Since this has nothing to do with Chris Reeve and heroism, I’m mentioning it here, just for amusement’s sake.
It was suggested by people here, and by John Byrne himself, that I didn’t have the nerve to show up on the Byrne board to make statements directly to him. I’ve already explained my reasons why I wouldn’t but, just for giggles, I endeavored to register on his board.
This is what I got:
“Sorry, the email address or domain entered has been blocked.
Unfortunately, you will not be able to sign up using Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL, Compuserve or any other anonymous e-mail providers.
Due to past abuses we cannot make any exceptions. Please try again with a non-anonymous e-mail address.”
So even though “padguy@aol.com” is widely publicized and known to be me, and is not remotely anonymous, what I would have to do is start an entire separate e-mail account for the single and sole purpose of going on the Byrne board so that he and his fans could then tell me repeatedly to go away.
Oh yes. That’s gonna happen.
PAD
• 
I’ve never heard Byrne making such a comment about PAD’s Ultimate Spider-Man story in any of the Chapter One discussions. He may or may not have said such a thing, but certainly not repeatedly.
While it is obviously Byrne’s “right” to delete criticism on his own board, I feel that not only is it censorship of a sort, but it is also counterproductive.
Whether it is Byrne, PAD or anyone, feedback from thoughtful fans can be a help, I believe. While writers cannot be a slave to fans who usually want the status quo, constructive feedback can be useful.
For Byrne to not allow for criticism of his work or opinions just reinforces my intention to no longer support anything he writes or draws.
For those who feel I should separate the person from his work, well, I do. And frankly, his work has been mediocre at best for over a decade now. So why support it, when there are other old favorites like PAD, Fabian Nicieza and countless others whose work I can support, as well as superlative work by JMS, Joss Whedon and unappreciated talents like Brian Vaughn that I can enjoy?
I have yet to read “Next Men”, but considering the vast amount of material I can enjoy by people who don’t come off as jáçkáššëš (I still have yet to read “Watchmen”, for example) and whose work enterytains me greatly, I am pretty confident I can live without it.
I’m so glad I’m not a member of the John Byrne Cult.
Jerome, I’ve seen well-expressed criticism of Byrne’s work posted on his board sometimes, without deletion or “reprisal”. Every so often a new participant posts something along the lines of “you sux, old man”, and of course that sort of stuff gets deleted. There dozens and dozens of boards where people can make non-constructive criticism of John Byrne; why go to his board?
Why isn’t anybody asking Byrne why PAD cant enter his board? Just curious…
Personally I’m not looking forward to such a thing. “PAD defends the memory of Christopher Reeve from the vile John Byrne” – how could PAD lose?
I’m just wondering if being raised in Calgary, and becoming a comicbook artist somehow transforms someone into an egomaniac?
“There dozens and dozens of boards where people can make non-constructive criticism of John Byrne; why go to his board?”
There it is, right there. The sentiment I’ve encountered in all the times that I *have* participated in a Byrne board. Because it is a very short hop, in the minds of Byrnebot, from “non-constructive” criticism (i.e., outright insults) to any criticism. And during my time on Byrne boards, if I voiced any criticism, or anything that could be twisted into criticism, or anything that could be seen as flattery that was actually cloaking criticism (because, y’know, I’m just that devious) what I got hit with repeatedly was “why go to his board?”
To which the only response, as far as I’m concerned, is “Why indeed?” Because John Byrne snidely commented that I would never do so because I’d be held to some sort of imaginary rigorous standard? Been there, done that. He feels he’s being ill-used? Let him come here. Why go here? Because we’re like Rick’s Cafe American. Sooner or later, everybody comes here.
PAD
If the criticism is worthwhile and important, then it shouldn’t matter how us “Byrnebots” react. What does matter is whether the message is censored by Byrne or his moderators, which seems to me occurs only in the rudest, most inflammatory cases.
For one, the person initially posting the thread isn’t familiar with “fair use” exception to U.S. copyrite law. One can reprint text for the purpose of commentary along with several other reasons as long as it doesn’t hurt the commercial value of the material. Copying an opinion expressed on a free message board doesn’t fit the bill of copyrite infringement.
