So over on the Byrne board there’s a lengthy thread about the Hulk which consists, for the most part, of bashing my work on the title because, well, it’s the Byrne board, so it’s SOP. But what really fractured me was the following comment from John:
“Once upon a time, when a writer wanted to “do something different” s/he left the character/title being worked on, handing it over to someone who wanted to continue with the established motifs. Some time around 25 years ago this started to change. Writers like Claremont and David, as well as others, began changing the books/characters to suit their interests of the moment….It’s the same old song — the characters being made to serve the needs of the talent, instead of the talent serving the needs of the characters.”
You just have to love that from the guy who, before my run on the title, was handed a character who was unmarried and transformed into a monster when he got angry, and over the course of the run he split the character in two, separating them into two individual beings, thus eliminating a dynamic that had been in place for a quarter of a century, married off the hero, and basically wrote a series of stories that were indistinguishable from “Godzilla”–dedicated scientist and his group of equally dedicated followers pursues a furious green monster he’s accidentally unleashed upon the world. Stories that, in short, had nothing to do with the Hulk.
And that’s not even counting what the master of lip service to authorial intent did to the Vision, turning him white and unemotional when the original Vision was neither.
That John Byrne. What a crack up.
PAD
• 
The guy who has been posting as RodOdom is not the same guy on Newsarama. He has a habit of taking the names of Byrnerobotics members and posing as them.
The guy who has just posted as Rod Odom is not the same guy who posts on Newsarama.
He has a habit of posting as me on other boards. Only Zhang knows why.
So how do we know you’re not the imposter, hmm?
RE: Byrne’s Burn with PAD
Curious. I could have sworn I read recently that the reason for JB’s antipathy (according to PAD) was that PAD disgraced the character of She-Hulk. Namely, through a PADesque gag of having Shulkie trying and failing to shave her legs (the razors breaking instead).
Sasha-That was done by Dwayne McDuffie, another enemy of Byrne.
Den- Trust me, he’s the imposter.
PAD does have strong, somewhat extreme, political opinions
Strong opinions yes (although no stronger than most anyone with a strong interest in world affairs) but extreme? The only position he holds that I would consider remotely extreme is his near-absolute belief in free speech. What of PAD’s opinions do you consider extreme?
I must confess, I don’t understand why. Unless he’s expressing “obnoxious opinions” in his work, why would you allow that to affect your enjoyment?
****
Bill, I don’t think you categorized my comments at newsarama quite fairly, but that thread is that thread so I won’t rehash it here.
As for the above, it is the same reason why reading Stan’s Soapboxes and hearing him talk about the brotherhood of man, and being “Uncle Stan” makes Stan Lee’s stories that much more enjoyable than they would have been in a vaccuum but in reverse. When someone makes you feel warm and fuzzy, or laugh, or be happy, you want to like their stories. When someone does the reverse, at best your neutral, at worse you start off with a “Oh this guy” sort of vibe. I’m not saying PAD (always) does the reverse. But, it does happen for me, and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, or even my willingness to seek out his work at times. Depends on what his rants are this time. Then there are some people who can rant and somehow that fact is a bit endearing, the way they do it. Like you forgive an old whacky grandpa
The real Rod posted on Newsarama about this.
http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2060313&posted=1#post2060313
Yes, I did. Why did you link it here?
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 6, 2006 05:43 PM
Bill, I don’t think you categorized my comments at newsarama quite fairly, but that thread is that thread so I won’t rehash it here.
You may well be correct that my summaries were unfair. I think, however, that that serves to further underscore my point. It’s all about perception. You perceive that my characterization of some things you’ve written is unfair. Peter may well perceive that your characterization of his opinions is unfair. I’ve learned that rather than being combative (and as you yourself saw in a recent Newsarama thread not more than a few weeks ago, I can be very, very, very combative), it’s better to try to give other people the same latitude you’d like for yourself.
If I had kept that in mind while posting on Newsarama, there wouldn’t be so many threads where I look like such a fûçkìņg troll.
As for the above, it is the same reason why reading Stan’s Soapboxes and hearing him talk about the brotherhood of man, and being “Uncle Stan” makes Stan Lee’s stories that much more enjoyable than they would have been in a vaccuum but in reverse. When someone makes you feel warm and fuzzy, or laugh, or be happy, you want to like their stories. When someone does the reverse, at best your neutral, at worse you start off with a “Oh this guy” sort of vibe. I’m not saying PAD (always) does the reverse. But, it does happen for me, and it does affect my enjoyment of his work, or even my willingness to seek out his work at times. Depends on what his rants are this time. Then there are some people who can rant and somehow that fact is a bit endearing, the way they do it. Like you forgive an old whacky grandpa
Different strokes, I guess. Fortunately, it’s a big enough world for all of us.
