A *lot* of people have asked me what I thought about Axel Alonso’s comment in a “Wizard” interview in which he said:
“Stan Lee probably had feelings about Peter David’s version of the Hulk. Peter is all too vocal about what he thinks of Bruce Jones’ version.”
A lot of people see that as a slam. Personally, I don’t. I think it’s a little vague since I’m not sure what “all too” means. People kept asking me, and I finally read enough of them to form an opinion and responded. I guess whatever the “just vocal enough” limit would be, I exceeded it. Oh well. However, for what it’s worth, the times I saw Stan (and when we lunched together) he had nothing but nice things to say about what I was doing on the series. Of course, maybe he was just being polite, since Stan is, and was, a gentleman about such things. But I like to think he was sincere. He is, after all, The Man.
PAD
• 
Underdog4 wrote:
Yes – but the question is – should you do it [offer criticism] to someone who works at the same company as you AT the same time.
I think it’s called common courtesy.
Funny, but from where I’m sitting, offering criticism of your peers while working at the same company at the same time is part of the job. Heck, we have peer review meetings where the whole point is to offer criticism of each other’s works, to make it better as a result.
Criticism of your peers’ work is not a problem as long as you keep the comments focused on the work. And AFAIK, PAD has never said anything disparaging about Bruce Jones — just his writing. I mean, it’s not like PAD wrote that Bruce Jones murders kittens and boils puppies alive in vats of acid or anything.
I’m sorry, Underdog4, but you keep going around and around this same point, and I still have to disagree with it. Anyone who creates anything should welcome constructive criticism of their work, in the hopes that it will help them improve their work. As long as PAD isn’t taking personal attacks on BJ (and vice-versa), I don’t see any problems with it.
Why should Peter have to put his thoughts on the book that way? He said he didn’t like it that much, though he’d liked other work by Jones. To me, this makes it clear he’s criticizing the man’s work, not the man itself, and assuming Jones isn’t a prodigy working for Marvel while still in his preteen years, he should be adult enough to understand the difference. Saying he didn’t enjoy the book as much as others seemed to is hardly inappropriate, I think.
Also, I didn’t see any of his comments as FLIPPANT by any stretch of the imagination. Could you please explain how Peter was flippant (on this topic. I’ve seen him be flippant about other topics)?
Wow – you say it in your own post Robert.
It’s part of your job and you have peer revie meetings at your work.
YES – AT WORK! AND it is CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
that’s a world apart from posting publically on a message board that snails do windsprints around Bruce Jone’s plotting.
He doesn’t have to attack the man for it to be insulting. Saying the plot is slow is also differnt from the SNAIL comment.
It’s all about appropriateness and not about WHAT you say but also HOW you say it.
When comparing your PEER REVIEW MEETINGS to what PAD did is comparing apples and oranges.
It’s odd how I can agree with your entire post but STILL be in disagreement with the PAD situation.
It’s becuase your post is NOT on point with the PAD situation.
If PAD had went to a MARVEL meeting and gave the criticism this wouldn’t be an issue.
And if it somehow leaked and someone screamed foul play naughty naughty on PAD then THEY would be overly sensitive and wrong b/c they would be attempting to sterilize ALL criticism and therefore hurting the writers from getting good feedback.
I would think a writer would appreciate private constructive criticism then all but saying someone’s current work stinks – and no matter how you slice it – THAT’S what PAD did.
YOu can start off and stroke Kazar work but he bashed the Hulk work.
The snail comment is also NOT constructive but instead inflammatory.
You can tell a friend they should be more concerned about their health – maybe dedicate some time to toning and conditioning and NOT say:
you are a fat %$&! Elephants will look to mate with you.
Yes it’s far mor clever and funny – but it’s inflammatory.
THAT”s the problem with what PAD did.
If you can’t see that it’s b/c you don’t want to.
flippant would be the snail comment mor eor less.
Not just flippant – inflammatory and not the smartest way to handle the critique.
I fyou are some fanboy on a board – fine.
If you are PAD and work for Marvel – you should have some self restraint in HOW you critique.
That’s all.
You can talk about the plotting – but the snail comment is probably directly proportionate to the “all too vocal” comment by someone else.
Underdog4.
Two Questions.
