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
• 
And Erik’s column is called ‘One Fans Opinion’ so I see no reason to be shocked when he speaks as a fan. Especially when he’s always talked that way.
What Larsen talks like is an ášš. Doesn’t matter if he’s excused for what he says because he’s speaking as a fan. We’ve all seen how fans who spew ignorant and nasty opinions are treated — justifiably so, we all collectively shake our heads and a lot of people challenge (some at great length) these wrongheaded sentiments. LArsen should be treated no differently just because he’s a pro.
Also, Larsen is basically implying that work-for-hire comics crap by virtue of the way he so juvenilely insults work-for-hire-creators.
If he thinks these guys — and girls — are so “pathetic” and a bunch of “pûššìëš,” then he clearly doesn’t have that much respect for the books they work on. He completely rips on the Big Two, referring to their “corporate pìššìņg contest,” says that people who work for those companies are just “sucking on the corporate teat” and only “capable of painting by numbers,” plus a whole bunch of other vitriol.
I guess since these bunch of work-for-hire- “pûššìëš” haven’t created “jack šhìŧ,” they should just “break free of the shackles” and “show [Larsen] what they’ve got.” Then maybe they too can “live the dream.”
That said, I am curious as to what Larsen’s next column will be like. I’m sure it’ll be chock-full of apologies and good-tidings.
JAB
I don’t hate Larsen. I simply wish he’d get back to writing Savage Dragon. I haven;t seen a new issue in months. The most recent story was taking place during the presidential election.
Fred
Josh Bales: “What Larsen talks like is an ášš. Doesn’t matter if he’s excused for what he says because he’s speaking as a fan. We’ve all seen how fans who spew ignorant and nasty opinions are treated — justifiably so, we all collectively shake our heads and a lot of people challenge (some at great length) these wrongheaded sentiments. LArsen should be treated no differently just because he’s a pro.”
I agree completely! People should ignore those other fans too! 😉
Posted by Ralf Haring at October 5, 2005
People are allowed to be stupid.
“You’re supposed to be stupid, son. Don’t abuse the privilege.” (Warren Oates to Daniel Stern, “Blue Thunder”)
“I’ve already did an indepth response to Peter’s original post on a comicon thread. In short, when he does talk directly about Erik’s column he makes some faulty assumptions.
No big surprise, many of PADs fans following his post here are going by those same assumptions.”
Sorry, no. Read it before PAD posted about it and had just about the same reaction. Read it two or three times since as I’ve been posting on points Erik tried to raise.
Erik’s idea was most likely wanting to ask creators who have never done creator owned to give it a shot. Fine.
But Erik shot himself in the foot with his mouth. His point was lost in the insults slung at anybody who doesn’t do creator owned and by his rather faulty logic and poorly supported arguments.
His main “what have you got” point is blown apart just by the history of the medium. He points out a number of comic icons that were created back when (for work for hire) and acts a though nothing has been created since then at, for example, The Big Two.
There have been a number of major and minor creations made in the worlds of the work for hire books that do a pretty good job of showing what many creators have. Creators have created and left a legacy for others. They have given to the industry with new creations and concepts. Are they as big as, say, Batman or Superman? No. But that doesn’t support Erik’s point as there are dámņ few, if any, creations from the creator owned pool that are that big either.
Are creators “pûššìëš” for not doing creator owned works? No. I know many good writers (only a couple of pros though) who can’t draw stick figures worth spit. I know more then afew artists that are fantastic but can’t come up with a good story or can’t script to save their life. What’s wrong with these guys knowing what they can’t do and putting their efforts into something that they can be proud of and know that people will enjoy?
Explain why you think that a guy who has zero writing talent would be better served putting out a book with real purrtyy pictures but zero content story/script/plotwise. An artist owes his audience his best work if he wants you to plunk down your hard earned cash. How is he or she fulfilling that obligation better by putting out substandard work because they can rather then by working with a gifted writer on a book or character he/she enjoys and does well.
And spare me the “growth” argument. An artist can grow quite well as an artist without ever becoming a writer. More then a few outside the comics field do it all the time. Writing (badly) without the skill to do so just because you can get away with it doesn’t equal growth.
Explain how somebody who isn’t interested in being (or is just plain no good at being) a business man is better served by dealing with shipping issues, overhead, publishing concerns, etc then by dealing simply with the act of creating their art? Not everybody has a good head for business or wants the headaches that come with it. That’s not being a pussy. That’s focusing your efforts where you feel you can do your best and/or be your happiest.
Erik’s piece was filled with half thought out ideas, poor support for those ideas and petty bile to spit at those who don’t see the world as he does.
That’s not misunderstanding Erik’s open letter. That’s reading this piece after having read his many others and then calling a spade a spade. Erik’s 90% full of it and the 10% of him that isn’t is often flooded out of view by the way he chooses to convey his points.
Like I said once before….
His fault, not ours.
Sylv wrote:
“and the card game being Pyramid instead of poker, although if they’re using the same suites and numbering that’d be a turn-off to my nitpicky mind”
I’d have to go back and rewatch, but I’m pretty sure the markings on the cards are different. The names of the hands are definitely different.
“Someone pointed out the timeline on BSG may not be what the colonists think it is, that a lot less time than they think has gone by since their occupying of the planets. I think I’d like that as an explination, although I’d wonder how founding colonists (or whoever they originally were) were turned into gods so quickly.”
That was probably me. Don’t know how much stock should be put into what I say, given how far off my Lost hypotheses were last week. Still, for what it’s worth, in the original series (excluding Galactica 1980), the only clue to the actual timeframe occurred at the end of the last episode.
Starbuck’s been in a small observation dome, scanning space for possible signals from Earth. At the end, he hasn’t found anything, and Cassiopeia and/or Apollo convince him to come down and join whatever revels are going on, Starbuck leaves and just misses seeing the television transmission from the first U.S. moon landing. So at the very least, it took place after 1969, our time.
Sylv:
“Is there any religious strife or schisms within the community? It’s such an intruiging premise that I hope hasn’t been underused (Leviathans’ comments on the religion being window dressing have me worried, I do admit).”
There’s been some friction between Roslin and Adama, but really cool thing, I think, is the fact that it’s the Cylons who are monotheistic, the sincerity with which they seem to hold to their beliefs, and the way in which Six is working over Baltar from that perspective. Normally, you’d expect that it would be the evil bad guys who have the goofy, made up, mystical religion.
Den wrote:
“Much of their religion revolves around the number 12: 12 colonies, 12 Lords of Kobol, both of which are represented by the 12 symbols of the Zodiac (as seen from Earth, which gives credence that Earth is the true planet of origin).”
I hadn’t thought of that. Interesting, given the way the Zodiacal names are even integrated into the colonies’ names (Caprica, etc.)
And we also know, from Zarek, that Apollo is the name of one of the Lords.
I mean – why the hate?
Good question. Why did Larsen write his article in such a hateful manner?
It’s not a matter of misunderstanding whether he was talking to established creators or new ones, it’s that he presented his argument in such an obnoxious and insulting manner, that I don’t care.
I’ve been gone for a few days and fast forwarded to answer this comment by Mark Butcher(sp)-I’m not going to go back and look). But I would be GLAD to sell my extra Image stock at two for a buck. I’ve been having a hard time trying to sell any back issue Image comics and I have them at five for a buck.
Luigi Novi: “Okay. Please give me examples of lateness by Marvel or DC that is comparable to the lateness of Image’s books in their first years of operation.”