Well, I was too combative there as well. Also, I was posting very, very quickly, and not being clear about what I was saying.
Some of the fans complaints about JB are unwarranted. For instance, I see it as BS that Byrne “can’t draw”, like some people start complaining about.
I think the big problem Byrne has right now in fandom is not so much his opinions, but rather his lack of politeness and lack of ability to compromise.
I agree with about 25%-33% of what Byrne says. I’m not so offended by what he says as much as how arrogant he comes across as. He alienates himself from fandom and doesn’t appear to be willing to accept most of what other writers add to the canon.
People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility. You don’t get that with Byrne.
As an example, Byrne talks a LOT about his battles with writer Chris Claremont, but Chris is very polite and cordial, and doesn’t wish to get into that history. Byrne speaks a lot about his battles with editors, other writers, etc. From what I can tell, he dislikes most other writers even as early as the 70’s crop of writers (Roy Thomas, Steve Gerber, Marv Wolfman and Steve Englehart). And he is very critical of fandom right now, dismissing a lot of his critics.
His behavior even borders on the unprofessional–when Marvel cancelled hidden years, he stated he will never work for Marvel again. Now, I know PAD had a problem with the whole U-Decide thing, but you don’t see him burning bridges (if you’ll pardon the pun). Some fans like to complain about Chris Claremont being a “tired old hack” (which I think is foolish), but he doesn’t complain about what happened in the past with X-Men, tries to adapt to the current environment, and is still working for Marvel.
I think what has happened is that Byrne has really begun to alienate himself. His purist approach has irritated other professionals and fans, and he’s not as willing to adapt to the current marketplace.
I think if he stopped writing or dwelling on past conflicts and stopped ranting against the state of the industry (and discouraged his fan base from doing so), and focused on improving his image and gaining some humility, he wouldn’t have the fan backlash he seems to be getting nowadays.
JRT: People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I’ve never read any self-deprecating comments by Larsen, comparing his “strong opinions” to Peter’s is like comparing the work of Joseph Goebbels to Edward R. Murrow. Larsen, as seen in his last rant over creators who do work for hire, and his little tirade in his Savage Dragon letters page years ago, is intellectually dishonest, uses argumentative smoke and mirrors in his dealings with Peter, backpedals after saying stupid things, and similarly accuses others of saying things they never did.
Luigi, are the the Rod Odom of the Peter David blog 😉
The guy makes a whole post and you focus on one thing that, really, is tangential to his main point.
Which Rod? The one who spends all his precious time posing as Byrne fans, or the one wasting his time on PAD’s … oh nevermind.
Which Rod? The one who spends all his precious time posing as Byrne fans, or the one who wastes it … oh nevermind.
On the Byrneboard there is an interesting discussion about the Vision. The regular byrnebots are defending Byrne’s destruction of the character as being ok because the Vision was just a toaster.
Then someone went to the trouble of scanning in the panel where Hank Pym examines the Vision and declares him an artificial human, NOT ROBOT!
Roy Thomas created the Vision and that may be the problem Byrne doesn’t like Thomas and the destroying of one of his characters is something Byrne might get a kick out of doing.
Notice that the original Human Torch is also a toaster but Byrne didn’t tear him apart but instead fixed him up with Toro’s ex-wife. Hmmmm………..
Something else Byrne said that was funny.
He thought Wolverine wore flesh covered fabric to cover his arms! HA!!
Here’s an example of John Byrne’s view of “The Problem With Comic Books,” in this case his answer to the Byrnebot-featured question “Was ‘Crisis On Infinite Earths Really Necessary?'”:
[quote]*I see “event mentality” has become so pervasive even the “easy solution” is thought of in terms of an event.
Let’s think about CRISIS. What was it all about? The main excuse was that all those extraneous Earths were “confusing”. Confusing mostly to anal fanboys who wanted to be able to draw up exact timelines, so needed to know precisely when Earth 1 “started”. The first and biggest mistake DC made was trying to answer any of those idiotic questions. At least with anything more than “it’s FICTION, you morons!”
