Does a creator's behavior affect your enjoyment of their work?

[Dan Apodaca]

If there's something about a comics creator that turns you off, will that influence whether you buy their work or not? Does it matter if it was something in the past or present?

I mainly ask because, after Tom Beland threw a tantrum on the blog, I'm pretty disinclined to ever pick up "True Story, Swear to God". Granted, I was sort of apathetic to it anyway, but now I'm sure I won't bother.

Of course, I've always said that you shouldn't hold the art responsible for the artist. Should Wagner's anti-semitism prohibit us from appreciating his music? Or is it different because he's dead?

What are your thoughts?

And how long before Tom Beland shows up to tear me a new asshole?

[Carlton Donaghe]

After your crass reaction to Lea Hernandez' misfortune, I can honestly say I will never even look at any work that has your name on it. How's that?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

After being quite depressed and very dissapointed at Mr. Beland's comments yesterday, I waited until today to post a comment on the blog, which sums up my views.

Basically in some cases I can ignore an author and enjoy the work, heck in a lot of cases, but in the case of Tom Beland, as his work is about his life, I don't think I can.
I quite enjoyed TSSTG's first two trades, but after reading his childish comments, I no longer wish to purchase anymore, or even re-read the trades I do have.

[Sanagi]

I do try to keep some distance for appreciation of the art alone, but sometimes it's hard... Seeing someone act like a troll is certainly a turn-off, especially when it's an insulting response to a mildly bad review.

[Paperghost]

every time i hear about frank miller recently, he's always in the news for making some latest crazy comment about batman and terrorists. can't wait for his latest book...

/ rolls eyes

....god, it has the potential to be shudderingly awful.

that convention where he hurled some random insult at the crowd (can't remember what he said exactly) sealed the deal for me.

[K'Nort]

I think that's one reason I've always avoided articles about writers, artists, musicians, actors, etc. It's distracting. I don't want to know about them as people. My interest is in the work, not the creator.

It seems too nosy too. Enjoying their work doesn't give me some sort of right to their personal life. And if I can't "truly" understand their work (like a musician's songs, say) without knowing their life story, then they're not very good at their job.

I can easily understand being turned off of someone's work because you come across something distasteful about them. But if you're not personally bothered, even though other people are, I don't see a moral obligation to reject the stuff.

[brundlefly]

I think it can reinforce my opinion if I already don't like their work, as I'm less likely to be open-minded or give their writing a second chance if I've formed some kind of negative personal opinion about them from their interviews or online comments (for example, Reggie Hudlin & Brian Michael Bendis). But the reverse (dropping a book that I like because of an interview with the writer in which he or she came off poorly) is less likely. For instance, I won't be picking up any Batman/Osama series from Miller, but it's because I have no interest in that concept, not because of any interviews that he gave or presumably offensive comments him he may have made. Moore can come off a little prickly in his interviews as well, but it doesn't really lessen my enjoyment of his or Miller's works.

[howyadoin]

After your crass reaction to Lea Hernandez' misfortune, I can honestly say I will never even look at any work that has your name on it. How's that?So basically you came into this thread to say "neener, neener, neener, I'm not listening"?

[howyadoin]

I mainly ask because, after Tom Beland threw a tantrum on the blog...In all fairness, the review he responded to was more than a little bitchy. Greg's passive-aggressive writing style really grates on my nerves, and not just because it's terrible writing or because of the gook joke.

[Dan Apodaca]

After your crass reaction to Lea Hernandez' misfortune, I can honestly say I will never even look at any work that has your name on it. How's that?

Childish, petty, and misinformed.

[Dan Apodaca]

In all fairness, the review he responded to was more than a little bitchy. Greg's passive-aggressive writing style really grates on my nerves, and not just because it's terrible writing or because of the gook joke.

Fair enough. If you think that the review warranted the kind of response it got, this probably wouldn't have any effct on your opinion of the book.

I didn't think that there was anything wrong with the review, though, and Beland's comments seemed to come out of nowhere.

[Reptisaurus!]

Nah. I don't care. Unless I personally KNOW the artist.

Most of my artistic hereos are kind of assholes. Mingus punched his trombone player so hard that he was sidelined for months.