Here’s a list I culled from my preorders for the last year. I only list the publishers once. Each one is relevant until the next publisher is listed. All of the comics listed missed their solicitation month. Lord knows how many were late but were still published within the same month. That’s too much effort to track down. I barely order a fraction of the output of any publisher and yet it is readily apparent to me that lateness is not a problem that only afflicts any one publisher.
January 2005: Berlin #11 (D&Q), Samurai Executioner v4 (Dark Horse), Adam Strange #5 (DC), Superman #213, Seaguy tpb, Grimjack v1 (IDW), Battle Hymn #2 (Image), Invincible v4, Noble Causes #7, Rising Stars #24, Astonishing X-Men #9 (Marvel), Captain America #3, Iron Man #3, New Avengers #3, Planetes v4.2 (Tokypop)
February 2005: Conan v1 (Dark Horse), Katsuya Terada’s Monkey King v1, Spyboy: Final Exam tpb, Usagi Yojimbo v19, Adam Strange #6 (DC), Superman #214, Terra Obscura v2 #6, Stray Bullets v1 (El Capitan), Battle Hymn #3 (Image), Noble Causes #8, Wildguard tpb (shipped early!), What If tpb (Marvel)
March 2005: Hipira tpb (Dark Horse), Milkman Murders tpb, Samurai Executioner v5, Adam Strange #7 (DC), Superman #215, Battle Hymn #4 (Image, still hasn’t shipped), Noble Causes #9, Hero v1 (Speakeasy, still hasn’t shipped)
April 2005: Adam Strange #8 (DC), Jon Sable v1 (IDW), Battle Hymn #5 (Image, still hasn’t shipped), Noble Causes #10, Walking Dead v3, Captain America & Falcon #14 (Marvel), Powers v8
May 2005: Blade of the Immortal v14 (Dark Horse), Samurai Executioner v6 (still hasn’t shipped), The 49ers tpb (DC), Planetary #23, Noble Causes #11 (Image), Phantom Jack tpb (Speakeasy)
June 2003: Concrete v1 (Dark Horse), Ballad of Halo Jones tpb (DC), Noble Causes #12 (Image)
July 2005: Hip Flask: Mystery City (Active Images), Samurai Executioner v7 (Dark Horse, still hasn’t shipped), Stray Bullets v3 (El Capitan, still hasn’t shipped), Grimjack v3 (IDW), Hammer of the Gods v2 (Image, still hasn’t shipped), Noble Causes v4, Sea of Red v1, Young Avengers #6 (Marvel)
August 2005: BPRD: The Dead tpb (Dark Horse), Concrete v2 (still hasn’t shipped), Devil Chef tpb (hasn’t shipped yet), Expatriate tpb (Image, hasn’t shipped yet), Astonishing X-Men v2 (Marvel, hasn’t shipped yet), Young Avengers #7
September 2005 (all of these will neccessarily not have shipped yet): Chosen tpb (Dark Horse), Conan v2, Samurai Executioner v8, Samurai: Heaven & Earth tpb, A History of Violence (DC, shipped early!), Astro City: Dark Age #4, Grimjack: Killer Instinct tpb (IDW), Jon Sable v3, Invincible v5 (Image), Ring of Roses tpb, Saint Germaine v1, Young Avengers #8 (Marvel)
Again, Erik doesn’t say working on work for hire is bad, just *only* working on work for hire is bad.
And why the hëll should anybody give a dámņ what Larsen thinks?
Here’s a better idea: let writers & artists do what they enjoy.
If they enjoy working *only* on work for hire, then everybody else should fûçkìņg live with it.
Larsen should stick that in his pipe and smoke it.
Aside to Bill Mulligan. I agree with you-STARBRAND was enjoyable. I would go see a movie. Maybe with Tom Welling(sp-Smallville).
Forgot to address Leviathan’s sci fi definition yesterday, so I’m not quite done yet, sorry all. Scroll past if you’re bored.
Leviathan to me:
“Okay, I’m done with you.”
Glad to see my comments about tolerance and open-mindedness didn’t fall on deaf ears.
Look, there’s no need to be rude. I was a little sarcastic in parts of my last response, sure, but I don’t think I went out of my way to insult you. (Apologies if I did.)
And the one tiny bit you did bother to respond to was actually written in utter sincerity – it takes much more than one single word mistakenly uttered over the course of 13 hours or so of a series to make me think that the creators are lazy, full of contempt, etc. Which means the smoking gun you were holding up isn’t so dámņìņg as you want it to be, for me at least. (If you had BG producer quotes similar to those from the V producers, then you might have something.)
Seriously, L, take a deep breath. If you’re ticked, sorry, not my intent. Just trying to point out why I think you’re wrong about some things.
So. Your SF definition and all that.
Leviathan:
“Those flaws are, quite simply, that it is transplanting stories that are perfectly workable as meanstream fiction into space, as if the mere presence of spaceships and robots makes it SF. It doesn’t.”
So it’s mainstream fiction you wish to set it in opposition to, not other sorts – westerns or fantasy or noir or Chinese swordplay or what have you. Why is that? What is it about mainstream fiction that is so antithetical to science fiction as to irrevocably contaminate it? (And just how much mainstream content is required to do so?)
If it’s not just mainstream that is the offender, and the presence of any stories workable in any other genre prevent it from being SF, then there’s very little “real” science fiction indeed. The possibilities of recasting sci fi stories as fantasy stories alone would wipe out a huge percentage of what most people would call science fiction.
Take this a step further. If such boundaries may be set for science fiction (if you can tell the story in another genre, it ain’t science fiction), shouldn’t they also be set for other genres as well?
But if that’s the case, we get all kinds of free-floating stories, books, films, that couldn’t be considered part of any genre – Seven Samurai, for example, can’t be a jidai-geki, because it can be done up as a western, but Magnificent Seven can’t be a western because it can be done up as a jidai-geki. Or a Pixar cartoon, with bugs and stuff, or a Roger Corman movie with spaceships and robots and aliens and starfields in the window.
It gets kind of silly, I think. (And if you would say that only science fiction is blessed/cursed with such a restriction, why is that the case?)
Leviathan:
“To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work.”
Just curious, where is your definition coming from? I’ve been poking around, looking for who came up with it, and haven’t found anyone so far. Especially the “utterly dependent” bit. And what do you mean by “utterly dependent”? Give an example. As someone else pointed out, B5 is out.
Also, what do you mean by “fictitious scientific elements”? Does this mean that real scientific elements can’t form the basis for a sci fi story? (Do some stories therefore retroactively cease to become sci fi at some point?)
Anyway, here’s a good bit from John Clute, Peter Nicholls and Brian Stableford, who at least know a bit about the genre: “There is really no good reason to expect that a workable definition of sf will ever be established. None has been, so far. In practice, there is much consensus about what sf looks like in its centre; it is only at the fringes that most of the fights take place. And it is still not possible to describe sf as a homogenous form of writing.”
That’s from around 1992, and maybe you’ve since cracked the case, so to speak, but I’m not convinced of that. (And though you’re perfectly entitled to your own definition, the fact that there is such disagreement on this matter hurts your next point.)
Leviathan:
“B: As it’s not SF, anybody who says, “It’s SF!” (With or without “good,” “great,” “magnificent,” etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it’s something it isn’t. Is there a better definition of “duped” than that?””
Well, you haven’t proved the first part (“it’s not SF”), so it’s not at all clear that people have been made to think that it’s something that it’s not, so the second part of your statement is out, so that’s not a very good definition of “duped” you’re offering. Sorry.
