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
• 
Or MAYBE that’s what he meant in the first place and you misunderstood him?
Like I’ve been saying for the last week?
I really should quit this..
“Is that clear enough for you folks?
And with that, I’m out of here. It’s been a week and I’m tired of this.”
Yeah, it’s been a week. It took him a almost a full week to explain, re-explain and then re-explain again before he found a version of what he said that looks nothing like what he said to begin with. For his next trick he’ll explain how when he says “black” it was really “white” all along and everybody misunderstood and misquoted him.
Bravo.
“Yeah, it’s been a week. It took him a almost a full week to explain, re-explain and then re-explain again before he found a version of what he said that looks nothing like what he said to begin with. For his next trick he’ll explain how when he says “black” it was really “white” all along and everybody misunderstood and misquoted him.”
And then he’ll get killed in a zebra crossing!
(the joys of being a Hitchhiker)
“Is that clear enough for you folks?”
Yeah, if he had actually said that in his column, that would be great.
But he didn’t. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: “An open letter to comic book creators everywhere”. He reinforces this later in the article as well: “Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?”
What the hëll kind of twenty year industry vet does that refer to?
Either Larsen is backpedalling, or he’s simply a crappy writer. Either is certainly possible. But either way, the fault in regards to how his writing is interpreted lies fully with him.
But he didn’t. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: “An open letter to comic book creators everywhere”.
I already went through this with Peter on the comicon boards.
Everywhere means everywhere. It means Marvel/DC/Dark Horse/Devils Due/etc..
It doesn’t say all comic freelancers, new and vets. If that’s what he wanted you to think, he would have said that. Erik’s not shy y’know?
He reinforces this later in the article as well: “Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?”
Followed by “An impressive run on a title, which you didn’t create?” – it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro’s that had likely done all of the following.
I understood that the first time around.
It’s not rocket science you know? At this point I think this is just sad. I’m half way convinced some folks just want to argue and are saying whatever is required to continue to argue.
And of course one must never admit they might have made a mistake. We just assume he said white because we’ve been arguing that’s what he said, especially now that we realize he didn’t.
Sad.
“Either Larsen is backpedalling, or he’s simply a crappy writer.”
Can’t he be both?
“Followed by “An impressive run on a title, which you didn’t create?” – it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out).”
Behold! Behold as the rules of grammar bow before the might of Jamie!
It wasn’t “all one sentence.” It was three sentences (technically, three sentence fragments.) The reasonable reading, especially since it was directed “to comic creators everywhere,” was that it was designed to be insulting to as broad a range of possibilities as could be managed.
And if that’s not what Erik intended, well…the crappy writer option is always available. If he’d like to run his future columns past me so that I can point him in the direction of what he MEANS to say rather than what he’s ACTUALLY saying, I’d be happy to accommodate him.
PAD
Erik is off his meds again.
I’m wondering if he was ever on them.
Ralf Haring: I have not “proved your point”. I have not proved anyone’s point. I have provided data to support my personal experience that EVERY publisher I order books from has more than just the occasional lateness problem. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Luigi Novi: And I responded by asking you point-blank if this “occasional lateness” is anything like Image in its early years. You then responded to that question by saying yes, and then proceeded to list books which, I thought were meant to buttress that assertion. But they didn’t. Image was the worst offender of the books you chose to list, and you didn’t make any comparison to 1992 or 1993.
Now you’re trying to shift the point away from my original question, and saying it’s about “occasional” lateness, when that wasn’t my original question.
Of course every company has “occasional” lateness. So what? Was anyone here debating that point? The point was that Image was a particularly egregious offender in this regard when it got started, despite its vaunted claims of moral superiority to work-for-hire companies in general and Marvel in particular.
Jamie Coville: Is that clear enough for you folks?
Luigi Novi: But he didn’t SAY those things in his COLUMN. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need the Rosetta Stone to clue into this?
Jamie Coville: Or MAYBE that’s what he meant in the first place and you misunderstood him?
Luigi Novi: Or maybe if that’s what he meant he should’ve SAID it to begin with, instead of being an incompetent columnist and relying on backpedaling and apologists to translate it for him when this “latter” meaning wasn’t clearly conveyed? What part of this are you not getting?