Also, that is not the most professional board in the world. Byrne does insult quite blatantly including referring to posters who disagree with him as “stupid.” Tom Smith himself was treated very ugly by Byrne despite Tom remaining very polite to Byrne before and after. He’s publically expressed the opinion that Hispanic women who dye their hair blond look like høøkërš. Byrne occasionally puts down Joe Quesada. It’s his right to say all of these things, but I don’t see how the posters on that thread can be so hypocritical by calling PAD unprofessional.
Tom Smith was posting samples of his work, asking Byrne to include him in a future project. The board has a rule restricting self promotional material in the main body of a message. Byrne deleted Smith’s posts.
*Why isn’t anybody asking Byrne why PAD cant enter his board? Just curious…*
Because the answer is self evident. PAD is just going to have jump through the same hoops the rest of us who have anonymous emails had to jump through in order to register on the board–contacting the site administrator for help. PAD has noted he isn’t really interested in getting on the board to debate, he just wanted to see if he, in fact, could register. When he found he’d have to do more than simply type in his info, he decided it wasn’t worth the effort (which is fine).
To conclude from that that PAD is somehow locked out of the Byrne Forum is because he is PAD is erroneus.
“If the criticism is worthwhile and important, then it shouldn’t matter how us “Byrnebots” react.”
Of course it matters.
I don’t post things merely to hear myself spout off. I post things to make people think, to consider things they might not have. And,when it comes to the Byrne board, to clarify the lies he routinely spouts about me.
If the response I get is, “Shut up, go away, we’re not listening, la la la,” what’s the point? Hope that I’m influencing lurkers who are afraid to post anything supportive of me because they’ll get the same treatment. Sorry. There just HAVE to be better uses of my time.
PAD
“To conclude from that that PAD is somehow locked out of the Byrne Forum is because he is PAD is erroneus.”
Just for the record, before this morphs in the retelling to “Peter David believes he was singled out for exclusion, what an idiot,” let me point out that *I* never took it personally. I just thought it was amusing that John made snide comments about me not being there, and when I tried to go there, I was faced with a system that required hoop jumping I just wasn’t interested in participating in.
PAD
It would matter how us Byrnebots react IF we were the sole audience on the Byrne message board. But we are not. The number of lurkers and casual readers likely far outnumber us regulars. Also, material on that board gets spread far and wide through all the boards and columns. Mr. David’s exchanges with Byrne would certainly not fall on deaf ears.
“That comment only came after you decided to comment on his comments about”[snip]
Does it matter what the comments were about? And really… so what? This reminds me of an incident way back in high school when, while sitting around with some friends and discussing the events of the day that I said “I thought XXX’s comments to our guest speaker in that Q&A session were pretty harsh.”
XXX apparently heard me while passing by, was irate, later “confronted” me with “Do you have something you want to say to me?” to which I said “Uhhhhh I don’t THINK so. Should I?” And was regaled with how I was Talking About Her, etc.
The point of this story being that apparently there are a number of high school girls and other older folk who feel that any examination, discussion and analysis of their actions – even if they engage in them in front of you and a few dozen others – is somehow inappropreate.
I, on the other hand, think that maybe if you can’t stand to have people react to the things you say perhaps you should just shut the hëll up.
“Tom Smith was posting samples of his work, asking Byrne to include him in a future project. The board has a rule restricting self promotional material in the main body of a message. Byrne deleted Smith’s posts.”
And instead of Byrne kindly asking him not to do so, Byrne simply kept deleting the posts and eventually called Smith rude and or discourteous and when Smith gave what appeared to be a heartfelt, detailed, apology for not reading the rules and included much praise for Byrne, Smith got no response.
Yes, as perhaps Mr. David discovered early in his career as a staffer at Marvel, Byrne is a no-nonsense sort of guy.
Being no-nonsense doesn’t mean being tactless. I lurk Byrne’s board often and he often refers to folk’s opinions as dumb, makes statements such as “I know that you’re not that stupid” etc.
I couldn’t care less how he talks to people, but the thread in question is filled with folks calling PAD unprofessional. PAD’s not calling folks ugly names here. He’s relaxed in his conversation but not insulting. If you were posting to Mr. Byrne such criticism as you are posting to PAD now, Mr. Byrne would probably be personally ridiculing you despite the fact that you are debating the issue in a respectful manner.