1. Are you Bruce Jones and venting here?
2. Were you attacked by rabid snails as a child?
That’s really the issue sin’t it?
You want to know WHO I am.
Does it really matter?
If I WAS a certain editor and I am NOT syaing I am or if I WAS a certain writier and I am not saying I am – than the view I have written here would be judged and filtered through that lens.
Suddenly what WOULD be decent critiques on how to behave would be overshadowed by the motives any number of fanboys would attribute to the speaker.
Oh he’s disgrunteled – he’s protecting the company line etc.
Or if I wasn’t the editor and writer in question and another writer or editor – the same slanting could occur when viewing my point.
And THAT”S very much the center of all of this.
PAD claims he just wanted to see what all the hub-bub was about – to paraphrase.
Well SNAILS and PACING go beyond that.
Some of you defintiely get what I am saying and have moved on – but SO many have gone nutty with examples that do NOT apply.
Like Peer review at work? – not public and the purpose IS to have the criticism.
The post about the patririach of a family not talking about the alcoholic nephew is pretty on point in the sense that decorum is evaluated.
So many have harped on how you NEED critiques and you are NOT smart if you want to suppress them.
Well I never said we should.
It was about WHO was speaking and HOW wise it was considering WHAT was said and HOW it was said.
If you are a big-time writer such as PAD you do NOT have less rights, but it may be more gentlemanly to practice more restraint OR choose your words and phrases more carefully.
(i.e. SNAILS!)
For PAD to try and claim he was just curious about the allure of the book is a little disingenious at this point. You could have done that with the MOCK comments I posted earlier.
The real issue might be the purpose of PAD’s comments.
Were they part of this altruistic literary movement to offer the best criticism and therefore eventually improve the writers quality?
Well if that’s the case it could’ve been done much more gentlemanly than how PAD did it; i.e. TO BRUCE JONE or TO ALONSO.
Or was it a true plea to understand why the book was doing so well and PAD could then improve himself as a writer as he earlier claimed?
Well, that too could have been done without the SNAILS and other deragatory commentary. (i.e SNAILS!!) It could have been done like my mock post.
But to do it as the patriarch of Hulk – as the quintessential HULK writer – as writer of fifty odd novels and a known quantity and freelance in the comics field ONLY overshadowed your intellectual journey by basically just running down a fellow professional.
Don’t start in with the mark Twain writings etc…
YES – writers critique other writers – but looking at this unique industry called comic books – all that is being said is that it wasn’t a good idea.
SO many want to sound the trunpet that PAD was speaking his mind – he’s our savior.
Well – be vocal about all the other writers and artists in your SMALL field and see how much more work comes your way.
That’s the issue.
It’s not about the essence of the commentary or one’s RIGHT to say it.
Next time your sister/girlfriend/ whoever asks if they look nice or if they look fat – what do you do?
You look fine.
You look good, but we can all lose some weight.
OR
COuld you move a little to the left – you’re blocking the sun and I think shifting the entire sidewalk.
So when you post under your REAL name as an established pro USING inflammatory language it’s just not going to bring you happy times – that’s all I ever said.
So to question who I am BEGS the question of WHY did PAD write it.
What was his REAL intent and by writing it as himself it agrnered alot more attnetion and conspiracy theories about why he would say such a thing.
it detracted from the point.
But to post a blog less inflammatory and THEN post under a different name on the message board would relegate his opinion to something less than the mini-celebrity he is.
SO it doesn’t matter WHO I am – but what I am saying.
P.S.
Yes, i had an incident with a snail . . a very FAST snail and a sadistic clown – but it’s none of your business and I’ll never share!
I don’t see anything “inflammatory” or “bashing” about the “snail’s pace” comment. Peter was just using a humorous metaphor, which to me, didn’t read as pejorative at all. That’s just me.
James, sorry about the misattributed quote. 🙂
Well – be vocal about all the other writers and artists in your SMALL field and see how more much work comes your way.
Given that this post followed the one where Peter mentioned his two major upcoming projects at Marvel, I can’t see where the comment has hurt his career all that much…
no one said it DID or it WILL.
The comment is only saying that if you make a HABIT of bashing others you work with – you may not be so sought after etc. . .
Gee, how literal minded can you be?
you honestly can’t see the value in that logic?