As far as this “what I really meant” crap goes, this reminds me of an exchange I had with a letter writer in the Union City Reporter named Elaine Flood, who, touching upon the then-recent court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to force atheist schoolchildren to recite a pledge with a reference to God, said that she simply couldn’t comprehend that all human beings who died on 9/11 were not praying in their final moments to God, any god, to spare their lives. She repeated the usual anti-Separation of Church and State fallacies, such as the notion that people cannot say “Under God” in school (which is not what the ruling said), that this would lead to loss of religion (it would not) and that loss of religion means loss of values (it doesn’t), etc. I responded with a letter in which I refuted these fallacies, and she then backpedaled, accusing me of cynicism and negativism, and claiming that she was “merely suggesting that most of the victims of September 11th” prayed to someone.” I then responded with another letter in which I pointed out that no, that’s not what she said, that was simply the more legitimate and less insulting idea that she was using to cover up the original one, since her original wording did not convey a “suggestion”, and conveyed the idea that all that 9/11 victims prayed, not “most” of them.
But there’s another, more subtle point that disproves her backpedaling assertion, and that’s the fact that when writing a letter or opinion column, generally a writer tries to make some type of point, analysis, or observation, which may not be totally obvious to the reader. Sometimes a writer will try to convey a point in a way that may present it in an angle that may make it appear different than it previously did to readers. In short, writers go out on a limb.
But what’s out on a limb about the idea that “most of the victims of 9/11 prayed to someone”? That’s hardly a bold statement; it’s arguably TRUE. Similarly, what’s out on a limb about Erik Larsen saying that anyone who’s been doing work-for-hire for a while should try doing creator-owned material? Well, nothing. It’s a pretty reasonable idea, and had Erik said that, no one would’ve reacted badly to it. It is for this reason that I reject his after-the-fact rationalization that this is what he was originally trying to say. Quite aside from the criticism that he should’ve said that to begin with, it’s not really much a statement that would even require a column. It’s for this reason that I don’t think that that’s what he was trying to say. It’s just the smokescreen he’s using to revise history.
He also talks about creators who may be sitting on they own Spider-Man-like icons. Excuse me? Where did he establish that there were any such creators? Has Erik been peeking into the portfolios of creators all over the industry? And has he noticed them sitting on creations? And how has he determined that they will achieve the iconic status of Spider-Man? More importantly, are these secretive creators so numerous that they justify an entire column about them?
I don’t think so.
Larsen is backpedaling, plain and simple.
And those trying to argue about what he “really” meant are deluding themselves.
It doesn’t say all comic freelancers, new and vets. If that’s what he wanted you to think, he would have said that. Erik’s not shy y’know?
By that same logic:
It says to comic book creators everywhere, with no distinction between new and vets. If he wanted to make that distinction, he would have/could have/should have said that.
No distinction implies you’re talking about the whole lot and if that’s not what the writer means, he’s a sloppy writer. And if it IS what he means, it simply invalidates your argument.
one comic book pro rudely jokes the other is fat, while the other pro mocks his storytelling inabilties. hard to believe these two once worked on a comic book together. (man, do i love those Hulk days. people jumped on the bandwagon with Mcfarlane’s spidey, which i love too, but i felt the Hulk had the better story lines and i felt special like i was reading or discovered something that no one else appreicated first.)
wow, this is beyond a disagreement of view points, i don’t like confrontation, luckily i am not caught in the middle. there’s not going to be a mutual ground for the other on anything, i suppose. maybe i am not expressing myself well enough here, but is there anything good to come of this? what’s the name of that succesful motivational coach on TV? i wonder what advice he’d offer? maybe he’d tell PAD to pitch something to Image, i dunno.
let’s face it, people can argue till their blue in the face who the better storyteller is, who’s right, who’s wrong, who meant what, et al.
BUT PAD is, hands down, the superior writer. larsen doesn’t have a chance against PAD. and coming here is like calling a talk show and talking šhìŧ to the host, you can’t win anyway, so why bother? i don’t even think larsen could express himself any more clearer in person, though. i am more disappointed larsen wouldn’t apologize for his unprofessional comments.
this has indeed been a learning experience for me.
“Followed by “An impressive run on a title, which you didn’t create?” – it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro’s that had likely done all of the following.
I understood that the first time around.”