Related note: Dan: Read Killer Princesses. Both Simone and Hernandez are capable of really great work. But their company owned work.... isn't it.

[Dan Apodaca]

Related note: Dan: Read Killer Princesses. Both Simone and Hernandez are capable of really great work. But their company owned work.... isn't it.

I've checked it out. I'm not a fan of Hernandez's art style, and I still didn't like Gail's writing.

[Gingold]

Not usually. I'll read a comic by just about anyone if I think it's good. But as TSSTG is apparently an autobiographical comic, the fact that Beland came off as a whiney child makes me pretty sure I wouldn't want to read a comic about him.

[Shadow ES]

I'm more inclined to try a new book if I've heard good things about the creator than I am to drop a good book because I've heard bad things about the creator. But I have done both.

[Expletive Deleted]

Only if his work isn't very good.

[dancj]

Personally I don't care what a creator does or says. Even if they were a Nazi, I believe in free speech enough that I wouldn't let that get in the way of my enjoyment of their work - as long as their views didn't show in the work itself.

That said I'd still have trouble enjoying Gary Glitter's music....

Does anyone have a link to this Tom Beland ruckus?

[Edit]

Never min, I found it here (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/10/06/what-i-bought-4-october-2006/)

[Lance]

I judge the writer by his body of work.
If they start doing a bunch of horrible runs, I get rid of all the books I have of their's. Just can't enjoy any of the past work after a while.

[SamuraiJack]

And here I thought this would be another Byrne dog-pile. Nice to know he's not the only comic-writing asshole in the world. I probably would have passed this by in the stores anyway since I don't dig the Seinfeld-esque stuff, but now that I know he'd rather not have my money, I'll definitely not even look in his direction, much less mention it to friends. Perhaps he's never heard the term 'negative press'...

[Greg Hatcher]

The short answer is yes, it can affect my enjoyment of the work.

In this particular case, my reaction was more along the lines of seeing two friends you are very fond of getting into it with each other, that kind of horrified paralysis you have when you can't think of any way to intervene without making it worse. I didn't see any of it till yesterday evening and by then it seemed stupid to want to stir it all up again. I feel vaguely guilty because I sort of started the ball rolling by recommending the book so strongly in the first place.

Met Tom and Lily several times at shows, they've always been great, and Tom in particular was really helpful and encouraging to our friend Brandon when he was getting his work together to publish. He's a good guy and I honestly don't get why he's reacting so strongly here.

On the other hand, I also really like Greg's writing as well, I always enjoy his reviews more than anyone else's. I rarely agree with him about things he reviews that I've actually read-- though I think we have similar aesthetics, he is quite a bit harder on books than me-- but he always makes me laugh, and I don't think there's ever any actual malice in his reviews. He probably was as appalled as anyone by having Tom show up and yell at him. Honestly we are always a little befuddled when anyone we talk about actually shows up... you never quite know how to react to it. Personally I try not to respond at all unless someone asks a direct question or I need to clarify something I didn't get across as I'd originally intended.

The numbers the blog gets are starting to look a little intimidating compared to the carefree blogspot.com days when it was just us amusing each other. I can't speak for the others but I know I have tripped over it once or twice and it really can be very unnerving. I do better not thinking about it or responding at all if I can avoid it. Once you start wondering if so-and-so is actually going to be reading this, you start second-guessing yourself to the point of insanity.

Someday if I feel daring enough I will actually write up the column about how comics creators just shouldn't be interacting with fans on the internet at ALL, because it's really not that great an idea, it always seems to end up with everyone behaving very badly and damaging the whole writer-to-audience relationship. But we'll save it for a week when I don't mind setting the blog on fire for a few days. I bet all of you who spend time on the net talking about comics could rattle off examples though.

[yo go re]

Does Mel Gibson's anti-semitism make you not want to see his movies?

I try to ignore the outside antics if I can - Alex Ross became a bit of a jerk after Kingdom Come, but that didn't mean his paintings sucked. I think it's easier to ignore artists' flaws, since less of their voice comes through.

A better case is Cerebus - knowing that Dave Sim is batshit insane, do you keep reading? Because there's no question that that spills into the book.

[StrikeForce Albert]

there is only 2 people I won't buy no matter what

Greg Land--super tracer
Pat Lee--you know why

[Dan Apodaca]

Does Mel Gibson's anti-semitism make you not want to see his movies?