There are several things that will guarantee you some degree of ire from Byrne. Some of which are:
-A condescending attidute toward the superhero genre.
-Telling him in absolute terms his “old stuff was better.”
-Behaving as is you were for some reason above the rules the rest of us abide. Issues of intelluctual property (piracy) have been pretty important to him. Message board rules too.
Arguing against his political views will not get you a rebuke from him. You can see that in the “And the Winner Is” thread on his board right now.
Quite frankly I can care less how pros treat or what they think about a fan like me. There’s no profit in a “personal relatonship” some fans try to cultivate. It’s their work I enjoy, appreciate and try to advocate.
Okay,
I really don’t like everything I read here and I don’t make a lot of comments, but I do respect PAD for speaking his mind and not being afraid of what we say. I like PAD’s work and shall continue to be a fan, but I don’t share his political views. He has opened this board to interact with fans and I think that is just great and btw, beats the heck out of someone that trys to controll everything on the board.
-Behaving as if you were for some reason above the rules the rest of us abide. Issues of intelluctual property (piracy) have been pretty important to him. Message board rules too.
Oh give me a break. The very reason Byrne left his AOL message board was because he thought he was above the rules.
“Oh give me a break. The very reason Byrne left his AOL message board was because he thought he was above the rules.”
Come on, how can you just put that out there? I’m not a Byrne defender or robot or whatever you want to call it. Let the man defend himself. But come on, what do you have to back that up? How can you assume you know the man’s intentions? I don’t think we have to cite chapter and verse to back up every little thing we say here, but you’re claiming to be able to read the man’s mind otherwise. It’s just a cheap statement to make.
That makes perfect sense. “Now that fewer people can get in, there is more participation.”
It might be more accurate to say, “the controls have made the Byrne Forum a place of more comfort and less confrontation for those who are willing to conform to the positions to which they are expected to conform.” That expectation is certainly Mr. Byrne’s right on his own board, but please don’t offer that joint up as a freshly minted Renaissance of enlightened discussion simply because the JBF Powers That Be make it difficult for people to sign up and then don’t tolerate dissent after those newbies do. You’re talking about a board where Byrne himself started a thread telling his critics to do their worst in criticizing him for legitimate past missteps, then shut the discussion down and insulted its participants after it got out of control. Or, perhaps more appropriately, got out of HIS control.
-A condescending attidute toward the superhero genre.>
Do you consider saying, “The Shadow is dead” a statement that condescends toward the superhero genre? The guy who wrote that was offering it as a discussion of misused/atrophied intellectual property, and though he might have said it with a bit more substantiation, it wasn’t presented moronically and certainly did not warrant Byrne calling him an idiot. Not once, but twice, mind you. It was a point of discussion, and all Byrne needed to say in response was, “intellectual property never dies. The only thing the Shadow needs is to have the right creator come and wake it up again, just like I’m doing with Etrigan!” Nope. He had to call him an idiot and not address his point. Again I ask you, who was doing the condescending in that circumstance?
I’m glad you like the JBF, but for my purposes (and those of the other people I know who lurk there, it is only a source for train wreck entertainment value. He is a wellspring of appalling opinions, but it is worth sifting through that crapola for the occasional gem in which, say, Neal Adams comes to town and Byrne completely embarrasses himself via his inability to simply apologize for any offense Mr. Adams might have taken. For those who missed it, a synopsis:
John Byrne: Neal Adams gave some half assed pages to Palmer for inking back when they were doing X-Men.
Neal Adams: No, I didn’t. I’m kind of offended by the suggestion that I did. Besides, this is personal dirty laundry between Tom and me.
John Byrne: I love your work.
Neal Adams: You questioned my professionalism, and betrayed a confidence.
John Byrne: Yep. You sure are great.
Neal Adams: You’re ducking the issue.
John Byrne: Boy, those fans sure are trying to stir things up, aren’t they? Ðámņëd fans.
Barrett, I think you have some very good points. However your colorful synopsis of the Byrne/Neal Adams exchange is a gross misrepresentation.
