that takes the hit, not the creators. Sure, they don't get any additional payment, but unless they're dumb, and have quit their jobs BEFORE proving they have a marketable product, they should STILL have their day jobs.

What do you do when you want to break into Hollywood? You take whatever job you need to in order to pay the bills, while you wait for a chance to make your "big break." And until then, chances are you can get some commercial work, which pays for crap, but at least it builds your resume. Larson may be an ass sometimes, but I don't think you can put "cheap ass" on him just because he doesn't make millionaires out of everyone that Image buys a concept from.

Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 21, 2005 12:45 PM

your last line contradicted the rest of your entire point bob.

Those creators offering a pitch to IMAGE for the 6000 are in all liklihood working class and as such

    not working full-time on just the book
. If they aren't already independantly wealthy, they still need to work other jobs to pay the bills and survive. They also aren't getting the $6000 in advance of their creation. All of that taken into consideration, yes it could take 3 months to get everything done in a quality style that would be accepted, or would you rather four people quit their jobs and took the odds of a crap shoot of whether they were gonna be picked up for that $6000.

Most (big two) professional writers, artists and creators who work on pieces 'publisher owned', do it as a team monthly because that is their ownly job and they get paid enough to benefit them working on it independant of anything else. Its a printed piece with their name on it, and still worthy of being called their creation whether its owned by the publisher or not.

Oh and yes, its IMAGEs loss, sure... only if they make absolutely ZERO money on the more than 100,000 issues they print before they pay the 2% royalty on titles that sell over that amount.
With IMAGE, creators will make money if they can guarantee their title will sell over 100,000 issues. How many IMAGE titles currently sell over 100,000 issues, Bob?

so--- Is IMAGE really bank rolling any losses?
The cost to produce the book is far less than the cover price, and I can guarantee MR LARSEN is not going to accept a proposal he believes is gonna crash completely. IMAGE is his own mini-Vegas.
Creators put their work in and he collects the payoff. LARSEN is not making millionaires out of

    anyone
let alone everyone. If most people submitting pitches to him understood they would need to volunteer their entire life for such a small possibility of return there would be even less creator owned works and even more for Mr Larsen to quibble about.

Posted by: Bobb at October 21, 2005 01:57 PM

Parker, I'm having a hard time following you.

"If they aren't already independantly wealthy, they still need to work other jobs to pay the bills and survive. They also aren't getting the $6000 in advance of their creation. All of that taken into consideration, yes it could take 3 months to get everything done in a quality style that would be accepted,"

I believe I said this, that most people trying to put together a new, creator owned concept for consideration at Image or any publisher probably would have another job...maybe already working in comics, maybe not. Meaning that putting the new book together would be effort spent in addition to their paying work. So that real time production could be as long as 3 months, or even longer. But if you only look at the time it took to produce the book, sometimes called man-hours or something similar, it'd probably come out to about 2 weeks' worth of 8-hour day segments.

Put another way, say it takes a total of 400 hours to put together a full-book pitch. You can put in those 400 hours in 2 weeks, if that's pretty much all you do. Or you can work about 5 or 6 hours extra a day for 3 months.

"or would you rather four people quit their jobs and took the odds of a crap shoot of whether they were gonna be picked up for that $6000."

I never said that. Neither has Larson. And it's rather a meaningless point to raise. The $6000 isn't paid for 3 months' worth work. It's paid for what professionals can churn out in about 2 weeks' time. If that's 3 months pay, yeah, it stinks, but it's not. Check my Hollywood analogy if you think that I meant for people trying to break into the creator owned end of comics to quit doing what pays the bills. You do what you have to, until you can do what you want to.

"How many IMAGE titles currently sell over 100,000 issues, Bob?"

By the way, it's Bobb, not Bob.

And I don't know, how many Image titles sell over 100,000 issues, Parker? For that matter, how many DC books? Marvel? Do only books selling over 100,000 turn a profit for the publisher? Does that even matter?