No, his terrible acting and boring choices do.

But the anti-semitism and support for politicians I disagree with certainly support that decision.

I don't like to give jerks money.

[Sanagi]

Does Mel Gibson's anti-semitism make you not want to see his movies?
Not as much as his scary beard.

[JKCarrier]

If I'm already buying and enjoying a book, then finding out later that the creator is a jerk probably won't make me drop it. But jerky behavior has occasionally put me off from trying someone's work in the first place.

[Brian Cronin]

The short answer is yes, it can affect my enjoyment of the work.

In this particular case, my reaction was more along the lines of seeing two friends you are very fond of getting into it with each other, that kind of horrified paralysis you have when you can't think of any way to intervene without making it worse. I didn't see any of it till yesterday evening and by then it seemed stupid to want to stir it all up again. I feel vaguely guilty because I sort of started the ball rolling by recommending the book so strongly in the first place.

Met Tom and Lily several times at shows, they've always been great, and Tom in particular was really helpful and encouraging to our friend Brandon when he was getting his work together to publish. He's a good guy and I honestly don't get why he's reacting so strongly here.

On the other hand, I also really like Greg's writing as well, I always enjoy his reviews more than anyone else's. I rarely agree with him about things he reviews that I've actually read-- though I think we have similar aesthetics, he is quite a bit harder on books than me-- but he always makes me laugh, and I don't think there's ever any actual malice in his reviews. He probably was as appalled as anyone by having Tom show up and yell at him. Honestly we are always a little befuddled when anyone we talk about actually shows up... you never quite know how to react to it. Personally I try not to respond at all unless someone asks a direct question or I need to clarify something I didn't get across as I'd originally intended.

The numbers the blog gets are starting to look a little intimidating compared to the carefree blogspot.com days when it was just us amusing each other. I can't speak for the others but I know I have tripped over it once or twice and it really can be very unnerving. I do better not thinking about it or responding at all if I can avoid it. Once you start wondering if so-and-so is actually going to be reading this, you start second-guessing yourself to the point of insanity.

Someday if I feel daring enough I will actually write up the column about how comics creators just shouldn't be interacting with fans on the internet at ALL, because it's really not that great an idea, it always seems to end up with everyone behaving very badly and damaging the whole writer-to-audience relationship. But we'll save it for a week when I don't mind setting the blog on fire for a few days. I bet all of you who spend time on the net talking about comics could rattle off examples though.

I can only imagine how you felt, as you were even name-checked in the review. :D

As for creator-fan stuff, I think it can be cool. In fact, didn't I mention to you awhile back of a creator who had a very positive reaction to what you said in a column about his work? It was pretty neat seeing that reaction, and I don't think I'd like to lose stuff like that.

And if it makes you feel better about the change from blogspot to comicbookresources, our readership was pretty darn good back then, too. ;)

-Brian

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Someday if I feel daring enough I will actually write up the column about how comics creators just shouldn't be interacting with fans on the internet at ALL, because it's really not that great an idea, it always seems to end up with everyone behaving very badly and damaging the whole writer-to-audience relationship.

I disagree, as it can be a really good marketing tool for a writer - building up a solid fan base and such - look at Gail Simone for instance, or some of the hosted boards here on CBR.


But we'll save it for a week when I don't mind setting the blog on fire for a few days. I bet all of you who spend time on the net talking about comics could rattle off examples though.

Just post some pics of the kids making comics at the end, and all the anger will get sucked out of everbody.

[dancj]

Personally I don't care what a creator does or says. Even if they were a Nazi, I believe in free speech enough that I wouldn't let that get in the way of my enjoyment of their work - as long as their views didn't show in the work itself.

I shoult qualify that a bit. A creator's behaviour wouldn't stop me buying their fiction, but in this case Tom Beland is a character in his own autobiographical comic. Finding out he's acted like an idiot in the real world could affect how much I root for the character when I read the comic.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I shoult qualify that a bit. A creator's behaviour wouldn't stop me buying their fiction, but in this case Tom Beland is a character in his own autobiographical comic. Finding out he's acted like an idiot in the real world could affect how much I root for the character when I read the comic.

But if he hits a rough patch in life, would you be there reading out of sadism?