By controlling the number of šhìŧ-stirrers the focus was taken away from confrontation, and more towards discussion and appreciation of Byrne’s work. That should hardly be a controversial matter as the clear agenda of the board is the promotion of Byrne’s work.
However your colorful synopsis of the Byrne/Neal Adams exchange is a gross misrepresentation.
We could debate “what happened” in the Adams/Byrne exchange all you’d like, but as I read it, it came down to one simple fact that is at the core of what this entire PAD discussion is about: the disagreement between the two went on far longer than it should have because Byrne was completely unwilling or unable to go down the route that just about any human being would take in such a situation and put it to bed with an apology. Not even an apology for wrongdoing, mind you, but an apology for Adams’ having taken offense to Byrne having told a story that Adams considered a private matter between him and Tom Palmer, particularly after it became clear that Adams was not misinformed about the content of that single anecdote. An apology for a transgression Adams perceived rather than an attempt to tell Adams he had misperceived it, when any rational person could tell he hadn’t. Byrne told the story, and Adams was very clearly unhappy that he had told the story. Period. All of the mishmosh about tying it into Adams’ Avengers issues and telling Adams he had it all wrong because he wasn’t familiar with JBF board shorthand for Byrne’s X-Men book did not alter the fact that Byrne told the story and Adams did not like it. Not at the beginning of the exchange, and not at the end. Read the exchange again and you will see Byrne trying to attribute the whole thing to a misunderstanding as he invokes his great respect for Adams, all the while completely missing the point of Adams’ replies; that it was a private matter, that Adams didn’t appreciate Byrne taking it public, and that Adams claimed it to be inaccurate in any case.
Long story interminable, with the exception that Byrne would never, ever address Neal Adams with the disrespect or outright dismissal with which he addresses lowly fans (or PAD, for that matter), that entire interplay got out of hand for one reason; because Byrne is unwilling in just about any circumstance you can name to admit that he was, in any way, shape or form, wrong. He neither discusses nor debates. He pronounces his wisdom for all the land, and woe unto he who is not on board, because, well, he will no longer be on THE board. Because he’ll be banned.
Not exactly the foundation of a progressive exchange of ideas, that.
When did this Byrne/Adams exchange take place? I never saw any of it. It must have occurred during one of the periods of time where I wasn’t bothering to look in.
PAD
Mr. Barrett, I repsect the amount of thought you are putting into this, but I think it’s important to show Mr. David’s readership the original thread where this all occurred:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1796
BTW, after all of this Mr. Adams continued to contribute to the discussions at Byrne Robotics, to the honor of all of us there:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1950&KW=neal+adams+writers+artists+
I think it’s important to show Mr. David’s readership the original thread where this all occurred
Couldn’t agree more. Thank you for posting the link, which I should have thought to do myself. I’m certainly not trying to misrepresent the Byrne/Adams throwdown, merely offering it as an example of Byrne operating on a substantially different wavelength than other people. Because he wasn’t about to cut things short by condescending to Adams and so had to either set things right or attempt to work around the debate, it became a very interesting study of what appears to be a pretty fundamental disconnect in Byrne’s thinking. It is particularly fascinating that even after Adams said to Byrne, “I am not missing my point to your quasi-quoting another person from a private conversation” (i.e. he continued to have a problem with what he originally had a problem with), Byrne continued to appear bewildered about exactly why there is an issue and could only see fit to wonder who instigated the whole affair. Not an apology of even the most technical variety (“I apologize if you perceived my posting as an inappropriate public airing of your personal business.”). Not an attempt to understand WHY Adams was expressing annoyance with the comments Byrne initially made.
My point was, and remains, that if one is going to Mr. Byrne’s board for lively debate about things related to his career, it isn’t likely to be with the site’s host and namesake, because he doesn’t process contrary points of view so very well.
Define “lively”.
If you want to see cage fights between Byrne and the troll-of-the-hour, his message board will certainly dissappoint you.
Define “contrarian”.
If Byrne says “I like blue”, there could be a guy who will say “red is better”. Asked why red is better, the person will say “because its better than blue”. That’s the sort of contrarian who outlives his welcome very quickly on the Byrne board.