"so--- Is IMAGE really bank rolling any losses?
The cost to produce the book is far less than the cover price, and I can guarantee MR LARSEN is not going to accept a proposal he believes is gonna crash completely."

Yeah, they probably have taken some losses on books. That's usually why a book gets cancelled, it's not making any or enough money. And why should Larson, or anyone else for that matter, be expected to buy a proposal that he thinks is going to bomb? Did I miss the part where Larson offered to pay $6,000 to anyone that could get 22 completed pages into him? So, no, Image probably isn't taking too big a loss on stinkers...because one sign of a good publisher is recognizing what has a chance to sell, and what won't. Point being, it's the publishing company that's taking the greater financial risk. The creator isn't shelling out the tens or hundreds of thousands of $ to get that first issue printed, the publisher is. It's the publisher that has the contracts with the printers, the distributors, etc., and it's the publisher that's carrying ALL the risk. It stands to reason that the publisher should be first in line for profits...or else why would they publish at all?

"LARSEN is not making millionaires out of

anyone
let alone everyone."

Again, why is it Larson's job to make other people rich? I'm sure PAD (yes, I do remember which board I'm on) appreciates the support of all his fans, but I doubt he's going to be putting up a "How I Intend to Make All My Fans Rich" post any time soon (psst, PAD, if you do, since it was my idea, I get to be first in line, ok?). Larson is heading a publishing company that seeks to support a creator driven market. I'm sure for every book Image publishes, there are 10 more ideas that it's paid that $6000 fee to, but doesn't think the market will support just yet. And for every 11 concepts that it purchases, that are probably 50 submissions that they say "no thanks" to.

"If most people submitting pitches to him understood they would need to volunteer their entire life for such a small possibility of return there would be even less creator owned works and even more for Mr Larsen to quibble about."

Ok. People trying to enter the creator owned market don't already realize this? You don't have to go very far in age/life before you realize that going out on your own, doing your own thing, eats a metric ton more of time than just getting a job from someone else. And that 90% of people trying to establish their own business never see a profit from it. Why should doing your own comic be any different? Even in Larson's rant from a few weeks ago, he never says that doing your own thing will be easy. His comments after indicate that he was trying to challenge people to do something. You don't get challenged to do something if it's easy. If it's easy, you just do it. No one has to challenge me to tie my shoe in the morning, because it's relatively easy.

I don't see how anything in my post was contradictory. You were spouting off about how bad Larson and Image were because the only offer $6000 for an accepted concept issue. Ok, why don't you run off and tell us how much DC offers for accepting a new concept. Or Marvel. And IDW. Then we can compare those amounts, and if Image is way below the market, and there's no other reason for that (such as, maybe the offer a higher % of profit), THEN we can complain about how bad Image is.


Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 22, 2005 02:10 AM

well,

    Bobb

here goes, speaking from a professional point of view, DC and Marvel pay (without a contract) between $175-$225 per page JUST TO THE ARTIST, plus a royalty fee on the copies sold above their marker point.
If you have the talent and can stay in the game, on a regular run and get an exclusive you can write an even larger ticket with larger % of royalties. Aside from the rate not being split amongst an entire team, there is the thought that the work is more steady and consistently pays, versus not knowing if you will ever see any other money.

If you really want to know how many titles IMAGE, Marvel or DC has sold over 100,000 issues, it is easily found on the Diamond Distribution site. You won't need a calculator to keep track either.

I am not spouting off figures from nowhere, I am spouting off these figures from being in their market for more than 15 years.

and yes, $6000 stinks, regardless of how you try to whittle that down to 2 weeks, or 12 weeks, its a penny compared to the money they make on your project. What risk is there to publishing something that they know will never pay the creator, one dime of royalties on? Yes, the money is fronted, but they only order according to the distribution order filed, thats why there is such a thing as "PREVIEWS". The books are paid for by credit before they are ever shipped, so the risk is short lived, and the profit immediate.