How far behind current events is TSSTG at the moment?
How long until we get to read the issue with Greg's review?

[Ryan Day]

It would have to be something pretty extreme - if Alan Moore were revealed to be a die-hard Nazi, I'd reconsider my feelings toward his work. But simple stuff like being a jerk doesn't really matter - I haven't read a Byrne comic in years not because he's apparently gone round the bend, but because he hasn't done anything that's interested me.

[Ed Cunard]

It doesn't affect me even slightly. Dave Sim is batshits, and I love Cerebus. I still like True Story, Swear To God. I'm crazy for T. S. Eliot's work. On a related tip, I don't care for John Byrne's work. Heck, George Perez is one of the nicest guys I've ever met, and I don't like his art at all. I'm all about the work, not the personality of the guy or gal behind it.

[jaguarshark]

Someday if I feel daring enough I will actually write up the column about how comics creators just shouldn't be interacting with fans on the internet at ALL, because it's really not that great an idea, it always seems to end up with everyone behaving very badly and damaging the whole writer-to-audience relationship. But we'll save it for a week when I don't mind setting the blog on fire for a few days. I bet all of you who spend time on the net talking about comics could rattle off examples though.
Yeah, but then you're letting the idiots win. Writer-with-audience interaction can be brilliant, regardless of the occasional negative incident. Sure, comic creator x might be a jerk, but comics creators a, b, c, d etc. are probably great people. Interaction, not just between writers and fans, but between anybody, is only going to be a problem if one of the parties acts stupidly.

For instance, within the last month or so I had some questions about the Thing trade. I was hoping some fans could answer them for me, but Dan Slott himself showed up to answer them, and came off as a nice guy. (As he does in pretty much everything I've ever read about him, in fairness). Hell, I've even interacted positively with that great boogeyman John Byrne on the internet... you just have to respect the person you're talking to, which is quite easy when that person is an uber-talented creative individual like JB.

In my 'real' life, I've interviewed a fair amount of 'celebrities', so maybe that's why I can't see an inherent problem with fan/writer/artist interaction. But I'd like to think the positives far outweigh the negatives for everybody.

[Reptisaurus!]

I WOULDN'T freaking talk to the fans if I were Dan Slott. There's one guy currently active on the forums who ONLY posts do crap on his work. And there've been at least a couple more trolls here who were banned who saw their primary purpose in life as following him around various message boards and bashing his work.

It's nuts. After about 3 days of this I'd say "Fuck you all" and avoid the net entirely.

[dancj]

But if he hits a rough patch in life, would you be there reading out of sadism?
What? How would reading his comic (and thereby putting money in his pocket) be sadism? I think I must be missing your point completely here

[jaguarshark]

I WOULDN'T freaking talk to the fans if I were Dan Slott. There's one guy currently active on the forums who ONLY posts do crap on his work. And there've been at least a couple more trolls here who were banned who saw their primary purpose in life as following him around various message boards and bashing his work.

It's nuts. After about 3 days of this I'd say "Fuck you all" and avoid the net entirely.
Yes, but surely the lesson to take out of that is that some fans are jerks; not that creators should be somehow prohibited from talking to fans, or something.

In a way, the idea of writers and artists being barred from discussions like these seems like a new sort of fan entitlement syndrome.
'We're fans! And we have a sacred right to discuss creator's work without any input from the creator!' Jesus christ, if Shakespeare wanted to hang out with a bunch of scholars, I don't think the scholars would send him away.

[Greg Hatcher]

Yeah, but then you're letting the idiots win. Writer-with-audience interaction can be brilliant, regardless of the occasional negative incident. Sure, comic creator x might be a jerk, but comics creators a, b, c, d etc. are probably great people. Interaction, not just between writers and fans, but between anybody, is only going to be a problem if one of the parties acts stupidly.

Well, I wasn't going to get into this... but my point is that this 'prohibition' should be confined to the internet because it's guaranteed that someone will show up and act stupidly. Guaranteed. I have no objection to interviews, signings, convention appearances, even a creator blog with the comments turned off...it's the back-and-forth on message boards that I have always thought is probably a bad idea on the whole.