And I’m at a loss on the meaning of pejorative now.
Saying a snail can do windsprints around so and so’s plotting is not pejorative.
It’s not uncomplimentary?
Okay and alrighty then.
That’s a perfect way to tell someone they’re pacing could be a little faster to imrove the story without hurting someone’s feelings or being patronizing etc.
I’m sure Bruce Jones hasn’t made it this far with such thin skin – but to turn around and say it wasn’t pejorative is just such inane colored thinking.
you honestly can’t see the value in that logic?
No, I just agree with Terry Pratchett: “Logic is all very well, but sometimes it’s not substitute for actual thought.”
Since I’ve yet to even see any direct evidence that Alonso was thinking specifically of the snails comment, all your commentary has been entirely within the realm of the hypothetical. I agree that making a habit of being obnoxious won’t win you many friends–I just don’t see any direct chain of connection to the situation.
(And if you read Peter’s comments in context, it’s clear that he’s trying to establish a logical chain himself–“This is slow paced. People complain about my work being slow-paced, so why do they continue to buy this?”)
-“This is slow paced. People complain about my work being slow-paced, so why do they continue to buy this?”)
I don’t know – maybe it’s better – maybe it’s not.
And now logic is a substitute for actual thought because Terry Pratchet said so?
Oy vey!
Of course everything I said is all conjecture b/c we are in NOBODY’S head.
It still doesn’t negate the point I was making and you Doug Atkinson reiterated in a way:
I agree that making a habit of being obnoxious won’t win you many friends–I just don’t see any direct chain of connection to the situation.
well the direct chain would be the SNAIL comment.
It is not unreasonable to characterize that as obnoxious – and there’s the logic – which of ocurse doesn’t mean anything – but last I checked we weren’t living on Discworld.
ANd so many defend because it’s just PAD being witty.
I can say there are lobotomized Pelicans who are less annoying than some of the poster here – yet just because someone might find that coin of a phrase witty doesn’t instantly strip it off its obnoxious content.
But wait – that’s me being logical.
There’s no place for THAT!
Hey! Simon Cooper’s still alive. Who knew?!?
I find it interesting that there’s a lot of focus (elsewhere) on the comment Alonso made about PAD, but almost none on the direct swipe he throws at Tom Breevort.
If the phrase “snail’s pace” wasn’t so commonplace, I might agree that it seemed flippant, but it’s so widely used that it just seems… harmless. I see no difference in the connotations of “The plot is moving slowly,” and “The plot moves at a snail’s pace.”
YMMV, though.
Let’s just say that those who don’t agree with me are doing so for illogical reasons.
Ahh, you’ve got to love the “I’m right, you’re wrong if you don’t agree with me” spiel.
Makes one’s arguments hold up so much better.
I find it interesting that there’s a lot of focus (elsewhere) on the comment Alonso made about PAD, but almost none on the direct swipe he throws at Tom Breevort.
I saw him make a lot of swipes at traditional fans but none directly at Brevoort.
well when one starts comparing peer review meetings AT work it defintiely IS illogical. Sorry.
It seems that some people here take what I say as meaning you can’t EVER criticize another peer.
No – what I meant and throghouly explained later was that I’m talking about the comics industry and someone in the relative positions of Alonso Jones and David.
I was saying those that are disagreeing with me are not being logical when they compare workplace peer reviews etc…
That says nothing of those that simply disagree b/c they don’t think PAD went over the line or was obnoxious etc b/c then that’s a disagreement on the fundamental issue.
They are entitled to their opinion.
But when I say I am cold and someone responds with “but the sky isn’t blue” it sort of forces me to say my detractors aren’t presenting cogent logical disagreements.
Not really relevant to this thread but I just had to mention it.
Talk about Irony. As I was coming into this thread, I noticed teh google add on the right part of the screen and it said McFarlane and then I just got enough time to see that it was indeed referring to Todd (toys).
That’s just… weird.
Underdog4 posts:
I think Bruce Jones needs some time to do his thing.
It’s been over 2 years and over 30 issues. If he hasn’t “done his thing” by now, when?
