What’cha think?

Originally published March 3, 2000, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1372

Snail mail has trickled these days, most people choosing to communicate via e-mail. And because e-mail requires so little effort, some of them tend to be minimalist—letters that I call “What’cha thinks?” What’cha think of this or that. Understand: I’m not being disingenuous when I say that I’m not entirely sure why folks ask what I think. Perhaps they want to hear my opinion so that they use it to form an opposite opinion. In any event, herewith a scattering of recent “What’cha thinks…”

“What’cha think of Gorilla Comics and why didn’t you ‘go after’ them like you did with Image?”

I think it’s great and I wish them well. The reason I didn’t “go after” them is because they didn’t issue a badly written press release that made them look bad, if anyone gave any actual thought to what they were saying.

* * *

“You’re a frequent and loud supporter of the First Amendment. What’cha think of the whole John Rocker thing?”

As of this writing, Rocker is coming to New York to appeal his decision. Not only do I think he’s within his rights to do so, but I think it should be overturned. This should be done not on a sense of forgiveness for what he said, but out of an acknowledgment that this entire thing has been blown out of proportion. Words only give as much damage as you allow them to have.

Picture the following scenario. John Rocker, on a field, throws a ball he’s convinced is strike three. The umpire, who is black and gay, calls it outside, ball four, walking in the winning run. Rocker is infuriated. He runs up to the ump. Heated words, none of them racially or sexually related, are exchanged. Then Rocker knocks the guy over.

Based on baseball precedent, they’d suspend him five games.

So he spouts off in a magazine… and they suspend him for several months, including spring training, thereby effectively impeding his ability to play for even longer? The moral of the story is don’t complain about gays, blacks and foreigners. Just hit them.

It smacks less of proportionate response to the person than it does a concerted effort by all concerned to cover their butts. It’s ridiculous. He’s a loud-mouthed jock who spouted off. Big deal. There’s nothing more intrinsically American than the right to make a complete idiot of yourself in print. I know that better than anyone.

Let it go, people. Jeez.

* * *

“What’cha think about Aquaman since you left? And Hulk?”

Haven’t read ’em. I don’t generally read books after I leave. However…

I admit to some amusement that I was forced off the Hulk by an editorial desire for an incarnation of the Hulk that tanked, not once, but twice (in Rampaging and the relaunched series.) So now a return to the psychological underpinnings of the book is announced, and huzzahs are heard. I consider that some small vindication.

I was also intrigued about the recent interview in Wizard wherein the new writer on Aquaman states, “Aquaman has to be seen not as a joke, but as a king. Right now, he doesn’t look like one. I hate the hook. I hate the long hair and I hate the beard. He looks like a demented, underwater Charles Manson. I think my Aquaman is a guy who has this cool combination of a jet and submarine—it’s like Air Force One times 10—that takes him to the U.N.” He also stated that he was “determined to make (Atlantis) a much more vital place in the DC Universe.”

That, of course, is a sentiment that the new writer has a luxury of feeling. I, on the other hand, did not have that luxury when I started on the book. When I was first announced as the new writer, I was—no exaggeration—bombarded with retailers and fans, all asking the same thing: Why are you bothering? Aquaman is a loser character.

Jerry Seinfeld lampooned him in his act, and a TV variety series did a sketch depicting the JLA, in which Superman barked instructions to each of the members as to how a crisis should be handled. Then he turned to Aquaman and said, “And Aquaman… you go talk to fish!” And they all fell down laughing.

Aquaman was a joke. My job was to make him not one.

The long hair was for the purpose of giving the artist something to draw that would constantly be in motion under water, even if Aquaman was stationary. It would add to the visual impact of headshots. The beard was to balance out the hair. I was unaware that everyone from Jesus of Nazareth to Mike Grell’s “Warlord” was now Charles Manson-esque. And the harpoon (NOT hook, dammit, how difficult is this to understand?) was to give him a dramatic visual weapon to add to the notion that this is someone who should be taken seriously, even feared.

I do agree about the cool vehicle. I created one and christened it the “Ramona.” It was destroyed after a few issues at editorial instruction because I was told, “Aquaman swims so fast, he wouldn’t need a vessel to get anywhere.” And whenever I wanted to focus on Atlantis, I met resistance because I was told Aquaman was the king of the Seven Seas and should be spending a minimal amount of time in his home city. And frankly, even I never liked the new costume. My protests were ignored. Repeatedly.

I’m not entirely certain why every subsequent writer on Aquaman has felt a need to diss my creative decisions on that title, considering those decisions enabled the title to stay around. Perhaps if I had long hair (or any hair) and a weapon on my hand, they’d show a modicum of respect.

In any event, the laws of physics tell you that objects in motion tend to stay in motion. I got the book into motion. The new writer faces far less of a challenge than I did: Keeping in motion something that I got started and kept going for four years. And he has the opportunity to do so without the same sort of editorial roadblocks that I faced. I’m sure he’ll do a very good job, even if he can’t tell a harpoon from a hook.

* * *

“What’cha think of Wizard starting up its own publishing line?”

Kind of late to complain now. In a world where Diamond owns retail outlets, Capital City Distribution published its own titles, and Disney opens its own stores, thereby competing with retailers already carrying Disney product, Wizard isn’t doing anything that many other business aren’t already doing. On that basis, I have no problem with it.

However, I’ll share the following letter from Kevin Kangas at Empyre Comics, who wrote:

The way (that Wizard) is marketing it (no reorders, no advance reorders, printed to order, no overships, you’ve gotta sign away your second-born child to get it) point to their intention of making it highly collectible.

So as a store owner, I ordered 25 copies, figuring I could sell that many on Waid’s name alone. It came out and I received not a one. Not one. Diamond had shorted me. I was billed for 19 and there was a # sign next to it, meaning that it had been allocated. Either way, I had not a one. I called Diamond and reported the shortage.

A couple of days later I get an e-mail from Diamond saying that every Diamond account has been allocated by about six percent. It further stated that, and this is quote from the e-mail, “There are no plans for this issue to go back to press. Black Bull accepts full responsibility and apologizes to Diamond retailers for any inconveniences this may cause.”

Huh? First off, had I gotten the 19 out of 25 I’d ordered, I’d still be (annoyed). I placed that order a month and a half ago and they can’t fill it? They put eight full pages ads in every freakin’ trade magazine in the world and they can’t fill original orders? Now, the worst part is, Diamond screwed up my order. What do any other shorted account and I do?

Do we expect this in the future? For instance, I have no subscribers to Gatecrasher right now, so perhaps I order ten copies of issue 4. What happens if I have ten subscribers by the time it comes out (which happens with some titles) and Black Bull decides to ship me eight? What do I tell the two screwed subscribers?

This is a real problem. I think the general public needs to hear this. I don’t really know what to do, short of not ordering any of the Black Bull titles, and then I’m more or less forcing people to go elsewhere if they want to get the titles. It’s not a great move, but I’m not left with much of a hand.

That’s the big problem Wizard is going to face as a publisher. Retailers (and fans and distributors) will be inclined to give them a very short leash. Start-up difficulties that might be considered normal bumps and bruises for a new publisher aren’t going to wash where Wizard is concerned, because people are looking for some sign of underhandedness, since they see it as a potential conflict of interest. So it is incumbent upon Wizard to do everything humanly (and even nonhumanly) possible to avoid problems. I doubt that Kangas is alone in his views, and Wizard may either want to rethink its publishing strategy, or else take great pains to explain precisely why it’s being done this way (and call me crazy, but I don’t think the explanation, “Because we want it to be highly collectible” is going to get a lot of kudos.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)