Contrariwise, if your definition is indeed the one true definition, which a lot of people apparently don’t hold to, to their detriment, then there’s a lot of people calling a lot of things science fiction when it’s not. (B5, for example.) In which case, there’s a whole lot of duping going on. In which case, why does BG, one case among many, tick you off so much?
Cheers,
Stew
“1. Erik was talking about “material” (ie good comics) when he was talking about characters.
He wasn’t saying work for hire comics are bad, nor was he insulting readers who enjoy them.”
Well, first he specifically cites stories ABOUT the characters (fill-in issues, the fate of Blue Beetle), so you’re wrong there. Second, he didn’t say literally the words “work for hire comics are bad.” He said people who are confining their activities to it are gutless, pûššìëš, and sucking at the corporate teat. So I would hardly call it flattering. And third, I don’t recall saying he insulted the readers, so that’s pretty much irrelevant.
“2. Erik’s column was addressed to established comic pro’s that only do work for hire books and have never done anything else. While Erik does have an established artist becoming writers bias, I don’t think they were the only people he was talking to. In fact I think there are about 10-15 pro’s he was talking about.”
And that is your Erik-preferential assumption, based upon nothing except your own belief, and contradicted by the text of the piece itself. To say nothing of the fact that even if he WERE talking to long-time pros, that doesn’t make it less insulting.
“That PAD and his fans misunderstood his column doesn’t tell me that Erik is a bad writer. It tells me that Peter misunderstood it and his fans and gone along with it.”
Ah. See, there’s the whole interpretive thing again. Your interpretation is that this board consists of nothing but lock-step fans who parrot my every opinion…which displays towering arrogance toward the posters here not to mention staggering ignorance of the many arguments that have run rampant across this board.
“I’ve already mentioned most people on other message boards understood it just fine.”
Really. “Most people.” Considering the sizable number of scathing comments I’ve seen about Larsen, I find that questionable at best. Of course, in the circular argument of your world, those people on other boards who concur with my view are doing so only because they have no capability of forming an opinion independent of mine.
PAD
MyTwoCents. Walt Simonson + Thor = Great. Simonson + X-Factor=not so much.
Y’know, I’ve been thinking on it for a couple of days, and the ONLY instances that really spring to mind where the story is ENTIRELY dependent upon the fictional scientific elements are pretty much any Trek episode where they’ve written themselves into a corner they can’t get out of without the deus ex machina of a last-minute transport.
-Rex Hondo-
Yeah, I’ve been trying to think of some to, but there’s always another way to go about the story without fictional scientific elements. Even something like “Nightfall.” The revised story might not be as good or as interesting, but that’s neither here nor there.
Plus, they apparently deliberately stuck something like that into the BG mini-series, as kind of a joke – when Apollo does the generator thingy to save Colonial One from the nuke attack. Moore says with bemusement in the commentary that it’s a lame joke about technobabble that no one realized was a joke.
Den wrote:
“Getting back to BSG, yes, there are episodes whose plots could be transferred to other genres, but the overall premise of the show is clearly SF: our own creations coming back to destroy us.”
Not that this is necessarily or uniquely SF either, but so far, one could also say the overall premise of the show was voiced in the first lines of dialogue in the mini:
Six: Are you alive?
Ambassador: Yes.
Six: Prove it.
Just for kicks, I went back to the Comicon.com thread and counted the number of people (including both myself and Jamie) who disagreed and agreed with Larson.
Number who disagreed with Larsen or thought he expressed himself badly: Seven.
Number who agreed with Larsen or had no problem with his phrasing: Five.
So, Jamie, when you said “most people” understood his intent and agreed with him…that claim is right up there with where you said Larsen was only talking to veteran creators.
PAD
Jamie wrote:
“And once more, he meant established freelancers.
To say unestablished freelancers should turn down a good gig on work for hire books and only do creator owned books is extremely silly. I have to question why somebody would just assume that’s what he meant – especailly when he never said it.”
I have to question why you assume he only meant established freelancers – especially when he never said it.
Or are your assumptions somehow superior to those of others?
Ever since reading the article, and all through the thread, there’s been a fault in Larsen’s logic on the tip of my brain that I just couldn’t put my finger on until now.
Where I think he missed the logic train is in assuming that just because the artists aren’t creating any new super heroes, they aren’t creating ANYTHING new.
Now, the artists that I know don’t restrict themselves to a single form of artistic expression. Heck, some of them do stuff they never intend to sell. They just do it for the joy of making art.
Now, I’m not familiar enough with Larsen to know for sure whether he’s so artistically limited that he ONLY does comics, there’s nothing saying that Artist X isn’t drawing comics to pay the bills while he pursues his love of abstract expressionism on his own time, after paying his rent.
-Rex Hondo-
“Y’know, I’ve been thinking on it for a couple of days, and the ONLY instances that really spring to mind where the story is ENTIRELY dependent upon the fictional scientific elements are pretty much any Trek episode where they’ve written themselves into a corner they can’t get out of without the deus ex machina of a last-minute transport.”
Rex, deus ex machina, as the language might suggest, is an ancient concept. It’s most apparant with something like a transporter rescue (“Scotty, now vould be a gud time”), or timely divine intervention from Zeus. But it also can be portrayed in the timely collapse of a weak floor, thus sparing our hero an untimely beheading. Or the sudden arrival of the cavalry. The mechanics may be different, given the “rules” of your story, but the effect is the same.
This is why I and I think others have an issue with Leviathan’s definition of what makes sci fi a distinctive genre. Purely traditional sci fi introduces an element of literal science fiction…transporters, space ships, etc. They are integral to the story, but the basic story elements are not dependant upon them. They can’t be. There isn’t a single story, sci fi or otherwise, that you can transplant the basic elements of into another genre. Sci fi is what it is because the rules of the story are different from what we expect from a modern setting. Instead of needing the have the cavalry ride over the hill to provide rescue for our heroes at the last moment, we can have them transported aboard the ship that we THOUGHT was crippled in scene 23. Except Scotty was able to get the warp drive on line in record time (again) and provide a surprise rescue. But the basic story is “surprise rescue.” The sci fi nature of the story allows us to provide that rescue in a different fashion, but that doesn’t change the basic elements.
“It tells me that Peter misunderstood it and his fans and gone along with it. I’ve already mentioned most people on other message boards understood it just fine.”
There’s a world of difference between not understanding something, and not agreeing with something. I understand Larson’s point just fine. I just don’t happen to agree with it at all.
And calling a blue sky red doesn’t make it red. Larson stopped being a fan a long time ago. Trying to couch his opinion as the same as “just a fan” because of the title of his column is like trying to convince me that a blue sky is red, just because you keep calling it red.
Leviathan: As it’s not SF, anybody who says, “It’s SF!” (With or without “good,” “great,” “magnificent,” etc, between the two words) has clearly been made to think that it’s something it isn’t. Is there a better definition of “duped” than that?
Luigi Novi: Yes. Those people are not “made” to think anything. They simply have a different aesthetic reaction to the show than you do, and to make such a harshly prejudicial value judgment about people based on the entertainment they like is arrogant and presumptuous.
The fact of the matter is science fiction is determined by its definition. Not by whether its elements “have” to be there. If it has those necessary elements, then it’s sci-fi. Your statement that it is not sci-fi if it doesn’t “have to have” that setting is false a personal opinion, and a value judgment, not a fact.