I just read issue 65, which has left me wondering if the X-Files story is over or will continue to linger. There was no sense of resolution at all. I read it, like so many of his issues, without appreciating the qualities that so many seem to attribute his success. When I read a bad PAD issue, I at least knew it had to potintial to be better next issue. But Jones does the same thing month after month and people lap it up. I think PAD is right to wonder why and look to emulate his success. It’s a mystery to me certainly.
Brian C. Saunders
So Shoeshine Boy, what do you think should be done with PAD because he had the nerve not to be a cheerleader for something he doesn’t like? Should Marvel cancel Capt. Marvel out of spite? Should they give the book to Jones, or even Byrne just to get even with PAD?
Get this thru your head. Peter doesn’t work for Marvel! He’s a freelancer that writes for whomever pays the bills (unless there’s been some kind of exclusive contract signed recently). He doesn’t have to toe the company line. This doesn’t mean that it would be in his best interest to delibertly slam the company, but he is entitled to his opinion. Especially in his own blog! PAD isn’t the one that went to Wizard complaining.
“PAD isn’t the one that went to Wizard complaining.”
Ding ding ding! We have a winner
no one said he HAD to tow the company’s line.
You don’t have to be a W@ employee to still use good business sense and common decency.
YES – we have a winner – you have now proven that everyone has a right to be obnoxious and arrogant and petty and it will pìšš øff an editor and NO PAD still gets projects at Marvel – so guess what?
Let’s hear how awful Paul Jenkins may be or how so and sos art looks like it should be hanging on some parent’s refridgerator.
YAY! We’ve all realized we have a constitutional RIGHT to be acerbic!
Something somewhat relevant, and a little bit of media “sensationalism” to boot:
There is a report on Cinescape.com yesterday (via TheForce.net) that there’s a clause in Peter Mayhew’s contract for Episodes 7-9.
Of course, the Cinescape writer goes on to say (as a semi-question) that this would invalidate what happened in the novels.
And I’m thinking: how so? If the movies fall short of when the NJO takes place, who knows.
But then, Star Wars is one universe where the books, comics, etc are as close to “canon” as one will ever get next to the films.
I just wonder if such a comment was really necessary, since it’s sad speculation anyways.
No he WASN’T the one that WENT to Wizard complaing – it got into Wizard b/c he COMPLAINED on his public BLOG about Bruce Jones’ writing!
Um – I think the correct word here is:
DER!
No he WASN’T the one that WENT to Wizard complaing – it got into Wizard b/c he COMPLAINED on his public BLOG about Bruce Jones’ writing!
Saying that he (PAD) didn’t “get the appeal” of the current storytelling in Hulk is not complaining about it. Nothing was insulting, unless someone has a really thin skin and can’t take anything critical said about them.
But Shoeshine boy, I’m curious. Do you think that Jim Lee should have been banished from working for DC after being part of the formation of Image? Or Leifeld from Marvel? Or Larson from either? I seem to remember lots of bad statements coming from Image in those early days about both companies.
Shoeshine boy?
ANyhow – it appears that no gets it.
I NEVER said someone should be banished.
It’s not 2 plus 2 equals 4.
It’s about saying something insulting (like the snail comment) and it ruffling the feathers of the company – which it obviously did.
I just said when you do A then it likely that B will follow.
If you do A enough than you may have more problems.
Nothing I said was disproved – in fact it’s PROVEN though the whole Wizard thing.
But I NEVER said PAD should be banished.
You guys are totally distorting a simple observation:
If you are negativey critiquing the company you do work for (W2 employee or 1099 freelance – no difference) you WILL ruffle feathers.
So when doing this you should do it with subtelty and not be over the top out of consideration.
The snail comment was obnoxious and obnviously ruffled feathers.
Because someone makes this observation doesn’t mean you hold me responsible for censroship or try and prove me wrong becasue PAD wasn’t publically put in the stock and subject to rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at him.
If you are ballsy enough to say a fellow writer has snails doing windspritns around his pacing and then compare sales of your one shot to his regular series and so on and so forth – DON’T be surprised when the editor makes his “all too vocal” comment.
Don’t act all innocent – I was just intellectually wondering.
Yes, you may have been – yet you also threw in jokes at Jones’ expense.
That’s fine – that’s not a crime, but DON’T be surprised if someone comes back and appears to be annoyed.