One last go-round for me (i.e. the last word is yours), because I am starting to feel like an ongoing debate of John Byrne’s merits is misplaced in this forum.
Define “lively”.
In that context, it is meant to say that differing sides with differing points of view are welcome. As I have attempted to demonstrate by a couple of examples listed above (I can give you more off-board if you think they are an insufficient sample), it is very often the case that they are not. You may of course believe otherwise. I’m not looking to spoil the experience for you.
Define “contrarian”.
“Contrarian” has connotations (at least in financial markets) that the word I used, “contrary,” does not. “Contrarian” is a term that refers to someone who specifically makes choices because they are opposite prevailing wisdom, and so when put to use as a descriptive in a conversational setting, it implies purposeful antagonism. I didn’t make that case when I said “he doesn’t process contrary points of view so very well,” which makes the argument that Byrne is unwilling to hear the other side out, but does not insinuate that the other side took its position because it was opposite Byrne’s. There is a big, big difference.
I would rather you don’t put words in my mouth. I did not make attempts to read anyone’s mind, and instead cited specific examples of specific behaviors to make my point. You and I have different points of view, but that is no reason to forgo common courtesy.
To do so would make us no better than the animals of the forest.
Or John Byrne.
Well, Rod, I thank you for posting it, and I have to say, having read the entire thread now…
Barrett’s summation was exactly on the money.
John quoted a private conversation he had with Tom Palmer. Neal took offense, saying that the quote had been distorted and, by the way, where does John get off quoting private conversations that–in Neal’s opinion–show Neal in a poor light? Clearly Neal felt it was unfair to both Tom and to him.
A normal person in this instance apologizes, because John has no way of backing up anything he’s said and, yeah, Neal’s right, John shouldn’t be quoting Tom out of school. If he were citing an essay Tom had written, that’s one thing. A private conversation, which Neal says John’s mischaracterizing, is something else.
But John doesn’t apologize. He says no offense was intended, but doesn’t address any of Neal’s points. Neal points out that John didn’t address the points. John continues not to. John then blames fans for steering Neal to the website, presumably out of malice because they wanted Neal and John to argue, continues not to apologize to an increasingly bewildered Adams who clearly doesn’t understand why John doesn’t “get it,” and John shuts down the thread.
I mean, it’s all right there. Everything that people say they dislike about Byrne in one handy package. If I quoted a private conversation that John felt didn’t reflect well on his artwork, he and his Bots would be on me like–as Larry, Darryl and Darryl once said–scum on a pond. But John cannot, canNOT, see why what he did was out of line, cannot apologize for it even though a respected artist in the community says he was ill-used, and just stops people from talking about it any further.
There have been any number of times where I’ve said stuff meaning to be offensive, but there have also been times when I meant no offense. And when people have then misinterpreted what I said, I have apologized, sometimes profusely. And that’s with fans. John couldn’t bring himself to apologize for giving offense to one of the industry greats. I dunno. Maybe he felt that the fault lay with Neal for taking offense rather than with him, Byrne, for giving it. Either way…jeez.
PAD
Byrne may or may not have responded in a way to Mr. Adams that some would be feel socially correct. But I think its more than obvious from Byrne’s statements is that he *meant* absolutely no offense. If anything, Byrne has reminded people time and again Neal Adams tremendous influence in comics.
I personally have known a friend who could not bring himself to say “sorry” if he did not believe it was his fault for being late or misunderstanding a matter. It was somewhat irritating, but if and when my friend did say “sorry” for something, I knew it was truly sincere, and not just polite noises people usually make to grease their way through a less than honest life.
Oh, dear. Such a ripe service for returning. And here I said I was done weighing in on this topic. What to do?
Ah, hëll. Once more unto the brooch.
But I think its more than obvious from Byrne’s statements is that he *meant* absolutely no offense. If anything, Byrne has reminded people time and again Neal Adams tremendous influence in comics.
