Recent discussions I’ve been having on the internet have really brought into stark relief for me how my participation can be a perpetual lose/lose proposition. Why? Because literally no matter what I do–indeed, what any creator can do–it can and often will be construed in the most negative light possible. It doesn’t mean I’m going to stop doing it, or that I’m upset about it. It’s kind of fascinating, actually, in the way that any no-win scenario can be.
What truly underscored it for me was a comment made by one reviewer over on the silverbullet website. I’m not going to respond to the reviews themselves because, hey, opinions are opinions. At least they read the book. But he led off comments about ASM by saying:
“I’ve seen a surprising amount of defensiveness on the part of Peter David regarding this storyline. He’s popped up in numerous interviews and on more than one comics message board to counter those who accuse Marvel of scuppering the first three issues of his Spider-Man run with editorial constraints…”
This comment provides a distorted picture, as if I’m Paul Revere on my cyberhorse, galloping around willy nilly to sound alarms over impending disaster. Except it’s not true.
Interviewers have been coming to me, at the rate of one a week for the last three months, asking for comments and responses to questions. It’s not like I’m seeking them out. And all I’m doing is replying, to the best of my ability, to the things they want to know. As for message boards, I’ve been participating regularly in exactly three for years: Comicon, Newsarama, and comicboards.com (with a VERY occasional swing by Joe Q’s board.) And I’ve always participated in various discussions, both about my work and other topics. The single change in my habits is that I’ve switched from the Hulk board to the Spidey board on the comicboards.com site since I’m writing the latter and not the former. Otherwise I’m doing nothing different than I always have. It’s just that “The Other” is garnering far more discussion than anything else I’m involved in, so the perception is that I’m being more aggressive in discussing the work. Except I’m not.
Should I stonewall the interviewers? When fans pose questions to me on boards, should I ignore them? After all, in responding to them, I get pegged as “popping up” places and being “defensive.” So certainly going in the opposite direction is the answer, right?
Except if I don’t reply to questions that fans pose, then they repost them. And if I still don’t answer, or if I don’t reply fast enough, they complain that I’m ignoring them. One fan who posted a negative review of my work, to which I did not respond, then started a separate thread complaining that I didn’t care about fan opinions because I did NOT provide rebuttal. And if I said “no” to all the interviews, then you just know that THAT would be remarked upon as well. “When approached for responses, Peter David had no comment” or “Peter David refused to discuss the subject.”
So let’s say that I restricted my internet activities to this weblog alone. Well, that’s what John Byrne does, right? And how many times have we seen fans make snarky comments about how Byrne won’t wander outside of a cyber realm where he totally controls the rules. Even I used to think it was a tad cowardly. More and more, I’m starting to see it now as simple common sense, because I do go other places and witness the result.
For that matter, if I DO get into an extended discussion about my work and keep at it and keep at it, then what do I inevitably hear? “Boy, you’re sure being defensive.” “Boy, you sure can’t take criticism.” “Boy, you’d think Peter David would have something better to do than keep arguing with someone who doesn’t like his work.” On the other hand, if I realized that the discussion is pointless and I say I’m done with it, what’s the response? “A-ha! You’re running away!” When I formally withdrew from commenting on rec.arts.comics, most posters snippily said, “Bull. He’ll be back. They always come back.” That was years ago. I wonder if they still claim I’ll be back.
Now, of course, I could just ditch the internet entirely. What happens then? Fan discussion of how certain creators never participate in the internet. How they’re relics or antiques or hostile to fans or don’t give a dámņ about the fans or are missing out on the vast opportunities for marketing their work.
And there’s no disputing that the internet CAN be a powerful marketing force. Orders for “Fallen Angel #1” are higher than the numbers it was drawing for the last several months of the DC run, and I attribute that in part to its internet presence.
But on-line participation, like anything else, is a double-edged sword.
So let’s summarize. If I stick only to this board, I’m a control freak. If I participate on other boards or respond to interviewers, I’m popping up and being defensive. If I discuss my work at length, I can’t take criticism. If I cease discussing it, I’m a coward. If I don’t discuss it at all, I don’t care about the fans. If I bail on the internet altogether, then I’m distant. James Kirk, who thwarted the Kobayashi Maru, would take one look at the internet and say, “You’re on your own.”