Peter already pointed out the flaws in your comprehension quite well. But you accuse me of deliberately edited Larsen’s statement in order to further my own interpretation, which leaves me feeling obligated to respond. You want to try to point out the rules of grammar? The ones you supposedly understand. Well, lucky for you to be living in Larsen’s head where all things are spelled out for you, despite the actual meaning being something polar opposite from what his actual words state. Larsen designates several independent scenarios without any indication that the targets of his wrath must meet every one of them equally. He chose to structure his paragraph as did. And he chose poorly. Again, either he is backpedalling, or he is a crappy writer. Or as has been suggested, he’s a crappy writer backpedaling. Regardless, the failure to communicate lies with the one communicating. Those reading his words are limited to reading the words following the rules of the English language, not the rules of “what Larsen meant but did not say”.
Try reading his statment without your bias. Larsen said what he said. I understand he might not have actually MEANT what he said, but that’s his failure, not anyone else’s.
“But he didn’t. Did he? Instead he specifically targeted creators in general. The title alone says this: “An open letter to comic book creators everywhere”. He reinforces this later in the article as well: “Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?”
What the hëll kind of twenty year industry vet does that refer to? “
Rob Leifield?
Jamie Coville:
“He reinforces this later in the article as well: “Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two?”
Followed by “An impressive run on a title, which you didn’t create?” – it was all one sentence (nice slicing that bit out). Meaning it was aimed at industry pro’s that had likely done all of the following.
I understood that the first time around.”
Now, let us count the sentences below.
“A few pretty pictures? Some fill-in issues? A cool cover or two? An impressive run on a title, which you didn’t create?”
Funny, I count four (sorta) sentences there. Granted, only three of them were used for that back and forth but that’s still two more then one.
That strange view of yours on how the world looks and what numbers are may explain why you can “understand” Erik so well.
His statement did include a broad range of creators. How many 20 year vets only have a few fill in issues or a few covers to their credit? Most 20 year vets started out by being given fill in issues, minor books and the odd cover before they were ever trusted with any sort of long run on a major series and have lots of fill ins and covers to their credit. That statement read like it was aimed at newer guys as well as old pros.
You want us to admit that we made a mistake because we read what Erik wrote without going, “Gee…. This is what he wrote but I know he musta REALLY meant this. :)”
How about we meet you half way? I’ll admit that Erik may not have meant his bit to be so poorly written as to not convey his desired points or come off as stupid as it actually did if you admit that it was just plain poorly written. I think that’s fair.
Maybe you could also admit that he should have thought more about what he was saying then about how he could say it in a shocking manner. Maybe then he wouldn’t have added one more listing to his rep as the over all comic book industry idiot/class clown.
Who’s got some psychology experience here? Isn’t there something about the human psyche that says that your first reactions are generally the most honest? That’s been true in my experience. It’s why the internet is both a wonderful and dangerous tool. We’re all free to browse, read, react, and even interact. The danger is that you’re liable to put down your initial, honest, brutal thoughts. And the more riled up you are over the topic, the less likely you are censor yourself, to check your words and tone to make sure that you’re actually saying what you want to say.
And sometimes, what you want to say needs to be tempered by reason and good sense. I’ve personal experience with the end of along friendship because someone told me how they truly felt, when it might have been better to wait for their passions to pass, and temper their words. So when I see Larson “explain” now what he *meant* to say, and see that there are subtle yet significant differences between what he claims to have meant, and what he actually wrote. The thing is, his first words are “out there.” He can’t take them back. And I’m inclined to believe that his first words are a more accurate reflection of his true feelings. His follow-up is just damage control. He’s seen the negative reaction some have had, those that are unwilling to make excuses for him.
I’m tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean. People that seek to express their thoughts in a public forum need to assume responsibility for their words. If Larson had a specific target for his opinion, then he needed to be more direct. He used the literary equivilent of a scatter-gun when he wanted a sniper rifle. I don’t know if that quote Jamie posted came with an apology for all the folks that felt stung by random Larson-shot, but he certainly owes them one.
“it was mostly shooting at more established guys who haven’t created much of anything but have been living off of the remains of others for 20 years or more.”