Liek PAD himself said – Stan Lee never said anything – but maybe he was too much of a gentlemen.
ANd so therefore maybe PAD is not ENOUGH of a gentlemen and needs to put barbs into his critiques.
And many of you are so literal minded and rabid fanboys that you take this as an assault on the first amendment.
its not.
In fact I was guilty of stating the obvious that any lowbrow could’ve done.
If you poo where you eat, eventually dinner won’t smell so good.
It’s simple and it happened.
The banishment issues are not for me to decide, nor do I think the comments warrant such.
But they certainly weren’t as mild as PAD and some of the rabid lapdog fanboys would like to believe or elses Alonso wouldn’t have said what he said.
I think underdog4 has a bit of a point but I do tend to see it a little differently u-dog4 does.
I think that writing an opinion of someone’s work on your own Blog is fine, even if it is worded in an inflammatory way.
There could be a better way to word the same opinion but we don’t always do things the best way possible, all of the time.
Now if Bruce Jone’s wanted to respond in an inflammatory way that PAD’s opinion was horse-šhìŧ on Mr. Jone’s own Blog then that is perfectly fair to me.
If I understand it correctly, Bruce Johnes hasn’t commented/responded at all, so he is not really the issue here.
However, the current Hulk editor, Mr. Alonso took his response to a much more public forum (i.e. Wizard Magazine) so it seems to me that he should be more heavilly critisized by u-dog4 for making this whole affair far more available for public consumption.
If PAD had first expressed his opinion to Wizard I think that would have been a far more publicly known forum and therefore a more controversial move.
Mr. Alonso, to my way of thinking should have responded in a Blog of his own (or something similar)and then I would have considered everything to be even.
I think that the “toeing the company line” mentality is stupid and allows others to receive accolades for work they had very little influence over or direct input into.
Constructive criticism should always be allowed and welcomed and if the critic makes his
view(s) public then he should have a “let the chips fall where they may” attitude towards any possible fallout.
Something I think PAD does have, so to me this whole incident has mostly evened-out and is not something of great importantance.
Just a request of “Underdog4”:
Please avoid the temptation to hit “enter” after every sentence.
It gets incredibly annoying.
Each post winds up running six to twelve inches (or more) of column space.
And all you’ve done is to post a series of sentences.
About my previous post–I had intended to preview it before posting (of course, that didn’t work out). It seems “Underdog4” doesn’t simply hit “enter” after a sentence, but hits “enter” twice.
My prior post had been intended to be a bit satirical (which it could have been by previewing before posting) though the message was heartfelt. Please avoid the need to enter after every sentence.
Thank you.
Underdog:
Shoeshine Boy is Underdog’s secret identity.
Jago
Underdog4 wrote: “The snail comment was obnoxious and obnviously [sic] ruffled feathers.”
Was there more to this article than PAD is saying? I’ve refused to even flip through a Wizard magazine since they declared their ‘Mort of the Millenium’ a few years ago, so I’ve not read it myself.
As I’ve said, mentioning that the plot moves at a “snail’s pace” doesn’t seem like such a horrible offense to me, and likewise, the “all too vocal” comment doesn’t provide evidence of ruffled feathers to me, either. Seemed like ‘mild annoyance’ at worst.
That said, neither PAD nor anyone else should have reason to pull their punches on giving a personal opinion about a product that has been released to the public. If I worked at Microsoft, I should feel free to say “After trying Linux, I don’t think Windows is my cup of tea.” There’s nothing personal in it.
Now, if I were to say “Windows sucks because Jim Smith, one of the programmers, is a big jerk,” that’s a bit different. But the point that Underdog4 seems to be missing is that PAD didn’t comment on the person in question, he said, as a comic reader, he didn’t enjoy Jones’ Hulk.
Which is not only within his rights, he should have no fear of any kind of retribution for making known his opinions on a product that has already been released* and was produced by a company that sometimes helps to pay his bills.
*Now, if he were to tell us that he thought that an upcoming series was bad, I could see why they’d have an issue with that, too.
Underdog4: If I WAS a certain editor…or if I WAS a certain writier…than the view I have written here would be judged and filtered through that lens. Well, it’s obvious that you’re not a professional writer, because your spelling is not up to professional standards. That, and professional writers usually temper the urge to punctuate every sentence with (i.e. SNAIL!!).