All I’m saying is, keep that in mind next time you’re viewing how various creators interact or don’t interact with the net, and realize the formidable odds that we can face.
PAD
• 
Bobb, Fred, and anyone else talking about those early 20s and teens…
I just attended a business seminar (I’m an Optician at Real Canadian Superstore in Ontario, Canada) for two days and three hours were devoted to the “millenials.”
Millenials are those born in 1980 or after, who are not only our consumers but are becoming our workforce, and your comments are spot-on when it comes to describing the majority of them. I say the majority because I was born in 1980…and I don’t have most of those charateristics, because I did have to work and wasn’t catered to.
Millenials expect work to be easy and fun and to be able to socialize with their friends while working, do and say what they want, and when things get too hard, they quit because they only got the job because Mommy or Daddy told them to. Their parents call in sick for them or complain to their children’s supervisors if they are reprimanded or fired. They have very much been catered to and let me tell you, it is very hard work to engage them for long periods of time (very short attention spans!). They tend to have a lot of initial enthusiasm but they also bore easily and once you’ve lost their attention, it’s difficult to get it back. They are very creative, learn quickly, and have about 4000x the computer skills than their parents do. It doesn’t really surprise me learning that this age group is trolling around the internet.
RE: Lazy Parenting
It makes me crazy every time I’m in a store and I hear a kid SCREAMING at the top of it’s lungs and the parents do NOTHING. Or even worse, they eventually give in and buy whatever, just to get the kid to shut up. If I had pulled a stunt like that, I would have been marched (or carried) out with a hand over my mouth.
If there’s one thing about which I could be considered even remotely conservative, it’s child rearing. Sometimes a kid just needs a spanking.
-Rex Hondo-
I know this is kind of off-topic, and I apologize to everyone for not staying totally relevant to the thread, but I just wanted to thank Peter David for one of his works and figured this would be the place to do it. (Besides, with all this talk of Internet negativity, I wanted to add something positive, so it kind of is on-topic…) Anyway, I read PAD’s Hulk story “Future Imperfect” last night for the first time and just wanted to tell him that I thought it was a great story with a truly inspired ending. Really a true classic of the genre. Thanks, PAD. (I am a fan of your newer works, just a latecomer to that particular story).
It makes me crazy every time I’m in a store and I hear a kid SCREAMING at the top of it’s lungs and the parents do NOTHING.
On our flight to San Diego this past Saturday, my wife and I had to deal with one of these unfortunates.
Even worse, the kid was then allowed to run around – and of course, the little f*ck had to get into the empty seats behind us, kicking stuff before screaming some more.
I wanted to throttle the little bášŧárd. 🙂
Personally, I think it’s great when comic book creators interact with their fanbase.
Also personally, it’s because of PAD’s internet presence on Newsarama.com and comicon.com that I ended up looking more into PAD’s work and becoming a fan. Without the internet I definitely wouldn’t have heard of Fallen Angel and I would have missed out on a really great comic.
Yes, it is a double-edged sword posting on the internet, but I think the effects are more postive than negative.
It sounds as thought it is loang past time for fans of Peter David to do something to show our appreciation for all he does on this website. Let’s get those creative juices flowing people!
So farm all that comes to mind is a massive coordinated donation/membership drive for the CBLDF.
Other suggestions?
The internet is the ultimate example of “you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. Some people dislike big crossovers, some love them.
With the people who are dissapointed that the events of House of M aren’t being reflected in the current Spidey story, I think they’re mainly unhappy with the Spidey story in House of M, not with the current story. Even though I like JMS and Bendis, I didn’t read the House of M stuff because I saw what was coming. Huge, gigantic events in the lives of the characters that would quickly be forgotten.
I don’t have any problem with them being forgotten. Uncle Ben isn’t dead and Peter is married to Gwen? That needs to be in a What If book, not something that Spidey is supposed to experience and remember.
I fondly rember reading “The events of this issue take place before Crisis on Infinite Earths” 20 years ago, and I’m perfectly happy with The Other working that way. On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of having to buy 3 titles to get one story.