I believe the whole point of this argument was why should a creator step out of their comfort zone, where there bills are paid and family live comfortably to push paper with another publisher, just to have the ability to say its his "owned" creation? What is that creator really walking away with? And why should an editor degrade another creator for their choice to be happy with living the good life, and working hard at something they love? Nobody said that getting your own creation in print shouldn't be as much a risk or challenge as starting your own business... the offense was having an editor slap the average creators in the face by addressing them improperly and trying to make them look foolish for tackling their craft in the manner that works best for them. So- it didn't work for Mr. Larsen, and he likes it his way, is he a GOD? does that mean that everyone else who doesn't bow and follow his route is a mindless fool and unworthy of reader's attention?

You took an approach that I was referring to IMAGE accepting only proposals from young, fresh talent that haven't made a name for theirselves.
Those IMAGE rates don't change with experience. Whether you are a current selling, seasoned pro, or are unsolicited fresh off the street, its the same, as well as the amount of effort IMAGE puts into soliciting and marketing the book.

I am not trying to make IMAGE look bad for paying a crappy rate, I am trying to direct you to the bigger picture that they are not really offering much to drive creators to want to print their own stuff. And the method Mr. Larsen used to get his point across was extremely inappropriate. If he can't back his point with more bank, he should not bother offending people who are doing just fine working for a publisher.
.

Posted by: Robbnn at October 22, 2005 10:25 AM

Was Larsen talking as the head of Image or just as an individual (or a "fan")?

Image is not the only venue for self-publishing. There's Lulu.com and a host of other vanity publishers, or you can do it yourself as your own publisher.

While I disagree with Larsen in how and what he said, if you WANT to do your own thing, then it's possible. It is no one's job to make SELF publishing profitable except yourSELF.

Posted by: Luke K. Walsh at October 22, 2005 11:49 AM

Very good points, Parker Penworthy.

Your revelation that Image only pays royalties on sales of over 100,000 copies shocked me - while sales under 100,000 used to get you canceled at Marvel, these days sales that high for any title are very rare. Image really is taking no risk at all, certainly compared to the creators, since it is very unlikely that they'll have to pay royalties on any title.

Also, while it's true that Larsen never explicitly says "come work for me," I think the idea is implied several times in his piece, as when he denigrates doing creator-owned projects for the Big Two companies. And I still think the appearance of his article just as it was revealed that longtime Spawn penciler Angel Medina had signed a Marvel-exclusive deal is not coincidental.

Posted by: Royalty Fan at October 22, 2005 12:26 PM

>>"Your revelation that Image only pays royalties on sales of over 100,000 copies shocked me"

Royalties for Sales of over 100,000 copies? Where is this information from? I can not believe this, because no one would bring his comic to Image then... not in times where nearly no comic sells ober 100.000

Can anybody confirm this, please?

Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 23, 2005 01:49 AM

Royalty Fan,
No one will reveal their name because it has been a long standing ethic in the industry not to discuss dollar specifics.
and yes you are completely right that no-one would want to take their comic to IMAGE under these specifications, unless of course then again it were a new team or someone who could afford the luxury of droping their regular gig(s), just to keep their pitch creator owned. To point to the realizm of my comment even more, Mr Larsen acts like it is difficult to find product:
"I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period..." , well gee where is the surprise there, when his company cannot, or will not pay more.

I have know more than a dozen creators who passed up the offer. I have known people that took IMAGE up on the offer because they had dreams of having their characters become the next big action/animated adventure movie down the line, or branching the characters out to something beyond the comic world. If you have the time to dream and do it on the side, more power to you... but most of the time, creators are pinned to their deadlines and have little extra time. If you tell a Big2 publisher that you want to walk away for a month or two to do your own stuff, you could easily be writing your last paycheck from them. A matter of months can be a dangerous thing with the talent pool available, and you can always be replaced. Most of the talent pool is not made up of headliners on exclusives.