So to question who I am BEGS the question of WHY did PAD write it. No, it doesn’t; neither has anything to do with the other. PAD said that he doesn’t understand the success of Jones’ run. His criticisms of Jones’ work were hardly “run downs,” as you call it– he never attacked Jones personally, or even criticized his work beyond the relatively benign “snail’s pace” comment. I don’t see how you can maintain his remarks were unprofessional. Did anyone else in the profession say, “wow, PAD was unprofessional in saying that”? Does the comics industry even have a set standard defining what is and isn’t ‘professional’? Given the many personal and company feuds I’ve seen in the comic industry, I don’t think there’s anyone innocent enough to throw stones.
Don’t start in with the mark Twain writings etc… Okay, so a classic example of one literary giant criticizing another is given to refute your claim that “other professional peers usually stay away from criticisng others work,” and that’s somehow totally irrelevant?
YES – writers critique other writers – looking at this unique industry called comic books – all that is being said is that it wasn’t a good idea. Have you been to a fan site lately? Have you ever witnessed the amount of bile and vitriol generated by hardcore fans when somebody misuses one of their sacred cows? The fans of “this unique industry” have a well-known (if oft misrepresented, exaggerated or parodied) reputation for going into screaming fits over minutiae at the drop of a hat. How is what PAD wrote any worse than the screaming fit of a rabid fan? By your standards, how unprofessional was it for Axel Alonso to state in a nationally-circulated publication that PAD was being “all too vocal” about Jones’ Hulk run (leaving aside for a moment the fact that the sole “vocal” comment at issue seems to be one entry on PAD’s personal and relatively-obscure-compared-to-Wizard blog)? What about the other comments Alonso made in that interview which some are taking as overly critical, like the aforementioned Brevort thing? By the standards of criticism you espouse, then Alonso carries as much blame as PAD… why, then, are you so intent on labeling PAD as the ‘unprofessional’ one? To my eyes (and the eyes of just about everyone else who’s sounded off on the subject), both sides leveled at worst mild criticisms toward the other.
The comment about my not understanding the artistic field and my views on the New York Times authors is rather odd. So is saying that people who don’t agree with you are doing so because they’re “illogical.” That in mind, can you see how people might come to the conclusion that your understanding of how criticism should work just might be a little skewed?
I was saying those that are disagreeing with me are not being logical when they compare workplace peer reviews etc… Well, what would you have us compare it to? First you make the argument that professionals working for the same company shouldn’t criticize each other, but then you turn around and say it’s illogical to compare necessary and commonplace workplace peer reviews to a comic writer criticizing a fellow comic writer. You say that writers shouldn’t and don’t criticize their peer writers, but when necessary and commonplace examples of such are introduced, you go ‘of course they can and should criticize each other, but that’s not what I’m talking about.’ Well, what are you talking about? Are you dizzy from all the hasty retractions you’re making?
I think PAD stepped on toes and if you don’t believe that you’re naive. And if you think that a sole negative comment as innocuous as the “snail’s pace” thing is stepping on toes, well, I hope you’re wearing really thick sneakers, because you’re going to live a life of taking constant inadvertent offense from others with such a low threshold for criticism.
Strict continuity is the lifeblood of the pseudo-intellectual elitist comib book nerd. It’s taht simple. Ouch. Your criticism of me as a strict-continuitist struck me as unduly harsh, and I demand you retract your criticism and apologize. How do you expect to make any friends among your peers in the fandom community if you step on people’s toes like that?
Bottom line: Neither PAD’s ‘snail’s pace’ comment nor Alonso’s ‘all too vocal’ comment were anything other than mildly critical at the very worst, let alone completely out of line. I don’t understand Underdog4’s insistence on making this an issue, especially when the vast majority of responders to his argument have laid down their thoughts in a coherent and consistent manner; those thoughts boiling down to the whole ‘PAD said/Alonso said’ shebang being a molehill and not a mountain. Heck, PAD himself said up front he’s got no ill-will toward the guy!
As a writer whose work on the Hulk is often remembered in the same breath with the character’s creators, and whose run on the Hulk is considered some of the character’s best works, I would imagine PAD gets asked his opinions of all things Hulk-related a lot. That has to be frustrating for him, because anything he says has the potential of being misconstrued as a condemnation, and when a mildly critical remark is made, well, we all can see where this gets him.