For instance, within the last month or so I had some questions about the Thing trade. I was hoping some fans could answer them for me, but Dan Slott himself showed up to answer them, and came off as a nice guy. (As he does in pretty much everything I've ever read about him, in fairness). Hell, I've even interacted positively with that great boogeyman John Byrne on the internet... you just have to respect the person you're talking to, which is quite easy when that person is an uber-talented creative individual like JB.

In my 'real' life, I've interviewed a fair amount of 'celebrities', so maybe that's why I can't see an inherent problem with fan/writer/artist interaction. But I'd like to think the positives far outweigh the negatives for everybody.

..."except on a message board," would be the rider I'd add to that. Because as Reptisauraus pointed out, there's ALWAYS going to be the jerk there that's out to prove something. Or the pro that finally can't take any more idiots and goes off. Or the pro that just goes off for no reason. Or something. How is that good for the pro, the fan, the work in general, for anyone? My feeling, having been around comics and the net for the last ten years or so, is that for every good interaction someone like you might have with Mr. Slott, chances are he has to put up with two dozen others that are... let's call them "less intelligent." And every time he has to either choose not to respond or try to respond diplomatically, it takes up his work time... and if he makes the slightest misstep, if he so much as takes what someone perceives as a 'sharp tone' even with an idiot who probably deserved worse, then suddenly it's an Event, it's news. It's not worth the trouble. That's what I was saying.

But I really do mean simply on forums, blog comments, stuff like that. I'm not suggesting no interaction anywhere ever, I'm saying creators probably shouldn't be getting into it with fans on the net.

[jaguarshark]

Well, I wasn't going to get into this... but my point is that this 'prohibition' should be confined to the internet because it's guaranteed that someone will show up and act stupidly. Guaranteed. I have no objection to interviews, signings, convention appearances, even a creator blog with the comments turned off...it's the back-and-forth on message boards that I have always thought is probably a bad idea on the whole.



..."except on a message board," would be the rider I'd add to that. Because as Reptisauraus pointed out, there's ALWAYS going to be the jerk there that's out to prove something. Or the pro that finally can't take any more idiots and goes off. Or the pro that just goes off for no reason. Or something. How is that good for the pro, the fan, the work in general, for anyone? My feeling, having been around comics and the net for the last ten years or so, is that for every good interaction someone like you might have with Mr. Slott, chances are he has to put up with two dozen others that are... let's call them "less intelligent." And every time he has to either choose not to respond or try to respond diplomatically, it takes up his work time... and if he makes the slightest misstep, if he so much as takes what someone perceives as a 'sharp tone' even with an idiot who probably deserved worse, then suddenly it's an Event, it's news. It's not worth the trouble. That's what I was saying.

But I really do mean simply on forums, blog comments, stuff like that. I'm not suggesting no interaction anywhere ever, I'm saying creators probably shouldn't be getting into it with fans on the net.
Yeah, there's definitely a lot of sense in that. But surely it makes more sense for a creator to just ignore the trolls, rather than avoiding contact with fans on the net altogether. There's going to be troll-like people anywhere, and sure, they're a lot worse on the net, but if people avoid contact with non-trolls because of that, then we're just letting the trolls win.

Sure, posting here keeps the creators from working for a few moments, but isn't that true of all of us? If they don't want to post for that reason, that's cool, but I'd hate a few idiots to keep people away.

[Mia]

It’s pretty hard. Especially to see someone behave so unprofessionally and very nastily in the public sphere. It makes me feel disinclined to fork out my hard earned money on their product.

There are a few creators whose public behaviour or personalities have rubbed me the wrong way. However if they are working on a character I love or their work isn’t atrocious. Then I will hold my nose and buy the book, and try to forget who has penned or drawn it. I don’t see why I should stop reading about a character I’ve liked for years because the creator is not a nice person. However I will say that it will make me less inclined to pick up anything else by them.

However if their work is awful to begin with, then I won’t think twice about getting rid of the book. Some years back during one of those live online interviews where people e-mail in questions and the creator answers them. Someone asked Devin Grayson what her reaction was to the negative fan feed back. And her reaction was ‘Guess what everybody! Opinions are like a/holes!’

Since her treatment of Nightwing stank to begin with. I had no qualms about dropping the book.