But that’s just me. I can’t claim that my preference is enough to make one style or another the “right” choice.
Mongo is card-carrying member of CBLDF. Mongo started off by buying Mouse Liberation Front tank top in 1979. Where cookies for Mongo?
Peter, I’ve said it before and say again:
You can’t make someone believe something they don’t want to.
You can only show them your “evidence” why you believe but it’s up to them to decide whether that “evidence” constitutes “proof”.
And beyond a certain point of discussion and debate, you have to . . . let go–for your sake if not theirs. ultimately, sometimes you just have to “let” people who think they’re right and you’re wrong continue with their delusions. You can’t convince all of the people all of the time.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Except Mary Tyler Moore, she could turn the world on with a smile. (No, not *that* way, you pervs out there, sheesh.)
Peter,
There a bunch of annoying people out there. No matter what you do, people will bìŧçh. Pay attention to the people worth listening to, and do your best to ignore the comments from the idiots.
I’ve enjoyed your presence on the Internet, and I’m glad you’re here. But I don’t spend any time judging comic creators by who is or isn’t on the Internet. I judge comic creators by their creations. If people people are getting snarky over creators’ activities or lack of them on messageboards, they should get a life. I appreciate creators who take the time to converse with fans–juding them on the conversations seems ungrateful.
It isn’t lose/lose. For every snarky comment someone writes about your participation, there are 100 people who appreciate it.
Peter,
I’m somone who posted about the Other on the Comicon.com boards. I do appreciate your responses to my comments, and I apologize if I came across as a jerk. It wasn’t my intent, but I know that some other folks came along and started making personal comments along the lines you mention above. Sorry for whatever contribution to that negative atmosphere I made.
For what it’s worth, I appreciate your presence and accessibility.
“I’m betting you don’t get to be a good writer or a successful writer without being able to take criticism. Isn’t that what writers have to do to get to be successful?”
Yes, exactly. See, that’s what many on-line critics don’t get. The stuff that’s said about my writing efforts pales in comparison to what I’ve dealt with in building my writing career. Some guy on the internet bìŧçh slaps my latest issue of Spider-Man? Kind of pales in comparison to Judy Lynn Del Rey refusing to consider “Knight Life” for publication because she said the manuscript made her vomit.
There’s this off-base perception that if I discuss my work on line, it’s because I’m “defensive” or “thin-skinned” (the only time the word “thin” is ever associated with me). Neither is true. Most of the time, it’s simply to address what I see as misperceptions.
And it always fascinates me when I say that certain things I write require effort on the part of the readers to perceive. To which some fans get huffy and believe that I’m expecting too much. I just don’t understand that reasoning. There are certain works out there that have entire books of thought, analysis and interpretation devoted to them. I’d like to think that readers of my work are up to the occasional challenge of skimming below the surface of my words.
PAD
“It wasn’t my intent, but I know that some other folks came along and started making personal comments along the lines you mention above. Sorry for whatever contribution to that negative atmosphere I made.”
Don’t worry about it. If anything, I feel badly for the comicon participants. A simple thread started about someone liking my issue of MKSM gets completely hijacked by a small group of pontificators, none of whom have read (a) the stories in question or (b) my work in general, and yet amazingly know everything about the quality of the comics and my “real” reasons for participating in the crossover.
I don’t think any rational person wants to go around quoting Spiro Agnew, but really, “nattering nabobs of negativism” just seems so applicable somehow…
PAD
Well, Comicon.com pretty much fell to the Visigoths a long time ago — chewed at from both sides by long-time trolls and juvie exiles from the defunct Wizard boards.
PAD,
I do agree, you are somewhat in a no win situation. While we have a lot of disagreements on various social/political issues, the one thing I have always respected is that you are always yourself. And so I take you at your word when you say something. I appreciate the fact that you are open to feedback and even criticism about your work, even from non-writers such as myself.
So keep being yourself. I think most of us get it, and those who don’t probably never will.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim:
>So keep being yourself.
…or, if not yourself, possibly a young Richard Dawson.