Part of anyone participating in a society is understanding that it is not all about him- or herself. Whether Byrne meant offense or not, he offended. His inability to address that fact did not mean that the other party’s feeling offended was invalid. Once Byrne said it, it was beyond his control whether Neal Adams thought it inappropriate. If Byrne chose to not apologize, that was certainly his right. But to attempt to brush it off as incomprehensible WHY Adams was displeased and cloud it in an avowal of love for Adams’ ouvre was indicative of either a disingenuous nature or serious social disconnect, because Adams made it pretty clear what his specific issue was. Byrne is certainly smart enough that he couldn’t have missed those allegations, which stuck out like sore thumbs. Either he was dodging (by avoiding mentioning the fact that he was accused of revealing private insider stuff inappropriately, Byrne could act as though he was ignorant that it was a significant component of the issue), or Byrne actually didn’t understand what the next to last paragraph of Adams’ initial note made pretty clear; that Adams was not happy having his dirty laundry spread around. Whichever was the case, it did not cast Byrne in a favorable light as a person with whom to have a forthright discussion.
What Byrne thinks of Neal Adams’ artistic skill or position in the industry was absolutely immaterial to the particular issue they had (after all, it is certainly possible to offend someone for whom one has high regard), and Byrne bringing up that longstanding admiration did not address the circumstance in which the two were then embroiled.
And that’s all I’m talking about. I’m not saying John Byrne is evil or bad at drawing Wonder Woman. I’m saying that he is a rotten person with whom to have a legitimate discussion if your views are at all dissimilar, because if you don’t have Neal Adams-caliber gravitas, he’ll call you an idiot and kick you off of his board. And even if you are Neal Adams, Byrne has demonstrated it is quite possible he won’t address your points of contention. If the JBF were solely about, to heist your term, “appreciation of Byrne’s work,” that would not be particularly disagreeable. Because the board is frequently off-topic, however, it makes for an inhospitable place for people who enjoy Byrne’s work but disagree with his points of view. In the end, it homogenizes discourse.
if and when my friend did say “sorry” for something, I knew it was truly sincere, and not just polite noises people usually make to grease their way through a less than honest life.
How very cynical.
Some people actually believe that apologizing for having offended, even if the offense was unintentional, is a courtesy that is worth offering, because it demonstrates empathy for another person’s position or circumstance and acknowledges that it is possible to wrong someone without actually trying to do so. If a relationship has value and blame for its faltering is a judgment call, you repair it as earnestly as you can, even if that means taking a measure of blame you do not believe you have coming.
That doesn’t mean the person apologizing is leading a “less than honest life.”
This is not the first time a known personality was unable to come debate on the Byrne forum. A few months back Mark Waid apparently encountered a similar problem.
Honestly I’d love to see a nice neutral ground for comic professionals to come together and discuss various points. No outside folks like us to intrude beyond a certain level. Might be fun to see the differing takes on various elements of life, comics and assorted strangeness.
Waid was deleted and banned for a (reportedly) extremely profane post directed at Byrne. My guess is that if Waid expressed himself civilly, they could have gotten a discussion over what Byrne said to have offended Waid so.
“you don’t have Neal Adams-caliber gravitas, he’ll call you an idiot and kick you off of his board”
Again, Barrett, that’s simply off the mark. There are plenty of people expressing views not shared by Byrne, and they are not chastised or banned for just that. It’s the obnoxious way some express themselves that get them in trouble with Byrne.
One other thing you might want to consider. On the new Byrne forum there are over 56,000 posts from arouund 1000 registered members. That’s a lot of discussion for a site that is only a few months old. Such success could only be possible on a site which allows freedom of expression, while preventing people from abusing that freedom.
There are plenty of people expressing views not shared by Byrne, and they are not chastised or banned for just that. It’s the obnoxious way some express themselves that get them in trouble with Byrne.
Please reconcile your statement with my point above about the gentleman who said, “The Shadow is dead.” He was chastised (on two separate occasions, so no point in arguing it was a one-time bad mood thing, because the story was the same long after cooler heads should have prevailed) for expressing a viewpoint different than Byrne’s, despite the fact that he attempted to make a point he thought legitimate and did so in a way that was not antagonistic toward anyone.
My assertions are all based on things that happened and can be documented, and I stand by them. If you’re going to suggest I am off the mark, you might first want to debunk the things I have cited incorrectly or misinterpreted.