Someday if I feel daring enough I will actually write up the column about how comics creators just shouldn't be interacting with fans on the internet at ALL, because it's really not that great an idea, it always seems to end up with everyone behaving very badly and damaging the whole writer-to-audience relationship.


I wouldn't like to limit that to all comic book creators. I just think it should be creators who are thinned skinned and can't take criticism. Or at least creators who don't know how to 'bite their tongue' behave themselves in public. Two years ago I volunteered at a con where BM Bendis was the guest. One of my fellow volunteers told me that while waiting in line to get his stuff signed by Bendis. He stood behind a guy who spent 5 minutes cussing Bendis off for his treatment of the Avengers in the Avengers Dissassembled story. And Bendis just sat there politely and listened. That's proffesionalism. I've seen Ed Brubaker do the same thing. It's why I respect him to this day.



I used to do customer service and had to service clients. Some who could be very trying (to put it mildly). And I never once was rude or disrespectful. If I had to step away, or get back to them. I would. But I would never be rude. Because like it or not, these people do pay my salary.

[KYTouchMassage]

I remember, maybe 94' or 95', reading a bunch about how Rob Liefeld was supposed to be a real bastard. That, plus the fact that he kind of looks like Axl Rose, helped me hate his art, as opposed to just being indifferent.

I've never heard anything about Ron Lim. But I hate him.

[dancj]

From the reports I've heard, Rob Liefeld is supposed to be a nice bloke - if a bit lazy and disorganised

[stealthwise]

I try not to let it colour my opinion, but after reading Byrne's latest rant where he basically said it was a good thing that the Crocodile Hunter was dead (very soon after his demise), I can't bring myself to buy any more Byrne work. I even dealt away the two Fantastic Four Visionary trades I had.

I never liked Beland's work, but now I think he's an ass. That thing with Steve Niles leaving the violently-threatening message on that guy's answering machine turned me off of wanting to read 30 Days of Night. Dave Sim and Frank Miller are both on my "not interested" lists, although that's probably just saving me money. Devin Grayson has made either condescending or creepy comments in interviews that make me avoid her work altogether.

If Neil Gaiman were to suddenly go off his rocker and become a devout scientologist, I would probably cry, because my Sandman collection probably wouldn't read the same anymore. I try to just basically ignore what the creators are saying overall, but sometimes negative things shine through that can colour your opinion of not only the person, but their work itself.

[Michael P]

That thing with Steve Niles leaving the violently-threatening message on that guy's answering machine turned me off of wanting to read 30 Days of Night.
Reading 30 Days of Night turned me off of wanting to read 30 Days of Night.

[stealthwise]

Reading 30 Days of Night turned me off of wanting to read 30 Days of Night.

Hehe, thanks, you're the first person I've heard from who didn't like it. What was it you didn't like?

[Elegance Liberty]

It’s pretty hard. Especially to see someone behave so unprofessionally and very nastily in the public sphere. It makes me feel disinclined to fork out my hard earned money on their product.

Agreed.

Luckily, the creators/artists/writers I happen to like are fairly nice people, so that's not a huge issue for me. Having said that, there are some writers I stay as far away from as I possibly can (i.e. Robert Kirkman, J. Michael Strackzynski) simply because they -for whatever reason I can't really explain, and I haven't even read a lick of their writing- rub me the wrong way, even if they haven't acted like jerkheads in the public scene.

But people like John Byrne, Devin Grayson, Tom Beland and stuff I avoid simply because of hearsay and/or because I've come across some deplorable behavior towards others, even to those who didn't have mean intentions towards them.

I WOULDN'T freaking talk to the fans if I were Dan Slott. There's one guy currently active on the forums who ONLY posts do crap on his work. And there've been at least a couple more trolls here who were banned who saw their primary purpose in life as following him around various message boards and bashing his work.

It's nuts. After about 3 days of this I'd say "Fuck you all" and avoid the net entirely.

While I may have given Slott a hard time about some sort of jab in 'She-Hulk' in the recent issue (before I learned it wasn't what most of us perceived it to be), I feel REALLY bad about it now. Really, I like Slott and he's a great guy with alot of talent.

Since I'm on this tangent, I'd like to say that it's a real pity some "fans" decide to make it their life's mission to make the business hell for him simply because they don't agree or like what he writes. It's okay if one doesn't like what he does and that cliched stuff, but SHEESH! I can see why some comic book people get all embittered with the fandom after a while.