Is it not ironic that his attempt to defuse the situation results in a vocal minority taking PAD to task for being “egocentric” enough to voice his opinion in the first place?
tOjb
um – peer reviews where the purpose is to REVIEW your PEERS is a little different from one writer at a company throwing out a barb at another on a sacred cow they both worked on.
if you can’t see that – then you are the one who’s ‘dizzy’.
COmparing what PAD did to what a run of the mill rabid fanboy does on the net is exactly my point. . . PAD should be a little above that.
And for everyone’s blind devotion to PAD – well PAD proved my point when he said, and I’m paraphrasing – that if STAN LEE didn’t have a problem with his HULK he was a gentleman enough to keep it to himself. – well that’s exaclty what PAD did NOT do.
Construcive critique is a MUST – I just thought that PAD’s comments – given who he is – COULD be construed as petty, jealous, arragont and/or obnxoious – and guess what? To at lest the HULK editor – it appears as though they did.
That’s all I ever said – yet everyone tries to make this a point that I think NOONE should EVER criticize ANYONE ELSE.
Never said that.
Just given PAD’s position with the character it might’ve been better to not say anything negative and be the gentleman than STan Lee might have been with him.
3) Axel Alonso is right when he says that the people who prefer the Marvel Knights style of book, don’t care about stuff like continutiy. In my case, I can definitely say that he’s right. While I might have obsessed over nonsense like that when I was younger, these days all I care about is getting a good story, that doesn’t force me to buy any other books to understand it.
In the early 90s when I got back into comics, I found myself attracted to the pre-Vertigo line for much the same reason. At the time, DC had a reasonably tight continuity (which I enjoyed), but I loved that there were these little books on the side which had absolutely nothing to do with the latest mega-cross-over event happening in the main DCU. And if you could survive Grant Morrison’s ANIMAL MAN with your continuity gene intact, then you’re a better man than I… there’s simply no way to reconsile that story with A-Man’s appearances in JLE.
There’s long been an element of reverse-snobbery in comic fandom that finds these escapes from rigid continuity an affront to their sensibilities, and, oddly enough, it’s usually this attitude that leads to things like CRISIS, not the continuity glitches themselves. The notion that all these stories *must* be explained, or else the whole continium will fall apart. Despite the simple fact that it doesn’t… unless continuity is harped on until even the most casual of readers can no longer accept the status quo (HAWKWORLD).
Unfortunately it works the other way around too. Books that everyone raves about like Gotham Central or Sleeper are bought by almost no one.
If the Internet was the decided factor, then UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN would be the best selling title of all-time 🙂
But, really, Gotham Central and Sleeper are those sorts of books that should, theoretically, appeal to both super-hero fans and Vertigo fans… but somehow seems to appeal to neither.
For me, I like such hybrid mixes *if* they use the super-hero element to good affect. Take TOP TEN, which is also a gritty crime drama with super-powers, which makes liberal use of super-powers. Instead of The Joker with a sniper rifle (critiqing the idea, not the story which I haven’t read), it’s giant Japanese monsters passing out drunk. One’s mad and absurd and could happen no place other than comics, the other sounds like a Law & Order episode.
**And by the way, most of my “criticisms” centered on amazement that Bruce has been able to foster this kind of dedication by not having the Hulk in the book for month after month…something that, had I done it, would have (I suspect) caused sales to plummet like a stone. So my angle is more to understand the appeal–and hey, possibly learn from it–than anything else.
PAD **
I think it was because you wrote the comic in a vastly different time, and it sold to a different audience. In the late 80’s, early 90’s, comics still had a casual audience, but it was mixed in with a hard core super-hero only audience. Think about how people were so shocked that you changed the status quo of the comic every few years, and wrote “When will you go back to the REAL Hulk?” because that’s what comics did. They would shake things up and then everything would go back to normal with an issue ending in 2 zeros.
Trade paperbacks were rare, and trades from mainline superhero books pretty much unheard of. Alan Moore was still writing “Swamp Thing” and then left comics for the most part after Watchmen. Art that didn’t tell stories but instead could sell for big bucks a page was big because artists were “hot”. People actually INVESTED in comics.