Oh, can I deliver my Treatise on Trolls here? Please? I can’t resist it after all this lovely lead-in…
Two years ago, I caught two girls operating a phony charity. Without going into a lot of detail, they’d used the internet extremely effectively to present themselves and their fake program. They managed to attract even prominent celebrities into supporting them, and conned a lot of people worldwide, including me, before they finally slipped and told a lie they couldn’t wriggle out from. Understand that this wasn’t one of those “I’m from Nigeria and want to give you $5 million if you’ll send me $3K” things, this was a complex, long-term con, where they establish trust and build relationships so they can screw a lot of people at a time, not just swindle individual chumps into sending them a single check.
Discovering the con and breaking the news to the rest of the group on the internet was sort of OK–I had sufficient factage to support my story. And as it gained momentum, other people came forward to say, “Hey, they screwed me too and then banned me from the website so I couldn’t tell the rest of you.” So that helped convince the people who knew the most about the story that I was the one telling the truth, not the cons–i.e. that I was the good guy.
Enter Round 1 of trolls. These came in several varieties. The first were the Smug Smarter Than Thous. They came in uninvited just to inform us that we were all stupid and gullible and that THEY would never be so lame as to fall for a con artist. There were also the Coulda Told You Sos. They knew all about these girls from prior, smaller Internet scams, and if we had only looked at their websites, we would have known what we were dealing with. It didn’t seem to matter that the Bad Guys had changed their names and online identities. This was our fault, we were obviously too unhip or too stupid to know the right facts, or too snobbish to ask the right questions from the right people. Basically your standard “blame the victim” or “kick ’em when they’re down” responses, no big surprise, just annoying, unhelpful, and hurtful.
So the group gets past this initial wave of trolls. We start uncovering some really bizarre stuff as more and more previously screwed-and-banned people come forward. Teh Law let the bad guys off the hook on technicalities, creating a certain sense of outrage even among the trolls. Plus, the details became so gobsmacking that the story turned into entertainment–people couldn’t wait to check in and catch up on the latest atrocity. The trolls were mostly content to simply mock the bad guys and watch.
Alas, it couldn’t go on that way. We made a mistake in one “inquiry” and suggested that an innocent person was just another sockpuppet for the bad guys. It took the group about 6 hours to figure out that this person was, in fact, a real person (and make this correction online), but that was all it took to attract some particularly nasty trolls. The accusations started that we witch-hunters, going after anyone and everyone we could. Then we were Anti-Fanfic (since the accused innocent was a fanfic writer). Then we were Anti-Slash Fanfic (same reason). Then we were out to get Specific Slash Fanfic Writers, whose personal Troll Brigades felt the need to come forth and defend them even though their names had never come up on the message board before. No amount of pointing to the fact that we knew we’d made a mistake in the first place and corrected it publicly was enough to stop this train–and really, it was only about 3 main trolls that created and stoked this little Hearsay Vortex.
Said trolls were characterized by an utter disregard for logic or reason–once they decided something, that was How It Was, and no amount of truth was going to change their minds. Those trolls typically can’t tell the difference between Facts and Opinions, and like to bring up old or irrelevant arguments at every opportunity. These are the kinds that will attack you no matter what your stance–“you’re too defensive” if you respond, “I must be right because you ran away” if you ignore them.
I found that the best thing to do is ban these people–they don’t tend to contribute to discussions, because all they want to do is Prove Their Point. Unfortunately, you can only ban them from your own blog; I’ve never figured out how to effectively deal with them on other sites. I tend to go for the ignoring approach, though, because these people are so irrational and obnoxious, arguing with them is a chore, not a challenge. The worst part? Even when you manage to score a brilliantly snarky smackdown, they don’t admit defeat. If anything, being put in their place only makes them troll even harder in hopes of revenge.
The next wave of trolls joined the story in the middle. They’d read a few posts, just to see what this blog was all about, and form opinions based on a fraction of the available information. Then they spout them. Hoo, boy, do they spout them. It’s amazing to me that the people who know the LEAST about any given topic will blather about it with the MOST righteous indignation. I think these trolls just like to think of the world in black and white, nice, simple, sorted-out bites that they can comprehend without too much synaptic effort. It’s frustrating, because YOU know that they have no idea what they’re talking about, but since their posts have an equal footing with all others, another newcomer could mistake the troll for an expert. So you’re stuck with either the incredibly boring job of correcting their misperceptions (and be labeled as “too defensive”), or you let them perpetuate “facts” that aren’t true, potentially to your detriment. Ugh either way.