Jamie Coville: And Erik’s column is called ‘One Fans Opinion’ so I see no reason to be shocked when he speaks as a fan.
Luigi Novi: He is not just a fan. He’s a prominent creator in the industry, and the publisher of one of the largeset comic companies in the country, and therefore, that company’s public face.
Jamie Coville: I’ve already did an indepth response to Peter’s original post on a comicon thread.
Luigi Novi: Can you provide the url to that?
Jamie Coville: Again, Erik doesn’t say working on work for hire is bad, just *only* working on work for hire is bad.
Luigi Novi: And he is wrong, both for his judgmental attitude towards those who have no interest in creator-owned material, and the vitriolic and poorly-reasoned way he expressed it.
Ralf: Here’s a list I culled from my preorders for the last year…
Luigi Novi: Okay let’s see……Hmmmm…….so when I ask for company books most comparable to Image in their early years of operation the company whose late books are the most numerous on your list is………IMAGE!
Am I missing something here?
13 of the books you mentioned were DC, and of those, 3 were Wildstorm, which was originally an Image studio, and therefore its business practices descended from Image, leaving 10 books from DC’s core company.
11 of those books were Marvel.
But 21 of those books were Image! Far from disproving my point, you just proved it.
And putting aside the fact that some of the books you mentioned were trade paperbacks, were do not throw off a monthly schedule like a late issue of a monthly book, I asked you if other companies’ lateness was comparable to that of Image in its early years.
So how many late books did Image have in 1992 and 1993? You didn’t list figures for that.
I’m guessing it was more than 11 or 13, and possibly more than 21.
Did Image even put out 21 books in 1992 and 1993?
Look, to say that SF doesn’t have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre:
If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?
I think people are reading too much into Erik’s comments.
Bobb wrote:
“They are integral to the story, but the basic story elements are not dependant upon them. They can’t be. There isn’t a single story, sci fi or otherwise, that you can transplant the basic elements of into another genre.”
Yeah, that’s part of what I was griping about. Those basic, translatable story elements at the core of the narrative seem to be what he’s called “mere surface.”
Bobb:
“Sci fi is what it is because the rules of the story are different from what we expect from a modern setting. Instead of needing the have the cavalry ride over the hill to provide rescue for our heroes at the last moment, we can have them transported aboard the ship that we THOUGHT was crippled in scene 23.”
And I think this might be part of his problem with BG (is it BSG?). Some of the plot threads have been deliberately been set up to play out without recourse to sci fi resolutions, placing within the sci fi setting plotlines that could easily play out in other genres.
I really doubt there will be a technobabble cure for Roslin’s cancer, for example. But she’s facing this disease while having suddenly become president of what are possibly the only 50,000 humans left in existence, due to a multi-planet nuclear attack from rebellious, religious robots which has sent the human refugees fleeing across the cosmos with scant supplies in ill-suited spaceships. To me, that sounds like science fiction.
Leviathan:
“Look, to say that SF doesn’t have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre”
What do you mean by “require”? Must they be integral to the initiation, development and resolution of the plot, so that such a plot is entirely impossible in another setting or genre, or is it enough that the sci fi elements are present?
For example, sure, you could do a story about a large group of human refugees fleeing a holocaust in a genre other than SF, but in BSG, the cause of the holocaust is a group of robots earlier constructed by the humans. So the sci fi element is present, is part of the inciting action, development and, presumably, the resolution. This particular manifestation of the “fleeing refugee” story incorporates sci fi elements, makes use of them in the development of some of the subplots (e.g. Baltar’s Cylon detector) and in order to enhance some of the themes (e.g. the question of whether or not the Cylons are truly “alive” is not so immediately and obviously answerable), and thus, in its present form, requires those elements. Another variation could be done without them, but it would play out with differences, some minor, some major.
Nevertheless, on a more general level, certain elements of the story don’t require sci fi elements – a people are attacked and nearly wiped out, don’t have the resources to fight back, and so they run.
Leviathan:
“If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story? “
I don’t think anyone’s trying to say something like this.
Maybe it would help clarify things if you could point to something that you, specifically, do consider to be science fiction.
[b]ERIK LARSEN[/b] WRITES:
Here’s my take on it:
[i]Erik, you ignorant šlûŧ
I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there’s a nice article about “Fallen Angel,” complete with more artwork from issue #1.[/i]
Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.
By the way–Peter’s opening line is in reference to an often repeated remark from the news section of Saturday Night Live years ago. It was my first line from the infamous “Name Withheld” letter well over a decade ago.
[i]And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own–which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned[/i]
The point being–what, exactly? This only confuses the issue since most of these people mentioned had no other available options.
[i]…just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are “pûššìëš,” resting on their “fat áššëš” and failing to “show (Erik) what (they’ve) got.”[/i]
Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names. In case Peter didn’t notice, this column was written THIS year–not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn’t expressly say that “creators” shouldn’t create wherever they are.
[i]Now I haven’t bothered with Larsen’s previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of “But I digress” for transitions.)[/i]
Peter seems to have forgotten the fact that, while he does utilize the term “but I digress…” he didn’t coin it. It’s a perfectly useful phrase and it’s one that I use regardless of anybody else using it. I also use the term “to be continued” from time to time. Yet another string of words Peter didn’t coin but attempts to put his stamp on. Tell you what, Peter–you come up with a new term (I know, I know–actually create something new–it’s a tough concept for you to wrap your brain around) and I’ll make an effort NOT to use it.
[i]But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address…
Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer “hold back,” I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it.[/i]
Well, no–it didn’t. In that column, Peter took words out of context–as he did here–and put HIS interpretation to them. The two columns have nothing to do with each other.
[i]Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that–freed of the shackles of the main companies–all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes.[/i]
Peter might as well have said the same thing to Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko in 1961. It would have been a stupid argument then and it’s a stupid argument now. The fact of the matter is (and was) that we liked superheroes and just because it’s something HE might not do on his own–it doesn’t mean that it’s something WE shouldn’t do on our own.
[i]Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.[/i]
But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN’T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN’T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN’T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN’T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?
It’s a ridiculous statement.
Maybe superheroes were the furthest thing from your mind yet you created “Sachs and Violens” shortly after the debut of Image and it had all the trappings of a superhero comic from the foxy babe in tight clothing to a gun toting muscle man both of whom wore essentially superhero-like uniforms and had catchy codenames. Should somebody have said that Peter David and George Perez SHOULDN’T have created Sachs and Violens because they were just more superheroes and there are plenty of those already?
Should somebody let the pot know that the kettle is black?
[i](This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. “Sachs & Violens,” “Soulsearchers and Company,” “Fallen Angel,” plus my novel creations such as “Sir Apropos of Nothing” are nothing like my other comic book work.)[/i]
Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ášš dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful “costumes” and do extraordinary things–much like superheroes.
And what of those Image superheroes? Spawn is more of a horror book. Savage Dragon had as much in common with Hill Street Blues as it did with Green Lantern and the others were wildly different (in some cases) than anything that had come before.
And what’s the point exactly? That Peter thinks he’s “better than all of us” because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?
[i]Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?
Okay. Fine.[/i]
Clearly this ISN’T “fine” with Peter or else he wouldn’t have brought it up.
[i]Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said.[/i]
Peter’s the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his “I did everything first” rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?