Posted by: Bobb at October 23, 2005 08:47 AM

Parker, thanks for the clarification. I understand better now, but I think you have unreasonable expectations for what is essentially a new business venture.

You can't compare the per-page rate that Marvel or DC pays its talent for published books to the rate a publisher pays for the right to publish a new creator-owned property. Marvel's rates are based on expeted sales. There's little guesswork. And it's a going business, with relatively stable income.

A new creator-owned property is no different than any other new business. Most new businesses are lucky to break even in their first 3-5 years. Most will turn in a loss. It's the nature of building up a customer base, expanding, and growing into a profitable venture. Why should a new comic be any different? Maybe Image's profit line is too high for today's market, but that doesn't make it wrong.

You sound like you expect publishers to just shell out money for unproven titles, front the advertising and publication costs, and put the creator first in line to get paid. Just like any other self-employed person, the creator is the last person that gets paid. This isn't new, uncommon, and it's the way things should be.

I've no basis to dispute any of your claims, but I do find it very suspect that your numbers are supported by sources that can't be named.

"No one will reveal their name because it has been a long standing ethic in the industry not to discuss dollar specifics."

This may be true. It may be false. But unless someone comes forward with a contract offer to prove or disprove it, it's just a claim. It seems to me that someone somewhere along the way wouldn't mind showing a standard Image contarct to support this. Parker Penworthy can't be the only comic industry insider willing to talk about this?

Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 24, 2005 12:57 AM

once again, as I mentioned and it has been repeated it is a matter of ethical standard in the business not to name dollars and cents. if you search the web, you will find 100s of comic book professionals with their own websites, but you will rarely find any of them talking about their pay.

No one wants to burn bridges that they might someday want to use, and secondly, with whatever the creators actions are apart from each other, generally most creators stick together and are supportive of each other through all. In proof, You won't have to look far to find a benefit or charitible function geared to help a creator who has gone down on his luck over the years... mostly because aside from respect, MOST of us stick together.

Bobb, the new property theory has some credible weight, except when you consider that there are still new titles being published by the big2 that pay the same page rate amount as their older titles. the big2 are taking a larger risk with the new titles, but perhaps with their publishing name, they are expecting a better return since they are at the top of Diamond's buy list.

whether my expectations about new ventures are inflated really is not my true qualm for Mr. Larsen's statements. As I stated previously, its more about his fierce determination to slap other creators in the face and call them stupid for not taking his road. Some creators might be so nasty as to say Mr. Larsen acts this way to thwart questions of why he doesn't attempt to get his work published by the Big2 again... all manner of supposition could be added to that line, but as I said MOST creators stick together, with respect for each other's work.

Posted by: Bobb at October 24, 2005 09:32 AM

Parker, I share your distate for the way Larson vented his so-called frustration with the lack of creater-owned material being published today. And several others called his little rant an outright blatant plea, almost begging, for people to submit their creator owned material to Image, which Larson "just happens" to run. I didn't care much for Mr. Larson prior to that, and after, and after his response to some of the criticism that came in as a result, I care for him even less.

But that's not what you were complaining about when you started talking about Image's rates for submissions. You can't really throw out a few numbers and try to use them to disparage a publisher's system without also presenting something to compare it to. Telling us what Image pays for the right to publish a new book tells me nothing about what the market pays for comparable work. Saying what Marvel's per-page rate helps some, as it puts comparable work in perspective, but it isn't really apples and apples. What does Marvel pay for a similar "concept" book? Do they even make such an up-front payment? Does Marvel offer a % of profits, over a certain level, or just a per-page payment? Without any hard numbers to compare to, all I can do is compare the numbers you do put forth against things that I do know, like my own salary. Marvel and Image may have different business models, each serving a different sector of the comic industry.