[curefreak]

i think this applies to music for me more than comics cause unless theyre a huge person like byrne or bendis noone cares.
but i really dont like to punish myself by not listening to someones music just cause they have done stupid things(micheal jackson) or said some stupid things( ted nugent)granted that doesnt mean i can forget what the person has done, but if i like the music or the comic its not gonna matter and it shouldnt matter,
especially if they live in the public eye cause people arent perfect and they make mistakes or do bad things sometimes.

[Dan Apodaca]

i think this applies to music for me more than comics cause unless theyre a huge person like byrne or bendis noone cares.
but i really dont like to punish myself by not listening to someones music just cause they have done stupid things(micheal jackson) or said some stupid things( ted nugent)granted that doesnt mean i can forget what the person has done, but if i like the music or the comic its not gonna matter and it shouldnt matter,
especially if they live in the public eye cause people arent perfect and they make mistakes or do bad things sometimes.

But there's a part you're ignoring, which is the fact that you're giving those people money by purchasing their product. You're providing financial aid to a pedophile, or bigot, or whatever.

[Sanagi]

I try not to let it colour my opinion, but after reading Byrne's latest rant where he basically said it was a good thing that the Crocodile Hunter was dead (very soon after his demise), I can't bring myself to buy any more Byrne work. I even dealt away the two Fantastic Four Visionary trades I had.

I never liked Beland's work, but now I think he's an ass. That thing with Steve Niles leaving the violently-threatening message on that guy's answering machine turned me off of wanting to read 30 Days of Night. Dave Sim and Frank Miller are both on my "not interested" lists, although that's probably just saving me money. Devin Grayson has made either condescending or creepy comments in interviews that make me avoid her work altogether.

If Neil Gaiman were to suddenly go off his rocker and become a devout scientologist, I would probably cry, because my Sandman collection probably wouldn't read the same anymore. I try to just basically ignore what the creators are saying overall, but sometimes negative things shine through that can colour your opinion of not only the person, but their work itself.
On that note, I've always wondered how many closeted fans of L. Ron Hubbard's scifi novels there are...

[Reptisaurus!]

But there's a part you're ignoring, which is the fact that you're giving those people money by purchasing their product. You're providing financial aid to a pedophile, or bigot, or whatever.

I honestly don't care that much about the artist. My relationship isn't with the creator, it's with his or her works. If the creator makes art that I feel is personally beneficial to me, then I'll buy it. I don't care what kinda person he is.

I mean, Miles Davis was an asshole. Certainly more so than Ted Nugent, however much I might disagree with T.G. politically. But I bought his albums, even back when he was alive. 'Cause it was good art. And even if I'm appalled by his actions, my relationship isn't with him. It's with his work.

[Dan Apodaca]

My relationship isn't with the creator, it's with his or her works.

I understand that's how you feel and view the situation, but it's factually inaccurate. You have a financial relationship with the artist.

And, most of the time, I'd agree with you that the art is what's more important to me. But sometimes, I have to draw the line or it seems hypocritical.

[Reptisaurus!]

I understand that's how you feel and view the situation, but it's factually inaccurate. You have a financial relationship with the artist.



From the artists point of view, sure. I keep them in food and clothes and heroin. But from mine... nah. I relate to the work, and I decide if the work is worth my money. Couldn't care less about the artist.

[curefreak]

But there's a part you're ignoring, which is the fact that you're giving those people money by purchasing their product. You're providing financial aid to a pedophile, or bigot, or whatever.
im buying there music tho not there ideology and its not like theyre gonna go broke because i refuse to buy there music so why should i punish myself?
technically mj is not a pedophile although he probably is.

[jaguarshark]

But there's a part you're ignoring, which is the fact that you're giving those people money by purchasing their product. You're providing financial aid to a pedophile, or bigot, or whatever.
Dan, the odds that you can go through life without giving financial aid to a bigot or a pedophile or a murderer or a Gambit fan or whatever are all pretty low.
I mean, we don't know everything about the artists whose products we purchase. And, more importantly, we don't know much about the people who helped to create and distribute the product... even if you avoid buying a Michael Jackson album because you think he's a pedophile, who's to say that the album you buy instead wasn't distributed by a closet kiddie-fiddler, or produced by a random bigot?