It’s all so sophomoric, and it’s complained about universally among bloggers. I don’t think it has anything to do with upbringing, or can be blamed on any generation. I think it’s just that many people never grow up beyond their 7th grade mentality. Sad.
PAD, I’d just like to say, I have never been, and never will be insulted or offended when a writer OVERestimates the intelligence of his audience. I personally rather enjoy it when I catch subtexts and hints on re-reads that I didn’t get on the first time through.
-Rex Hondo-
“There’s this off-base perception that if I discuss my work on line, it’s because I’m “defensive” or “thin-skinned”. Neither is true. Most of the time, it’s simply to address what I see as misperceptions.”
But who’s responsible for those “misperceptions”, the people who read your work and came away with a different perception than you had intended, or you for perhaps not clearly conveying your intentions through your work?
Either way, to have to go outside of your work and give additional explanation to these people only justifies their own “misperceptions”, if you will, since only supplementary explanation made it clear from them, and not solely the information in the work.
It’s just never a good idea to go explaining yourself, even for the sake of clarity. (unless it’s something along the lines of “This is such a great idea, what inspired you?” or somesuch)
‘It’s just never a good idea to go explaining yourself, even for the sake of clarity. (unless it’s something along the lines of “This is such a great idea, what inspired you?” or somesuch)’
————————————————-
the above words by hdefined
I,
really hope not. A lot of writers write from experience and also include ‘inside jokes’. There is no way I’d know what they ‘meant’ by such things if I wasnt there and thats still a stretch. A writer’s pov of a story I like just adds to my enjoyment, provided it isnt being used as a crutch to support weak storytelling…
‘It’s kind of fascinating, actually, in the way that any no-win scenario can be. ‘
————————————————-
the above words by PAD
Of,
course we simply could be proving you right 70 so odd responses later. Or is this more of a reminder of how dealing with people, on or off the net, is what life was and continues to be…
I’ve found that most people that complain about an artist’s work are really just insecure. I had a creative writing teacher that banned us from any sf/fantasy because (ready for this?) they aren’t real forms of literature. This guy was a published poet, so to him poetry was all that mattered.
Mostly because his prose was lousy.
I’m not going to say that PAD should just ignore they who criticize his work, but ya know what? Someone who complains because you’re not on such and such board or you disagree with them or BUSH SUCKS or whatever…these people seem to think you live on Bajor where the days are 28 hours long. There’s only so much time that a person can spend on the internet (something I always tried to explain to my ex-girlfriend) and you start a new project every thirty milliseconds, right? That’s it, you should pull a Micheal Keaton and clone yourself!
And to Bobb and Fred–AMEN BROTHERS! Brian’s 4, and USUALLY, he’s one of the best behaved kids around. Unlike the rest of the kids in his preschool class, he’s got manners and he cares about what other people want. Usually. That’s the kind of house I came from, and it makes me feel good that at least I’m taking care of him right. Too many parents now want to be friends with their kids and let them do whatever they want. Kids need structure.
“If anything, I feel badly for the comicon participants. A simple thread started about someone liking my issue of MKSM gets completely hijacked by a small group of pontificators, none of whom have read (a) the stories in question or (b) my work in general,”
As someone who participated in that thread, I should point out that statements like this one are one of the things that led to criticism from those “pontificators”. If you read the thread, you’ll find SOME of the people saying they aren’t reading the stories in question and, I believe, ONE person saying they’re ignorant of Peter David’s work in general. Mr. David has now just willy-nilly attributed those qualities to, apparently, everybody who said something he didn’t like.
Furthermore, the folks who aren’t reading the story in question aren’t really criticizing the quality the story. Almost all of those comments are directed toward the sales/marketing side of the equation, for which knowledge of this particular story is not essential.