All of those things are gone now. Comic writing is far more sophisticated and geared toward an audience used to story arcs instead of never-ending soap operas. The casual reader is completely gone. The poster style art, with rare exceptions, doesn’t sell.
So, when you take all of that into consideration, Bruce Jones’s work on the Hulk can work because people don’t expect a single issue to be a single issue, but a chapter in a larger story. Jones also (in his early stories) used the Hulk the same way a good horror movie uses its monster, rarely and for effect. I think he’s run out of gas on the book and needs a new approach, but in a way, he took Hulk back to the “Frankenstein” roots. Then again, it also means that you can do a story that arcs over 20+ issues (Captain Marvel) because it’s a chapter in a novel and not a short story.
So, what I learn from it as a writer is that you can now use novel techniques in comics, and the “slow build” style if you win over the reader and let them know the story is going somewhere. You don’t HAVE to have to show your hand every issue, but can build for 5 issues as long as the sixth delivers.
I can say there are lobotomized Pelicans who are less annoying than some of the poster here – yet just because someone might find that coin of a phrase witty doesn’t instantly strip it off its obnoxious content.
Stop being so hard on yourself, Underdog.
I think it was because you wrote the comic in a vastly different time, and it sold to a different audience. In the late 80’s, early 90’s, comics still had a casual audience, but it was mixed in with a hard core super-hero only audience. Think about how people were so shocked that you changed the status quo of the comic every few years, and wrote “When will you go back to the REAL Hulk?” because that’s what comics did. They would shake things up and then everything would go back to normal with an issue ending in 2 zeros.
I think Cory Strode is on to something here. There was a long period where comics tended to be structurally like “Simpsons” episodes– you’d write whatever dramatic twist you needed into the individual comic but by the end of the story the comic universe would snap back into its original configuration like an elastic band. The benefit of having a series devoid of consequences was that it made the continuity issue fairly easy to handle.
I do think continuity is important. I’m not a fanboy by any stretch of the imagination– I haven’t regularly collected comic books in several years, primarily because I spend the entire decade of the 90s in school and I was at risk of going bankrupt if I wanted to keep track of what was going on with all of the X-crossovers and Bat-crossovers. SInce continuity nightmares kept me running screaming away from the comics industry I might be an odd champion of continuity, but even for a casual fan it’s important. Continuity is like plumbing; it should be there as part of the structure even if you don’t feel a need to use it.
The important trait of continuity is the one PAD referred to in his critique of the Absorbing Man treatment. The very premise of comic book universes is that it’s a shared world. For that world to have any feel of reality enough for the reader to suspend disbelief, then it must act like a real world. Absent some trauma or life-changing experience (or bipolar disorder or MPD if it exists) characters and personalities tend to be relatively stable over time. By all means have character development, but make it a coherent and logical development. I can believe this is a bìŧçh of a problem for comics writers faced with established characters, who are stuck with 400 issues of back history and consumers who have been reading the series for years and have a reasonable expectation that their emotional investemnt in following that series won’t be abused. I firmly believe that when a writer takes over creative control of an existing character or series, he has an obligation not to disregard what came before him. Underdog is right– a writer under my theory might be chained to a history that dates back to Stan Lee. My point is that nobody’s being compelled to write an existing character, and that agreeing to show respect for that legacy is a reasonable precondition to being handed the keys to a cultural icon.
Change is a part of life and it should be a part of fiction. But when change exists for change’s sake or because a writer is unwilling to honor the characters he’s inherited, we have a term for that: soap opera. If you want to take a series in a different direction, be a man about it. Create a new series where there’s no back story hobbling you. Do something unexpected but believeable with the series, like Marz did with Green Lantern a few years ago. Hal Jordan’s move toward fascism was completely believable and allowed the comic to move in radically different directions with the Kyle character, and it was perfectly consistent with existing continuity. That’s the right way to do it. Whatever Jones is doing may or may not be. (Here we get into Hulk-specific issues about which I know little.)
Construcive critique is a MUST
Unfortunately, you haven’t figured out the difference between constructive criticisms and negative criticisms.
Yes I have – my opinion is that it was NEGATIVE more than CONSTRUCTIVE