Maybe it's time for comic professionals to start comparing notes? To start talking in public about rates and such. After all, we know that McFarlane made millions off of Spawn, and not all on merchandising and movie options. Some of that allegedly came from his comic work.

Posted by: Parker Penworthy at October 24, 2005 11:35 PM

seven posts up^^
"between $175-$225 per page JUST TO THE ARTIST, plus a royalty fee on the copies sold above their marker point. If you have the talent and can stay in the game, on a regular run and get an exclusive you can write an even larger ticket with larger % of royalties"

Yes Marvel and DC do pay royalties
And expand on them when prints are released internationally. Its a bit difficult to discuss the royalty issue with regard to DC and Marvel, because the customer base is so large, and it also depends on a number of other factors, such as if the creator is signed exclusively, what number of sales the issue has surpassed or what printing it is in. Some contracts agree to pay a % over a certain number of sales above 50,000, others state if the book goes into a second printing, the creator derives a higher %, or in some cases doesn't receive a % until its the second printing. Its a complicated structure, mostly because there are far more creators working for those two publishers and many work out their own contracts according to their personal demands and how valued they are to the publisher.

Yes, Bobb... I went into my post referring to the payroll involved, because it seemed to be the one argument no one else had brought into the scenario before. I've done my best to clarify my reasoning for bringing it up, because as I stated previously, I feel a publisher who criticizes other creators for not stepping out, and acts like there is so much to gain, would be willing to back that with better offers, as proof to his point.

Posted by: Bobb at October 25, 2005 09:55 AM

"because as I stated previously, I feel a publisher who criticizes other creators for not stepping out, and acts like there is so much to gain, would be willing to back that with better offers, as proof to his point."

Parker, you did kinda sorta say this, although a bit differently

"If he can't back his point with more bank, he should not bother offending people who are doing just fine working for a publisher."

Which is fine, and I think if you'd stated this up front in your first comments, I'd have responded less. But here's the thing: Larson doesn't ever raise money in his spew, so far as I can tell. He never says anything like "you guys are pathetic, don't you know how much more money you could be makingg if you were working on your own stuff?" This is really something you injected into the conversation.

Which is not to say it's not a valid response to Larson's spew. And in fact, given Larson's position as running a publishing company that wants to attract new talent and new creations, you're absolutely right that offering more creator rewards would be a lot better incentive than trying to verbally cut people that are only trying to make a living while doing what they've always dreamed of doing.

The thing is, I don't think you need to crticize Image's method of paying for creator owned work in order to bash Larson's methods in his spew. It sounds like Marvel is a better deal for creator-owned work. Then again, Marvel doesn't really seem to publish a lot of that, which leads me to think that they only take pretty sure-fire hits. Well established works with proven sales records. On the other hand, Image seem to cater to the unproven work. And in that respect, it is more like a new business, with Image participating as a partner/investor. As a business model, I'm sure you could find parallels rather easily. And sure, it seems harsh for the creator, with little chance for profit, but that's the nature of the game.

Posted by: Davey at November 1, 2005 03:52 PM

I was just mildly amused that where Erik went off on people who aren't "doing their own thing" in this column, in a previous column (only two or three weeks earlier) he called 99% of the samples he receives at his office crap.

Not sure what message he's trying to send, because he didn't seem to send either all that well (well, he did say in another column that he hasn't a clue...).

Dj

Posted by: JT at December 6, 2005 05:41 AM

You know Mr. David, on this forum you're really coming off every bit as arrogant, obscene and unprofessional as you claim Erik Larsen is. The lot of you really misunderstood his overall message. Most likely because when it comes to being an independent artist you tend to scream your no bullshit opinions out in a punk rock kind of way. I should know, I just got kicked off the comicboards.com Spider-Man section for making too many true statements about yours and JMSs "How about Spider-Man grows fangs and stingers and stabs a person to death" story. "Contributions" like this to Spidey and his mythos only further proves how right Erik really is and makes me work twice as hard on my own creations.