Hm, mostly. Which means it was partly NOT shooting at established guys. Even in his explanation, Larson validates many of the criticisms leveled at him. Maybe, just maybe, if Larson hadn’t chosen to use a tone that was insulting and invective, more might have been inclined to but him some slack. But since he chose to come out guns a blazin, no one should be surprised that some of us have responded in kind.
“But what’s out on a limb about the idea that “most of the victims of 9/11 prayed to someone”? That’s hardly a bold statement; it’s arguably TRUE.”
Perhaps. Then again–and apologies if this sounds insensitive–I suppose it depends on how elastic one’s definition of praying is. I mean, I’m sure many people (possibly most) were saying “Oh God.” If one counts that as prayer, okay. But there were probably just as many who were saying “Oh šhìŧ” with equal fervor, so…
PAD
There’s certainly nothing like a life-threatening situation to encourage someone to find God. On the other hand, I think most of the folks in that boat believed all along, they just had issues or questions.
But for folks that truly don’t have a faith to follow, and I’d be willing to bet there were at least a few among the 9/11 victims, I doubt that they’d suddenly change their minds when faced with impending doom. It’s maybe comforting to those that believe that you have to make an active declaration of faith in order to gain access to Heavan to think that we all repent in our own way before our final moments, but to think that everyone does is sorta arrogant.
“But for folks that truly don’t have a faith to follow, and I’d be willing to bet there were at least a few among the 9/11 victims, I doubt that they’d suddenly change their minds when faced with impending doom.”
I guess it hinges on whether you believe the oft’-quoted words of Father Cummings, a WWII Chaplain who said, “There are no atheists in the foxholes.” A quote that, the last time I used it on the internet, got me hate mail from atheists.
PAD
If you look at type the people Larson chooses to criticise in his article one line reads
“You get to put a bullet through Blue Beetle– a character you didn’t create or help create– but you got the opportunity to destroy. “
This is obviously a reference to DC’s Countdown ton Infinte Crisis and must be therefore a reference to at least one of the writers Greg Rucka, Judd Winnick and Geoff Johns. Of those three, Greg Rucka has created the Atticus Kodak series of novels and his creator owned comics Queen and Country and Whiteout, Judd Winnick is resonsible for Barry Wheen, Boy Genius. Now this leaves Geoff Johns, who admittedly as far I known seems to have dome all his work for the big two but it does included original horror serries The Possessed as well as creating a number of new charcters including the present Star Girl. So these creators that Larson critised by implication do actually seem to add to the body of charcaters and do at least be partly original work. Also none of them are even 10 year vetrans in the field let alone 20 I am not sure why get singled out.
I don’t. What a monumental waste of time that thing. Letting myself get sucked into that and becoming a part of the McFarlane hype machine. I was a serious nitwit for allowing that to happen.
Well, it essentially made you the leader of the writer camp, in the whole “Do comics need writers?” debate, and being the representative of your entire profession ain’t a bad place to be, profile-wise.
If look at that, and the U-Decide thing, one would have to say that controversy is good for business. There are a lot of writers who keep their mouths shut, and just fade off the radar till they can’t get an assignment from anyone. You’ve been in this business for more than 20 years, and you’re getting a brand new Spider-Man book and a brand new X-book. I see a linkage.
Bobb:
>Who’s got some psychology experience here? Isn’t there something about the human psyche that says that your first reactions are generally the most honest? That’s been true in my experience. It’s why the internet is both a wonderful and dangerous tool. We’re all free to browse, read, react, and even interact. The danger is that you’re liable to put down your initial, honest, brutal thoughts. And the more riled up you are over the topic, the less likely you are censor yourself, to check your words and tone to make sure that you’re actually saying what you want to say.
Certainly, one’s initial inner response tends to be the most honest, though by the time that it sees print online, I’m not so sure.
My 2 biggest concerns regarding common unhealthy traits that I’ve seen online over the past dacade are:
1) The addicitve mindset that this super-quick communication and resource provider feeds into.
2) The huge breakdown in communication and interpersonal skills that has occurred due to the lack of any significant consequences in this realm. I’ve counseled individuals who have had fights and/or “made up” with another person via iming. It boggles my mind that this is a fairly common practice among adolescence and college-aged people. One needn’t go far to find online bullies (Who, for the most part, wouldn’t have the courage to speak the words to someone’s face.) *Talk about the ultimate example of passive aggressive behavior or displaced anger!* Careless words are thrown around quite often and when called on it, many respond that they don’t know the person, so it isn’t “real” or it invalidates their inappropriate behavior.