[i]Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it.[/i]
Well, no–it might help if you actually read it. It’s about not giving anything new–about not bringing something new to the table. Sure, I did go on at some length about the reasons why a person who wanted to do something new should try to do it in a place where they can own it–but really, it was as much about creating something new–period. When was the last time an icon was created at DC or Marvel? It’s been a while. They’re both cruising along with characters that are 30 or more years old.
[i]If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you’re just not trying hard enough and you’re a wimp and pussy.[/i]
Again, failing to actually read what I wrote, Peter has taken to putting words in my mouth. Taking isolated words out of context, yet again, Peter fails to grasp even the simplest point.
[i]Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.[/i]
Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.
[i]What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be…jealousy?[/i]
Huh?
[i]Well, let’s check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on “Aquaman” that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his…[/i]
Except that it wasn’t and it didn’t. Again, Peter likes to paint himself as the victim. It’s not all about him. Aquaman was in free fall when Peter was on it. Sales were going down month after month. Once he left the book sales went up briefly but then continued in the direction in which they were headed–down.
As for my goals on the book–they were largely to try and make the underworld kingdom of Atlantis a place that wasn’t populated by humans walking around on the ocean floor and instead give it its own look and feel. I added a number of (gasp) new characters and tried to do something new with it.
[i]and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn’t want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod.
?
Maybe he’s the fox dismissing those grapes as just too dámņëd sour.[i]
Peter forgot to mention my successful runs on Spider-Man, Wolverine, Thor and the Defenders. The tactic of leaving out things that don’t support harebrained theories is tried and true, I’ll admit–but it doesn’t wash in an industry where the facts are so close at hand.
[i]Or maybe he’s just shilling for Image, with “Show me what you can do” as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine.[/i]
Again with the word–fine. And again, it’s not said with much conviction.
In the article I singled out creations and creators from numerous companies. Seems that Peter skimmed that part. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I think Image is the best deal in town.
[i]Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I’d say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jáçkášš isn’t the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone.[/i]
So–who’s resorting to name-calling? Pot–is that you again–calling the kettle black?
[i]Well…almost everyone.
Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever…God bless ’em.[/i]
If a creator has nothing of his or her own to offer–I quite agree. If, however, they’re sitting on their own Spider-Man and they go to their grave sitting on their own Spider-Man–I think that’s pretty sad.
[i]There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hëll does ANYONE get off bìŧçh-šláppìņg people who are living out their dreams…the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with?[/i]
I did what?
[i]And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive “peachy.”[/i]
It’s not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn’t. I’m not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I’m saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion. It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same. He might as well just come right out and say, “Hey, I stepped out on my own and it was rewarding and fulfilling and all that but you stick it out on Hawkman. Don’t even think about being successful outside of your little box.”
[i]It deserves a “well done you” and “welcome to the club” and “stick with it.”[/i]
They do indeed–it might also be nice of them to know that there are other options out there and that they don’t have to spend their entire careers as veal living out of somebody else’s box.
[i]It doesn’t deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.[/i]
Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I’m not sure where the “jock” analogy keeps coming from. Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child–but looking at him now–I kind of doubt it.
I’ve heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same. Like the delivery or loathe it–the message IS getting out there. Creators HAVE options.
[i]And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.[/i]
I never said they were friends.
[i]Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.[/i]
It most certainly can be more cowardly. It’s called the fear of failure.
And yes–it IS noble to stick it out at a job in order to provide for your family. Plenty of people have been forced to do that over the years and they’ve been forced to keep their comments to themselves when they wanted to speak out.
But there are people who have “made it” in this business–who’ve stacked away plenty of dough and who still clutch desperately to the corporate tit and contribute nothing other than more of the same.
Peter ISN’T one of those.
It seems Peter doesn’t have a Spider-Man or Hellboy or even a Savage Dragon in him but at least he’s TRIED to do some creator-owned stuff even if they weren’t entirely successful.
[i]Just one fan’s opinion.
PAD[/i]
So–how is it okay for Peter to use the name of MY column in his rant when I’m not supposed to use “but I digress…?” What’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander? Where’s the equity in that?
_________________
[b]-Erik Larsen[/b]
Publisher
Image Comics
http://www.imagecomics.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?p=138125#138125
Leviathan: Look, to say that SF doesn’t have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre: If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?
Luigi Novi: Um, no, now you’re changing around what you originally said. You said that science fiction is not science fiction if the story can be transplanted into another genre, and if therefore, the science fiction setting isn’t required to tell the story. The fact that you do not think the stories in BG do not have to be told in a scifi setting does NOT make it not science fiction. If it’s set in space on spaceships, then it’s science fiction, period. That is because it conforms to the definition that someone provided up above. That definition did not say anything about whether the story in question HAD to be told in that setting.
By now asking if a story is a mystery if he never solves a crime, you are changing the metaphor, by now instead talking about PLOT. This like asking if a story set in outer space is not sci fi if they don’t go into outerspace. Well, if they don’t, Leviathan, then no, it’s not. But you never said that they never go into outer space in BG. You said that they don’t HAVE to set it there, which is not the same thing. The fact remains that because they ARE in outerspace on ships fighting robots, then it is a science fiction show. Your mistake is in defining sci-fi as a value judgment instead of by definition.
Please try keeping your analogies consistent, okay?
Ouch.
Glenn: I don’t suppose you could edit Erik’s bulletin board tags, could you?
As the lack of bold and italics makes my poor, aged head hurt.
“Look, to say that SF doesn’t have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly. Transplant the argument into another genre:
If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?”
First, I didn’t say that SF doesn’t require it’s SF element to be SF. But that’s not what Leviathan said, either. He said “To be SF, a story has to be utterly dependent on the fictitious scientific elements in order to work.”
But bringing in mystery stories I think clarifies the issue. Sci Fi isn’t a type of story…it’s a setting, a genre. There’s really no such thing as “just” a sci fi story. There’s action, drama, comedy, romance, mystery, etc. A mystery is a type of story, and the setting can vary. Sci fi, as a genre, includes the whole range of story types, just like any other story.
So to that end, there’s the other genres: Western, fantasy, modern, medieval, etc. And you can set different types of stories within those genres. But those essential stories can be told in different genres with little actual change to the meat of the story.
So, to wrap up, yes, if you remove the SF elements from a story, you no longer have a SF story. But to say that the story of Unforgiven, set on Mars in the year 2432 instead of the 1800s, wouldn’t be a sci fi story is to misunderstand what sci fi is…a setting, not a type of story.
The fact that Mr. Larsen refers to his run on Defenders as “successful” leaves me laughing too uncontrolably to respond to anything else he writes.
But just one more thing. Erik Larsen and the rest of the Image crew need to remember one simple thing. Their success is almost entirely built on a fluke of timing. They, with some exceptions, aren’t guys like Moore and Miller who produced work of such outstanding quality in the 80s that financial rewards followed. Mr. Larsen and the Image crew produced work that hit at the right time in a speculator boom and that is what accounted for much, if not almost all, of their success. If they had tried to launch Image just a few years earlier or a few years later, their success would have been of a much different quality.
Mike
Spot on, Nero.
Anybody here read Warren Ellis’ last column on CBR? No?
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=1
Erik Larsen: Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.
Luigi Novi: Right, because on his own blog, Peter shouldn’t try mentioning his upcoming work, because doing so is somehow evil, right? As for making a point, I don’t see how mentioning his work has anything to do with making a point.
Erik Larsen: Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names.
Luigi Novi: Peter did no such thing. You did a good job of calling lots of other people names all by yourself, without any help or portrayal by Peter.