Such success could only be possible on a site which allows freedom of expression, while preventing people from abusing that freedom.
Is this where I’m supposed to mention the documented cases of Byrne retroactively altering threads and deleting posts to make himself look better? Beyond that, your definition of freedom of expression and mine are obviously very different.
I’ll make it easy. This time I’m sticking to what I said a few posts back, and ceasing my hijacking of PAD’s thread to debate a topic on which agreement between us is almost certainly not possible. I believe Byrne’s board to be founded on a rotten premise (that being, in my personal estimation, “my way or the highway, even as I reserve the right to lob grenades at someone who wouldn’t want to agree to those strictured terms in order to come here for legitimate discourse(i.e. PAD)”) and hosted by someone who has a severe case of disappeared self-awareness, and you think it is a great place to discuss the work of, and interact with, a true funnybook all-timer.
Let’s just say we’re both right and leave it at that.
Of course, if someone else wants to debate you, please don’t feel like you need me to do the act.
“One other thing you might want to consider. On the new Byrne forum there are over 56,000 posts from arouund 1000 registered members. That’s a lot of discussion for a site that is only a few months old. Such success could only be possible on a site which allows freedom of expression, while preventing people from abusing that freedom.”
Really? I’m curious as to what you base that opinion on. I mean, I happen to think another possible explanation is that a thousand people…which, considering the population of the internet isn’t all that large a number…each made fifty six posts over “a few months.” That would be…what? Four months? I don’t know, so I’m guessing. Four months, fourteen posts a month. That’s, what? One post every other day?
Not exactly blowing my socks off there, but hey, if you consider that some sort of proof of something, so be it. Now if it weren’t a hassle to become a member or John didn’t routinely shut down threads, it might be lots more, but to each his own.
PAD
Barrett, this is the original exchange:
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2693&KW=shadow+dead+idiot&PN=0&TPN=5
Bob Simko:
There were 325 Shadow novels written, and the characters are the same from the first one to the last, and with a very rare exception, you can read them all in any order you want and not lose a single beat.
Why is that bad?
—
Rob Hewitt:
And who cares about that character now????
—
Ronald Pegram:
Rob, walk up to any person 50 or older and say “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men…” then pause and watch them finish or not. Calculate the percentage of people whose eyes light up and say “The Shadow knows…” to your total asked.
Now, walk up to any person 20 or under and say “I’m just your friendly neighborhood…” and after listening to about 80% say “Milkman?”, “Mailman?” or just “Huh?”, ask yourself which character was more of a cross-over hit in its prime.
Point blank, the lack of recent success of the Shadow has to do with Conde-nast and the fact that his schtick was stolen by many, such as Bat-Man. The Shadow, at one time, was the MOST POPULAR genre character. My grandmother who couldn’t be bothered with guys like Spider-man LOVED the Shadow. Don’t sleep.
—
Rob Hewitt:
Exactly my point. The Shadow failed to change as a character to meet new generations, others came along who better represented what the new generations wanted in a character, and he has faded away. (Except for a mediorcre ALec Baldiwn movie and some old radio tapes). The SHadow is dead.
SPider-man, Spider-man- I guarantee most under 20 would say-Does whatever a Spider can.(despite it coming from a 60s cartoon) But whether or not true, the Shadow is dead. RIP aloing with the Lone Ranger, Flash Gordon, and Buck Rogers-others who failed to change with the times and the wants and needs of new generations
—
Matthew Hansel:
So, Rob, we should fundamentally alter these characters and turn them into things that they are not? Why not just create new characters that are more “hip” or more “cool” and let the other characters rest. Surely that shows more respect for characters that changing them into things they are NOT.
—
Matt Reed:
And how, exactly, would you change these characters to reflect the times and make them acceptable to a new generation? Wife beaters? Married with two children? Walking around speaking “hip” language that will become dated months after publication? Making them smart ášš teenagers?
These characters are not dead. These characters are waiting for the right people to come along and treat them with the respect they deserve. There are still millions of people who are fans of Sherlock Holmes, the Peanuts, Conan, the Wizard of Oz, Winnie The Pooh, Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny (just to name a very few who have been around for at least half a century) who have not changed one iota since the day they were introduced. Just because you find the characters you mention pass
Just looking at that, I think there’s plenty of free flowing discussion there. And Rob Hewitt, who was later chastised by Byrne, continues participate.