Anyways… this could be a huge discussion, but though the initial response being typed out online, I believe that this plays a relatively minor influence in the actual interactions we see here.
Fred
“I’m tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean.”
Shìŧ, Bobb, I’m tired of having to explain what I mean.
>>”I’m tired of people having to explain what the words of others mean.”
>Shìŧ, Bobb, I’m tired of having to explain what I mean.
Huh?
😉
“Of those three, Greg Rucka has created the Atticus Kodak series of novels and his creator owned comics Queen and Country and Whiteout…”
Rucka’s also a Mariner fan, so that makes him A-OK in my book.
I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it’s a wonder I haven’t been knee-capped.
“I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it’s a wonder I haven’t been knee-capped.”
I hope your spouse doesn’t lurk here, then. You may find yourself an unwelcome “guest” waiting for you at home someday =P
Knuckles:
> I tell you what, Fred, between some of my comments on this board and my marriage, it’s a wonder I haven’t been knee-capped.
At least you understand that consequence. 😉
The frightening aspect to this phenomenon is that many of the younger generation would be surprised to be knee capped or at an anger response that seems quite resonable to those of us who have grown up with face-to-face interactions.
**Side note, the nice thing about a significant other is when you hear the voice of reason behind you, telling you to just let a thread/argument/tirade go.
Luigi: “Now you’re trying to shift the point away from my original question, and saying it’s about “occasional” lateness, when that wasn’t my original question.“
I’m sorry, the original post in this whole thing was a jab at Image chiding them for having lateness problems. I thought this was unduly harsh since they are far from the worst offender with regard to lateness. If that’s not what you’re talking about, then I don’t know why we’re having this discussion. I’m sorry I didn’t implicitly take your use of the past tense to only refer to the distant past and not a broader view of a publisher’s history.
No wonder most everyone in the comic scene hates Erik Larsen. Out of all the comic creators out there, there have been a few I just didnt like. Maybe it was the style they used or the way they treated fans, but there is always something they did that you can say something good about. I cant do that about Erik Larsen. Maybe they arent showing what they have to Erik Larsen because he might steal the idea or maybe the creators dont want to be associated with Image.
“…but there is always something they did that you can say something good about. I cant do that about Erik Larsen.”
That’s not true at all.
He left several books so that better creators could come on board and do GOOD work on them.
That was something good you can say about him.
😉
“I hope your spouse doesn’t lurk here, then. You may find yourself an unwelcome “guest” waiting for you at home someday =P”
As long as it wasn’t Oprah, I’d be ok with it.
You kidding. “You get a car! YOU get a car! You GET a CAR! ” Oprah can visit anytime she likes.
Seriously, I’d have to think about it.
You guys are giving him waaay too much credit, and blowing a dumb thing into a big thing.
Larsen is a crummy writer. He tossed off the column in about twenty minutes and didn’t bother to re-write for clarity. Like Bobb said, it’s a knee jerk column to fill space. To think he was intentionally insulting individuals gives him way too much credit.
Peter David: Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.
Erik Larsen: Well, that has nothing to do with anything. Way to drive that point home.
Luigi Novi: It has everything to do with it. You criticized creators for not producing creator-owned work. Peter pointed out that many, if not most of the greatest works of art in history and in other media are not creator-owned.
David S.: He did more than THAT, Luigi. Peter has said in numerous BID columns that during the Rennaisance Period, there WERE no self-employed artists! They had patrons and did mostly contract-labor in the form of “portraits.” Here, he’s saying that TV writers are writers-for-hire BY DEFINITION!
What Peter DIDN’T say, but it’s ALSO true, is that even best-selling short-story writers, novelists, poets and singer/songwriters usually have to buy back their works from the publishing houses that LEGALLY OWN THEM before they can obtain enough SERIOUS money to self-publish any future works (and that’s just their POPULAR works). The Image guys didn’t even have to do THAT to become “successful.” Just convince some investors that their “Marvel” fans will follow them to any title that they’re working on, especially if they OWN IT! And he calls Peter a self-promoting fool! Look in the mirror, pal!