I invite everyone to read the relevent threads on comicon.com and come to your own conclusion.
Mike
Jeez, Peter really came off defensive in this blog entry, didn’t he? Sheesh.
(Just kidding. 🙂 )
“I,
really hope not. A lot of writers write from experience and also include ‘inside jokes’. There is no way I’d know what they ‘meant’ by such things if I wasnt there and thats still a stretch. A writer’s pov of a story I like just adds to my enjoyment, provided it isnt being used as a crutch to support weak storytelling…”
What you’re describing is not quite what I was saying. If a fan asked “what was this reference supposed to mean?” that’s more of an innocent inquiry. However, if a fan says, not as a question, “I hated how this character acted this way,” then it looks weak for the writer to come in and say “But you don’t understand, there was a really good reason for that character to act that way!” The former’s acceptable, the latter never ends well.
Ah,
thanks for clearing that up.
PAD,
You’re quite aware that it would be impossible to reply to each and every criticism and compliment, offered up on each and ever forum, on the ‘net — without setting aside every project you’re involved in for weeks or months at a time. Each of these participants that fish for such responses tends to be too self-absorbed to realize that he *isn’t* the only individual seeking your attention. I imagine many of those folks have too much time on their hands, and nothing better to do than to inhabit forums and chatrooms all day.
I’ve always thought it was very neat that you interact with us fangeeks, first on Usenet, and now in this and other forums. It *isn’t* written into your “job contract” that you do so, though it does enhance the experience for us and no doubt for yourself. On a personal level, I get a kick out of receiving a personal response to a question or comment, and I quite understand when you aren’t able to do so. It’s unfair for any of us to demand your attention, so I (and others) really do appreciate that you take the time, without sacrificing any of the time you dedicate to writing your books.
So, thank you for sticking around in spite of us fangeeks!
Wildcat
Jeanine wrote: “I don’t think it has anything to do with upbringing, or can be blamed on any generation. I think it’s just that many people never grow up beyond their 7th grade mentality.”
While I disagree with you that upbringing has no influence on a person’s behavior, I’d like to THANK YOU for saying that this can’t be blamed on generation. I’m 39 now, and I heard the “kids today are so much worse than they used to be” complaint in the 90’s, 80’s, and 70’s — and I’m sure I would have heard it in the hippie-filled 60’s too, if I hadn’t been too busy figuring out things like walking, talking, and using the bathroom (preferably not all at the same time). When I worked at Hewlett-Packard, one guy had a (translated) quote taped to his wall from an ancient Greek in maybe 500 BC who had essentially the same complaint.
I went back to college two years ago get my MS, and I can’t say I noticed the students acting significantly differently than the ones I remember from the 80’s when I got my BS. IMHO, things are actually getting slowly *better* over time — the early 2000’s are a better place than the early 1900’s, which beats the 1800’s, and heaven help you if you think the middle ages were a paradise. I’ve seen the marginal improvement over my lifetime.
But you always have to remember that every generation spawns a high percentage of @$$holes. Some grow out of it, and some don’t. I’ve known jerks who were born in the 40’s and earlier, who displayed every symptom of bad behavior mentioned in this thread.
While I understand your point of always hearing that this generation is worse,etc, I am basing my statements about the loss of personal responsibility and accountability on about 10 years of watching a trend growing steadily with a population. Very specific and observable traits are being seen. Are there improvements in some ways? Sure, this generation is more computer savvy and m8uch more advanced as a whole in math and sciences than I was as a high school graduate in 86.
PAD
I wouldn’t worry about it. There are always people out there who want to criticise for the sake of it, not because they want to enter into a reasoned argument about this or that part of a text or so forth.
Being a Brit, I always see criticism as a sign of popularity. Our tabloids behave in a similar way to your online critics, bìŧçhìņg and critiscing someone and distorting what they have said and done. The more popular you are the more they do it! There is no way to win with the tabloids, and I have heard countless celebrities drone on and on about how they tried to make friends with the media and how it never worked and the bìŧçhëd about them anyway.
Your right, you’ll always have those people in your life. But it would be a shame to miss out on discussion with fans who are more reasonable.
Keep on blogging and posting.