Rod –
I appreciate your going to the trouble of digging that up. I will admit it is right tempting to take a stab at your latest offering, but I said I’m done, and so I am. It is pretty clear you and I are talking about different things now in any case.
I will suggest, however, that you consider that my original point (and one I reiterated several times) had to do with Byrne’s mistreatment of posters, often without cause. I did not make any blanket assertions about the people in Byrne’s posting community. By posting a thread that demonstrates how other posters were willing to interact with the “Shadow is dead” guy, you have neither rebutted my assertion about Byrne nor shown why Byrne was justified in calling him an idiot. I don’t expect I will be swayed from my beliefs by a reminder of something I have already read and considered, particularly if it does not address my beliefs at all.
My sole regret in this entire debate is that I misspelled “oeuvre” in an earlier post.
Barrett, I don’t want to tie you down to a discussion you are no longer interested in. Just to point out though, “the Shadow is dead” hit a raw nerve with Byrne, a man passionate about comic book heroes to say the least. Imagine in a discussion here someone were to declare “the Hulk is spent” or “Fallen Angel is irrelevant”. That would certainly elict no good feelings.
“Oh give me a break. The very reason Byrne left his AOL message board was because he thought he was above the rules.”
Come on, how can you just put that out there? I’m not a Byrne defender or robot or whatever you want to call it. Let the man defend himself. But come on, what do you have to back that up? How can you assume you know the man’s intentions? I don’t think we have to cite chapter and verse to back up every little thing we say here, but you’re claiming to be able to read the man’s mind otherwise. It’s just a cheap statement to make.
Sorry, it is fact. I was one of the board hosts there and was told specifically to remove any of Byrne’s posts warning people about a certain online stalker. This stalker used multiple screen names and even passed himself off as a woman (allegedly) to people online. When Byrne was told that what he was doing could be considered member harassment, he pitched a fit. Instead of letting AOL staff handle the situation, or helping us to get this predator banned from the boards or possibly AOL itself, he threw a tantrum because his posts were removed. He then declared he was “abandoning the Byrne Ward to the filth” and left. He would not answer emails or even try to discuss the situation with AOL staff. We dared to remove his posts per community guidelines and he threw a tantrum and left. “Cheap statement” indeed.
From what I have heard second-hand, the matter was much more serious than that. Reportedly, the online stalker actually almost succeeded in luring a young female fan into meeting him in real life. Byrne was doing his utmost to protect the safety of his fans.
“Barrett, I don’t want to tie you down to a discussion you are no longer interested in. Just to point out though, “the Shadow is dead” hit a raw nerve with Byrne, a man passionate about comic book heroes to say the least. Imagine in a discussion here someone were to declare “the Hulk is spent” or “Fallen Angel is irrelevant”. That would certainly elict no good feelings.”
Well, that comparison would make a vague amount of sense if Byrne had actually created or written the Shadow. But since he didn’t…well, not so much, then.
On the other hand, I do appreciate your acknowledgement that such inflammatory statements can stir ill will. So when I point out that John Byrne claimed my being fired off Hulk was proof that there was a God, and when he dismissed “Fallen Angel” as being “a Buffy rip-off. Feh!” when he not only hadn’t read it, but the book hadn’t come out yet…well, those are pretty good ways of eliciting no good feelings, aren’t they. Yet he consistently refuses to claim responsibility for doing so. And I have to say, the gall required for John to BLAME THE FANS for Byrne having gotten himself into a contretemps with Neal Adams just sets a new bar for double dutching.
PAD
Sure, there has been a vendetta of words between the two creators. Which is why I personally do not take seriously what either man has to say about the other.
To clarify, though, Byrne takes just about any swipe at characters he feels important personally, whether they are his creations or past assignments or not. That’s just how important he feels comics is.
Peter,
Isn’t the enemy of my enemy my friend. Doesn’t Todd McFarlane hate the both of you?
Screw John & screw Todd, political ideology aside, you are THE man!
Joe