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 “pûššìëš,” resting on their “fat áššëš” 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 dámņëd 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 jáçkášš 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 hëll does ANYONE get off bìŧçh-šláppìņg 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
• 
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 bøøbš 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 pìššëd øff 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 bìŧçhìņg 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 fûçk 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?
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?
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-
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.
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.
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-
“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.
“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.
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 dìçk? 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!
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.”
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…
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!
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
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.
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.
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 šhìŧ 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.
“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.
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?
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.
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 “pûššìëš.”
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.
“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 šhìŧ 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.
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.
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 šhìŧ 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”.
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.
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).
“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.
“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.
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.
Guys, don’t get me wrong. Marvel and DC were/are bad but Image was the gold Standard for messing up.
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.
“Guys, don’t get me wrong. Marvel and DC were/are bad but Image was the gold Standard for messing up.”
Word.
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
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… “Fûçkëd 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)
“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
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.
>>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).
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.
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.
People are allowed to be stupid.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean we should encourage it, either.
“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.
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 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 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.
“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.
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.
“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.
“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. Hëll, 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.
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.
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 ášš”, 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…
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?