Erik Larsen: In case Peter didn’t notice, this column was written THIS year–not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn’t expressly say that “creators” shouldn’t create wherever they are.
Luigi Novi: Sure you did. What else is “sucking on the corporate tit” supposed to mean?
Erik Larsen: Peter seems to have forgotten the fact that, while he does utilize the term “but I digress…” he didn’t coin it. It’s a perfectly useful phrase and it’s one that I use regardless of anybody else using it. I also use the term “to be continued” from time to time. Yet another string of words Peter didn’t coin but attempts to put his stamp on.
Luigi Novi: He isn’t attempting to put his stamp on it. He’s alleging that your use of it is an intentional reference to him. Whether this is the case, however, I don’t know.
Erik Larsen: But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN’T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?
Luigi Novi: Hellboy seems more like a supernatural investigator in the vein of X-Files rather than a superhero.
Erik Larsen: Maybe superheroes were the furthest thing from your mind yet you created “Sachs and Violens” shortly after the debut of Image and it had all the trappings of a superhero comic from the foxy babe in tight clothing to a gun toting muscle man both of whom wore essentially superhero-like uniforms and had catchy codenames.
Luigi Novi: Sachs and Violens don’t resemble superheroes in the least to me, nor did that book resemble superhero books. To each his own.
Erik Larsen: Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ášš dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful “costumes” and do extraordinary things–much like superheroes.
Luigi Novi: Apropos of Nothing doesn’t resemble a superhero at all, nor does he wear a flashy costume. Fallen Angel doesn’t resemble any of Peter’s other work either. It’s fallacious to argue that different examples of a creator’s work aren’t going to have some commonalities. But if you focus solely on something superficial like costumes—which, as aforementioned, not all of them had (What was Violens’ costume?), then you can use relativism to say that anything looks like anything else.
Erik Larsen: And what’s the point exactly? That Peter thinks he’s “better than all of us” because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?
Luigi Novi: No, he was saying that it was wrong of you to insult people who don’t have any interest in creative work. This statement by you is just another Straw Man that you conjure because you don’t want to read what he actually said, which was clear.
Erik Larsen: Peter’s the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his “I did everything first” rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?
Luigi Novi: The problem isn’t that he’s self-centered. It’s that you seem to have a severe reading comprehension problem. Only someone with such a problem would read his column and interpret it to have anything to do with patting himself on the back, or implying that he “did things first.” The clear opinion he made is that your behavior is hypocritical.
Erik Larsen: Well, no–it might help if you actually read it. It’s about not giving anything new–about not bringing something new to the table.
Luigi Novi: And if you tried focusing your column on that message, maybe that message would’ve gotten through.
But you didn’t.
And it did not.
And you came off as a profane, bigoted, childish ášš.
Not to mention deludedly hypocritical, for chiding him for not reading your column, when you allege all sorts of ideas in his column and that any intelligent reader would see are not in there.
Peter David: Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.
Erik Larsen: Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.
Luigi Novi: It has everything to do with it. You criticized creators for not producing creator-owned work. Peter pointed out that many, if not most of the greatest works of art in history and in other media are not creator-owned.
Peter David: Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I’d say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jáçkášš isn’t the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone.
Erik Larsen: So–who’s resorting to name-calling? Pot–is that you again–calling the kettle black?
Luigi Novi: “Mindless jock” arguably describes the tone of your column. “Gutless”, “pathetic” and “pûššìëš” does not, on the other hand, describe creators who do not do creator-owned work.
Erik Larsen: If a creator has nothing of his or her own to offer–I quite agree. If, however, they’re sitting on their own Spider-Man and they go to their grave sitting on their own Spider-Man–I think that’s pretty sad.
Luigi Novi: And where did you establish that that was the case? Who are these creators sitting on their own Spider-Man whose existence you established as a matter of fact so sufficiently that it was justifiable to call them “Gutless”, “pathetic” and “pûššìëš”?
Erik Larsen: It’s not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn’t. I’m not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I’m saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion.
Luigi Novi: But that isn’t what you SAID.
Erik Larsen: It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same.
Luigi Novi: To argue that Peter has done this is so blatantly dishonest that one can only marvel at the severe mental hernia one must suffer from to read Peter’s column and come up with this interpretation. Please, tell me where Peter ever said this?
Erik Larsen: Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I’m not sure where the “jock” analogy keeps coming from.
Luigi Novi: It comes from the tone and language that you utilized in your column, a point with Peter made clear—had you actually read it.
Erik Larsen: Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child–but looking at him now–I kind of doubt it.
Luigi Novi: Well, now that’s certainly relevant to an intelligent discussion. Sure, Erik, you know how to write a column and debate a point.
By using fat jokes.
You da man.
Erik Larsen: I’ve heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results.
Luigi Novi: It was not merely provocative. It was insulting.
Peter David: Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.
Erik Larsen: It most certainly can be more cowardly. It’s called the fear of failure.
Luigi Novi: Or lack of interest.
Erik Larsen: So–how is it okay for Peter to use the name of MY column in his rant when I’m not supposed to use “but I digress…?”
Luigi Novi: No one said that you’re “not supposed to use” the phrase “But I Digress.” That’s a notion completely of your own invention. That you turn a comment by Peter on how “clever” he thinks your use of it is into the Straw Man of “not supposed to use it” shows how intellectually dishonest you are, and how incapable you are of holding a rational, intelligent discussion on any idea of merit.
I can pretty much second everything Luigi Novi just said. Mr Larsen seems to miss a lot of points.
And as others have pointed out: some people like to create new characters. Good luck to them. Others are perfectly happy working on existing characters. Good luck to them too. Why on earth does Mr Larsen assume that every creator out there wishes to create his own thing and break away from the corporate owned characters?
If someone has no interest in doing something, then the choice not to do it is not cowardice. You just don’t want to do it. What, everyone ‘should’ want what Mr Larsen thinks they ‘should’ want?
And I’m not prude about bad language, but name calling just as a cheap trick to gather attention is just an ugly way to go about. I don’t find it ‘gutsy’ or ‘bold’ or ‘daring’, I just find it rude. And the way almost every line with ‘pussy’ in it was separated as if proudly proclaiming “Yes I actually SAID that! Ain’t I cool??” well, it was kind of juvenile. While reading, I couldn’t help but hearing the entire thing read by a ‘Bûŧŧhëád’-type voice.
And now jokes about PAD’s weight pass for witty repartee?? Good grief… Well, that actually fits perfectly with my above observations I suppose.
“True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same.”
Nice to know that when attempting to communicate through the English language, you either have to be rude, insluting, and provactive, or syrupy sweet. I’ll cease my efforts to use reason and logic when attempting to make my point from here on out.
But hey, guys, he “inspired dozens of professionals” (and more than a few members of his own board)…
You know what? I want to open my own business. But I’ll be dipped if I’ll shuck my entire job and open it and expect that to feed my family. Businesses need to be built, as do careers. If you want to wrote your own books, great. You built your career to the point where you could do that. Not all pros are at that point.
And to answer the questions:
Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN’T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? No, because the character isn’t a superhero, and Mignoal is also bringing something very unique to the market. I also happen to think Mignola is badass.
Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN’T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? I won’t say “shouldn’t”, but I don’t think it would be missed if it hadn’t been created. I’ve only read the first year or so, but it was pretty dámņ derivative and really didn’t bring anything new to the market. It was also (in my opinion) very poorly written until McFarlane started bringing on real writers. I have no idea what state it is in now.
Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN’T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Hëll no. But that, again, is a unique creation.
Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN’T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Like “Spawn”, I won’t say you shouldn’t have, but I will say you could simply not have published it and no one would have been the wiser. Nothing new was brought to the table with this book. I’m glad you love making it, but it’s not doing a whole lot to transform the genre.
Always one to plug his own stuff and pat himself on the back on his way to making a point. Some things never change.
It’s his own website. He doesn’t need an excuse or a reason to plug his own work. You of course, manage to use your article as a means to promote Walking Dead and Invincible quite readily.
The point being–what, exactly? This only confuses the issue since most of these people mentioned had no other available options.
If you count unrealistic options as options, then they had plenty. For most creators, accepting the greatly diminished sales (that companies like Image offer on the average) and working off a percentage is not a realistic option.
Way to try and make it appear as though I was calling our forefathers names. In case Peter didn’t notice, this column was written THIS year–not 40 years ago. And even so he misses the point. I was bemoaning the lack of new creations period and while I did make it a point to say why it would be more advantageous to create characters at a company where you can fully own and control your creations, I didn’t expressly say that “creators” shouldn’t create wherever they are.
No, you infer that the creations are inherently less impressive if not creator owned.
Well, no–it didn’t. In that column, Peter took words out of context–as he did here–and put HIS interpretation to them. The two columns have nothing to do with each other.
How in the world did he take anything out of context with the original column? I read the column when it was new, it seemed dead on. You guys were “holding back”? Gee. That’s just great. And all those fans who were supporting your inferior work, they weren’t worth your best effort. And when you finally cut loose and give it your all, you produce nothing tangibly different than what you did when working for corporations. Only less frequently. You and the rest of the Image crowd of the early 90’s put your foot in your shared mouth and were called on it.
Peter might as well have said the same thing to Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko in 1961. It would have been a stupid argument then and it’s a stupid argument now. The fact of the matter is (and was) that we liked superheroes and just because it’s something HE might not do on his own–it doesn’t mean that it’s something WE shouldn’t do on our own.
It would be a stupid argument. And it’s one that no one introduced but yourself. No why? Because these people did not work on superhero material exclusivly. They DID branch out and work in other genres. Have you? Not visibly.
But it DID need more superheroes and it STILL needs more superheroes IF those creating them have something NEW to say. Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Mignola SHOULDN’T have created Hellboy because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Todd McFarlane SHOULDN’T have created Spawn because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that Mike Allred SHOULDN’T have created Madman because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already? Is anybody out there going to say that I SHOULDN’T have created Savage Dragon because he was just another superhero and there are plenty of those already?
You can create them. The problem is when you trumpet about as if it were some bold new move. It wasn’t then and it isn’t now. There are real creators out there taking actual risks and making actual bold moves. Nothing Image publishes qualifies.
Well, except that they ARE. They all feature the same smarmy smart-ášš dialogue and most of them feature bigger-than-life characters that wear colorful “costumes” and do extraordinary things–much like superheroes.
Umm.. You obviously haven’t read the material in question. Have you?
And what of those Image superheroes? Spawn is more of a horror book.
Sure it is.
And what’s the point exactly? That Peter thinks he’s “better than all of us” because he likes to do different kinds of characters? Is this really just another excuse for him to pat himself on the back for being such an incredible, innovative, groundbreaking creator?
That’s simply your own paranoia talking.
Peter’s the one trying to equate the two, not me. More of his “I did everything first” rap. Can he really think I was attempting to duplicate his column from over a decade ago? How self-centered can this guy get?
Maybe you should go back and read his original article. You obviously failed to comprehend it the first time if you are that blinded to the similarities.
Well, no–it might help if you actually read it. It’s about not giving anything new–about not bringing something new to the table.
That’s not what you said in your article at all. If that was your intent, you failed to make it clear.
Again, failing to actually read what I wrote, Peter has taken to putting words in my mouth. Taking isolated words out of context, yet again, Peter fails to grasp even the simplest point.
They are your words. If you have to stand over the shoulder of your readers and explain what you mean, then you have failed as a writer.
In the article I singled out creations and creators from numerous companies. Seems that Peter skimmed that part. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I think Image is the best deal in town.
And you show that bias in your article. If you can’t see that for yourself, there’s nothing anyone can say to you to convince you otherwise.
I did what?
You bìŧçh-šláppëd the people who are living out their dreams…the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with. It was pretty clear the first time.
It’s not possible to be that dense AND continue to remember to breathe. It just isn’t. I’m not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I’m saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion. It baffles me that a guy that HAS stepped out and done creator-owned books would want to discourage others from doing the same. He might as well just come right out and say, “Hey, I stepped out on my own and it was rewarding and fulfilling and all that but you stick it out on Hawkman. Don’t even think about being successful outside of your little box.”
Having played the role of the skinny nerd for most of my childhood, I’m not sure where the “jock” analogy keeps coming from. Perhaps Peter fit more neatly into lockers than I dad as a child–but looking at him now–I kind of doubt it.
Dude, lay off the Home Run pies before throwing out the fat jokes. Seriously. Your habits have become the jokes at parties. Your skinny nerd days are slipping quite rapidly behind you.
I’ve heard from dozens of creators that found my column both motivating and inspirational. True, the delivery was intentionally provocative but it garnered the intended results. It got people talking. Had I been all syrupy sweet, I doubt the result would have been the same. Like the delivery or loathe it–the message IS getting out there. Creators HAVE options.
No kidding. As I recall, Peter David tried to point that out to you over a decade ago and was met with nothing but hostility.
It most certainly can be more cowardly. It’s called the fear of failure.
Yeah right. This is coming from the perspective of someone who was dealt a very lucky hand. Frankly, it’s much easier to break into creator owned material than corporate. But the pay is for šhìŧ and some people need to eat. Not facing up to the challenges presented by working with larger companies can easily be labeled cowardly as well. It’s a matter of perspective.
And yes–it IS noble to stick it out at a job in order to provide for your family. Plenty of people have been forced to do that over the years and they’ve been forced to keep their comments to themselves when they wanted to speak out.
But there are people who have “made it” in this business–who’ve stacked away plenty of dough and who still clutch desperately to the corporate tit and contribute nothing other than more of the same.
Peter ISN’T one of those.
And? Peter does both corporate and creator owned work.
It seems Peter doesn’t have a Spider-Man or Hellboy or even a Savage Dragon in him but at least he’s TRIED to do some creator-owned stuff even if they weren’t entirely successful.
If your measure of success is The Savage Dragon, then he seems to have been successful enough.
So much for quote tags. I despise this forum design. No edit function either.
Edit functionality would be swell. You just need to remember to use the HTML tags (although if memory serves, some are turned off).
Luigi, you will notice that the list I prepared was drawn ONLY from books that I PERSONALLY preordered which is merely the TINIEST fraction of the output from any publisher. If I happen to order a greater percentage of books from any one publisher, then it should be expected that there would be a greater number of books in any comparative list I would draw from my preorders. You’ll note that there were no Viz books on my list. This does not mean that Viz does not produce late books. It does not mean that they produce a lesser percentage of late books. All it means is that of the books that I preordered (if I ordered any at all) none of them missed the month in which they were initially solicited.