True, David.
Peter, do you or anyone else here know if there’s a transcript of that debate between you and McFarlane? I was not present at that convention, and would very much like to see exactly what was said. Thanks. 🙂
Peter, do you or anyone else here know if there’s a transcript of that debate between you and McFarlane? I was not present at that convention, and would very much like to see exactly what was said. Thanks. 🙂
They had a full transcript in a CBG once. I thought that it was once posted here but I may be quite wrong.
It was a slam dunk. PAD is being modest by not reprinting it every week, which is what I, poor sport that I am, would be doing.
Luigi Novi,
Give me a week if you can’t find it yourself. I think I know somebody who still has a few old CBG copies of that debate (and a few other IMage/PAD things).
If she still has them then I’ll scan them into my computer and we can work out how to get them to you then.
“He left several books so that better creators could come on board and do GOOD work on them.
That was something good you can say about him.”
You got to be kidding right? He leaves books because sales drop and fans hate him. Any creator that has to take over after him has an incredible mess to clean up. Thats not a good thing. A good thing is if Erik Larson never touches a book you enjoy.
When I heard he was doing Teen Titans for 2 issues I had my retailer take it off my list. Funny thing is the shop owner said a few other people had done the same thing.
Jerry, thank you very much; I really appreciate it. If you want to email it to me, you can do so at nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com. 🙂
Robert Shacklock: When I heard he was doing Teen Titans for 2 issues I had my retailer take it off my list. Funny thing is the shop owner said a few other people had done the same thing.
Luigi Novi: Teen Titans? Aren’ t you confusing him with Rob Liefeld?
“Luigi Novi: Teen Titans? Aren’ t you confusing him with Rob Liefeld?”
Other than Larsen having a somewhat better grasp of physiology, what’s the difference?
As a matter of fact I am! Im a noob, please put me down.
Posters attempting to impersonate others will be deleted, as will all responses to such posts.
So all involved in such endeavors are advised to save their efforts.
PAD
I sent off an e-mail to Larsen telling him that I thought his column sucked. He responded that I should read it again. Even the big words. My response was that I read an issue if Savage Dragon once, and I have not had any interest in reading anything he writes since. But that I did go back and scan the column, and the biggest words I could find were independants and contemporary. And that if those are big words to him, then that explains a lot about his writing. His response “You win, you have proved to be a bigger jerk than me”.
Kind of makes me proud.
God I read his new column. I wonder if any of the creators who are emailing him singing his praises are those who already have a creator owned project in mind and are using the opportunity to get in good with Larsen. Has any creator come out and publicly supported Larsen?
So all involved in such endeavors are advised to save their efforts.
Well, there went my “Humorous Post of the Day” to waste. 🙂
Jerry? Any word yet? 🙂 I still haven’t been able to find it. Thanks.
Luigi
If Larsen is trying to enlist the talent of writers, artists and comic creators, he has an odd way of showing it.
His current FLAT offer for ‘completed’ creator owned material is $6000 for fully completed book pitches.
Lets see bargain that entire $6000 between a writer, an illustrator, a colorist, and a letterer and you barely have enough cash left to ship the pitch.
Break that down even further to the amount of hours that each one of those creators spent to give their best effort to the ‘mighty one’, just for the point of possibly getting it reviewed.
Do the math: $6000 divided by 28 fully scripted, drawn, inked, colored, lettered pages, and a cover all created by a possible 4 or more different hard working individuals, who are just attempting to get their creation in print.
WOW! thank you MR. Larsen, that $214 per page offer is so gracious and gollyg won’t my child, wife or family be happy when I bring home my share of 53 whole dollar bills on each page! and to think it only took us 3 months to complete it!
We’re all gonna be rich comic book creators. Lets all chant it like a mantra!
Don’t ya wanna start singing “CumbahYa my Larsen”?
Doesn’t it just make you want to run right out and create your next property for IMAGE?
Waitaminute. What exactly is that six grand for? Just the initial first issue of the book? Since Image publishes creator-owned material, wouldn’t the creators also get the profits from the sales of the book?
Luigi, yes. Some creators walk away with a great deal of money for successful books. Walking Dead is a cash cow. Those who produced books that didn’t sell many copies were left with little financial benefit to show for their efforts.