So, it was all “too complex” and “too confusing” and something had to be done ——– So why not just ignore it? How many references have there been to Bruce Wayne’s insane older brother since he made his debut? If something doesn’t work anymore, simply stop making references to it. Stop doing Earth2 stories. Letters of complaint? Don’t print ’em. (You might not be all that surprised to learn this was the most often used solution to fan complaints, back in the days before the internet, before organized fandom. If a book got 500 letters in a month and 20 of them were grousing about something, the editor knew those 20 people were not likely to be in touch with each other. If none of the letters were printed, the writers would assume each of them was the only one to complain about that point. Not the case today, of course One complain spawns a hundred others, all eager to jump into the circle-jerk.)
Just Don’t Do It Any More is the simplest, most elegant solution to anything that no longer works. Unfortunately, when you have an industry that is infested with fanboys on both sides of the table, this becomes almost impossible. Serving the characters is far less important than some fan-turned-pro showing off for his fan buddies.*[/quote]
There you have it, folks!
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are ‘fanboys showing off for their buddies!’
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to “just ignore them!”
If you get any continuity complaints from “the fanboys,” just yell “it’s FICTION, you morons!”
Apparently, Mr. Byrne is incapable of accepting the possibility that concepts like “The Suspension of Disbelief” and “Playing Fair With Your Audience” is what’s responsible for him having a job!
While I can respect the past work of the writer/artist John Byrne, I’ll keep my distance from the bubble-headed scriblings of “The Blog Columnist that Gnaws on The Hands that Feed Him!”
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are ‘fanboys showing off for their buddies!’
**************
Where do you get that idea?
**************************
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to “just ignore them!”
***********************
Yes, I haven’t been convinced that that’s not the best way to handle it. At least this way, you can always use them again later.
Ser wrote:
The Pros that came after The Great John Byrne are ‘fanboys showing off for their buddies!’
**************
Where do you get that idea?
**************************
It wasn’t MY idea, but The Great John Byrne! Read his last paragraph again! While most people were hypothesizing about the origin of the JB vs PAD feud, a recent Byrnebot thread had the solution all along, unless you have a DIFFERENT definition of “infestation!”
The best solution for The There-Are-Too-Many-Multiverses Problem is to “just ignore them!”
***********************
Yes, I haven’t been convinced that that’s not the best way to handle it. At least this way, you can always use them again later.
Ignoring a single storyline that doesn’t work (Bruce Wayne’s demented brother Thomas) is one thing. Ignoring 50 years of product acquisitions (Earth S= Fawcett Superheroes, Earth X= Quality Superheroes, Earth C= Charlton Superheroes) and Julius Schwartz’s Silver Age Landmark Period (Earth 2= Golden-Age DC Superheroes and their progeny) is not only unrealistic but a major reason why a company that DOESN’T insult the intelligence of the readership has been more popular than one that has had a history of doing this for over 25 years until members of The Competition “switched sides!”
JRT: People like Erik Larsen and Peter David have strong opinions, but they tend to balance it with a sense of self-deprecating humor or at least sings of humility.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I’ve never read any self-deprecating comments by Larsen, comparing his “strong opinions” to Peter’s is like comparing the work of Joseph Goebbels to Edward R. Murrow. Larsen, as seen in his last rant over creators who do work for hire, and his little tirade in his Savage Dragon letters page years ago, is intellectually dishonest, uses argumentative smoke and mirrors in his dealings with Peter, backpedals after saying stupid things, and similarly accuses others of saying things they never did.
Apparently, Mr. Larsen isn’t the only one guilty of doing this if this Byrnebot excerpt is an example of the treasures to be found in Mr. Byrne’s blog! No wonder he was on Peter’s side when BID revealed Erik for the hypocrite that HE is!
The person posting as “Mike O’Brien” here is clearly a parody of the real Mike O’Brien who posts at byrnerobotics.com
The parody has been over-the-top, but he has nailed some of the real Mike’s nonsense. Mike works himself into a lather very often, and very often rants about his favorite music.
There is no ‘real’ Rod Odom.
‘Rod Odom’ is an anagram for “Dr Doom” with an extra ‘o.’
He has also posted as “Gabe Chodu,” an anagram for “Douche Bag”
He wants us to believe his real name is “Joe Zhang,” but I haven’t figured out what that is an anagram for.
I just read the Modern Masters paperback, which collects tons of Byrne interview material. It has given much new insight on John Byrne and reminded me of why I am in total awe of his artistic skills. If you have any interest, inclination or curiosity, I’d recommend it as worth every penny.
Fred
Hey, kids, look!
JB is having a meltdown on his board regarding the future (or lack thereof) of his career in comics!