I have not “proved your point”. I have not proved anyone’s point. I have provided data to support my personal experience that EVERY publisher I order books from has more than just the occasional lateness problem. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Do you want more non-Image titles that have missed their solicitation? There are plenty more examples from books that I didn’t order. Superman/Batman. Green Lantern: Rebirth. Elric. NYX. Daredevil: Target. Daredevil: Father. Spider-Man/Black Cat. Return of Donna Troy. Queen & Country. Red Star. Wolverine: The End. Ultimate Secret. Marvel Age Spider-Man. Flash. Outsiders. Monolith. We3. JLA/Avengers. There are literally hundreds of issues every year that are late. Feel free to search Newsarama for the shipping list updates they generally post weekly and you can see how many books are delayed.
You complain that I didn’t provide figures for how many late books Image had in 1992 and 1993. You are absolutely correct that I didn’t provide that. You’ll also note that I have not provided ANY list for how many late books ANY publisher has had in ANY year. I have provided a list drawn from my PERSONAL preorders which must BY DEFINITION be a vast subset of the total ouput of any given publisher. If you want a list of all the late Image books for 1992 and 1993 or a list of all the late books by any publisher for any year, you are barking up the wrong tree. I can’t provide you with such a list. I can’t even provide you a similar list as the one I gave for the time period of 1992 to 1993 because that was long before I ever thought of preordering comics instead of just picking them up from the store.
OK.
It’s official.
Erik is off his meds again.
🙂
“Look, to say that SF doesn’t have to require its SF element to be SF is just silly.”
Who here said that? All we’ve said is that your narrow definition of what is SF and what isn’t correct for anybody but you. I pointed out a number of classic SF stories that your narrow definition of SF would remove from the SF classification.
Under the definition that you laid you can’t have an SF story. There are no SF stories out there that can not be tweaked a bit and transplanted into another genre. Even cyber-punk can be broken down and turned into westerns or gangster stories.
Hey, here’s an idea. Name ten stories (TV, movie or book) that you consider true SF. Let us see if you can point out SF that adheres to your narrow definition or you’re just looking for an excuse to slag on BSG.
“Transplant the argument into another genre:
If Columbo never encounters nor solves a crime, is it a mystery story?”
Actually, yes.
Columbo could take his know how elsewhere on his off hours, never get near a crime and still be written as mystery stories.
The Da Vinci Code is a mystery that deals with history. Gash’s Lovejoy novels and the TV show based on them dealt with crime most of the time but some of the subplot mysteries (and the odd main thread plot) dealt with artifacts and antiques.
There are numerous mysteries out there that have nothing to do with crime. A number of writers use those subjects as inspiration. Their work is most definitely under the mystery genre.
Some ghost stories are mysteries as well as horror. Why is the ghost here and why is it doing what it’s doing? Join our heroes as they search for the answers. Not all of those stories center around murder or crime (just most of the best ones do).
The TV shows History’s Mysteries and Myth Busters both, to a lesser degree, fall partly under the definition of mystery. They are presented with a mystery and set out to solve it.
The point of that mini rant?
1) Your point about what makes a mystery is as faulty and limited as what makes SF.
2) Your use of this analogy underscores the weakness of your argument. A mystery can exist without crime and SF can exist quite nicely beyond the terms you have laid out for it.
BSG is SF in the classic tradition. It uses the settings and circumstances of outer space, technology gone bad and slight tweaks on contemporary cultures to create a canvas on which the creators can examine and extrapolate on the human element and human nature in a manner that they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to do so. The fact that they only do a so-so job on it is another matter all together.
🙂
Most of the more obvious idiocies of your response, Erik, have been handled by others on this board. I see no need to reiterate them. I will, however, address the points they missed or simply didn’t know:
A) Why yes, it would have been kind of stupid to talk to Stan Lee and Jack Kirby about diversity of comics back in 1961. That’s probably because there were still monster comics and western comics and romance comics and mystery comics. So they would likely have said, “What the hëll are you talking about?” You know…like people are saying about you.
B) “Sachs & Violens” were not created after Image Comics was created. They were created in 1991, and it simply took a while to get them into print in 1992. Then again, I feel the art of George Perez was worth waiting for, as I’m sure you’d agree. As for your assessment of my other writing, I think it reasonable to give it as much credence as I would anyone who doesn’t actually read it.
C) I was unaware of your other recent work at Marvel. For that slight, I apologize. Your feigned confusion about your rejected Hulk proposal, however, is disingenuous considering you’ve not only discussed it openly, but I was slipped a copy for amusement value. Lord almighty, was that ghastly.
D) Sentence tense can be your friend. I never said you were slamming the founders of this industry. Notice the sentence that starts “In the world of Erik Larsen” is entirely in the present tense. What I was clearly saying was that those people who are doing work-for-hire NOW should be considered to be doing their best possible work NOW…just as Kirby, Ditko et al were doing THEN. Your contention is, basically, how dare they be doing essentially the same thing that Lee and Kirby did–create characters for a corporation that will own them outright–when they could be doing it for…well…you.
E) Nowhere did I say that people should NOT do creator-owned work. I said they shouldn’t be made to feel like crap if they don’t want to, or even if they’re–God forbid–proud of what they are accomplishing. Nor did I ever say that Mignola should not have created Hellboy, etc., etc. What I said twelve years ago was that I, as a reader, simply WISHED that people were taking more effort to something OTHER than superheroes, just to have more variety rather than having a superhero chokehold. A sentiment that I would venture to say is mirrored by quite a few other folks. Nowhere did I INSULT the people who were content to do only superheroes, the way that…well…you did, vis a vis company owned characters.
F) “Always one to plug his own stuff.” What a maroon. I plug my own material on my own website, you talk up how wonderful Image is on someone ELSE’s website which hosts your column, and I’m plugging MY stuff? Sheesh.
G) “I know, I know–actually create something new–it’s a tough concept for you to wrap your brain around”
Sachs & Violens. Fallen Angel. Soulsearchers and Company. Space Cases. Howling Mad. Sir Apropos of Nothing. The Hidden Earth. The cast of the three “King Arthur” books. Most of the cast of “New Frontier.” More properties than you’ve created, Erik. More novels and television shows than you’ve written and, quite possibly, read. I think my brain is securely wrapped around that notion, thanks.
H) Likewise disingenuous is your contention that I’m just imagining your use of “But I digress” is a snipe at me. Let us quote you, from one of your earliest columns:
“I never understood later writers’ desire to make the Hulk into, essentially, the same as everybody else: smart, handsome and loved by millions– give me a Hulk that’s as dumb as a post any day!
But I digress…”
Seems to me a reasonable inference on my part that choosing the title of my column is not some random selection on your part. However, when it comes to dumb posts, I will certainly defer to you on that score.
PAD
It occurs to me that these public debates are a more effective way of hyping both Peter and Erik’s work than any number of articles or columns on CBR 🙂
But I miss the days when you guys would go mano a mano at conventions.
Here is a direct quote from Erik regarding his column from his Savage Dragon forum:
“it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven’t created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more.”
And this from the Image board:
“I’m not saying to guys finally landing their first job to quit their job and go do their own stuff. I’m saying that guys who have been at this for decades ought to try and do their own stuff on occasion.”
Is that clear enough for you folks?
And with that, I’m out of here. It’s been a week and I’m tired of this.
“But I miss the days when you guys would go mano a mano at conventions.”
I don’t. What a monumental waste of time that thing. Letting myself get sucked into that and becoming a part of the McFarlane hype machine. I was a serious nitwit for allowing that to happen.
PAD
“Here is a direct quote from Erik regarding his column from his Savage Dragon forum:
“it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven’t created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more.””
Guess he liked your version of what he said better than what was actually written there.
PAD