[Michael P]

Hehe, thanks, you're the first person I've heard from who didn't like it. What was it you didn't like?
Zero plot, zero characterization, complete waste of a good concept, lame vampires, hammy ending.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Dan, the odds that you can go through life without giving financial aid to a bigot or a pedophile or a murderer or a Gambit fan or whatever are all pretty low.
I mean, we don't know everything about the artists whose products we purchase. And, more importantly, we don't know much about the people who helped to create and distribute the product... even if you avoid buying a Michael Jackson album because you think he's a pedophile, who's to say that the album you buy instead wasn't distributed by a closet kiddie-fiddler, or produced by a random bigot?

There's a big difference between unknowingly supporting someone reprehensible, and knowing someone is reprehensible and supporting that person anyhow.

For example, one shouldn't bear any particular ill will to folk who have voted for Mark Foley in the past... but if he was still running, you'd have to question the moral judgment (and common sense) of anyone who voted for him now.

[jaguarshark]

There's a big difference between unknowingly supporting someone reprehensible, and knowing someone is reprehensible and supporting that person anyhow.

For example, one shouldn't bear any particular ill will to folk who have voted for Mark Foley in the past... but if he was still running, you'd have to question the moral judgment (and common sense) of anyone who voted for him now.
Certainly, but what I'm saying is that attempts to take the moral high ground here can easily end up backfiring.
It's a lot easier to just like what you like, without trying to get too righteous about it.

[Pól Rua]

It does sometimes. Occasionally, you'll think of someone as quite nice and be happy to purchase (or indeed, as I work in a comic shop, to recommend) their work.
If you find out that they're an arsehole (or criminal, or whatever) and it may colour your view of their work.

However, I try not to let it, because my main objective is to promote quality work. If you buy a well-crafted comic book, for instance, it lets companies know that there is a market for well-crafted comic books.
And I think that's more important than passing judgement on people's private lives.

Of course, there are degrees. I'd certainly be more willing to pass on reading something written by an unrepentant paedophile over someone who was 'rude to a friend of mine at a convention once'.

And as for the whole 'such-and-such is an arsehole' thing, it's always possible that it's a momentary thing. Tom Beland may have been having a shitty day when he commented on Greg's review. Neal Adams may have had a roaring headache when he was rude to Falcoria at San Diego a couple of years ago. Dan may have been in mid-brainfart when he made comments about Lea Hernandez.

Frankly, if we're going to declare everlasting enmity to everyone who was 'a bit mean to someone' at some point, then frankly, kill me now.
Because I don't mind saying that I can be a complete prick at times.

I'd rather forgive (even if I don't forget), because life is too short to be racking up lists of that sort of crap.

[Dan Apodaca]

Certainly, but what I'm saying is that attempts to take the moral high ground here can easily end up backfiring.
It's a lot easier to just like what you like, without trying to get too righteous about it.

I apologize if I've come off as righteous. It definitely wasn't my intention.

I just think it's something worth considering.

[Dan Apodaca]

its not like theyre gonna go broke because i refuse to buy there music so why should i punish myself?

Actually, Michael Jackson has been having some money troubles recently.

[curefreak]

Actually, Michael Jackson has been having some money troubles recently.
true but doesnt he still own half the beatles catalog?

[dancj]

But there's a part you're ignoring, which is the fact that you're giving those people money by purchasing their product. You're providing financial aid to a pedophile, or bigot, or whatever.

If a suspected poedophile has not been convicted then they have to be treated as innocent. I won't buy Michael Jackson's music purely because I don't like it.

As for a bigot I don't have a problem with buying a book by a bigot unless I found out that they were using the money they earned to fund bigotry. To cut of their earnings just because I disagree with their views would be completely against the spirit of free speech

[jaguarshark]

I apologize if I've come off as righteous. It definitely wasn't my intention.

I just think it's something worth considering.
No worries, the 'righteous' thing wasn't directed at you. And I agree it's worth considering, but I just figure that when people start making all their purchases based on factors aside from the quality of the work, that can be seen as righteous. I assume you don't do this, so I'm talking about some sort of hypothetical consumer here.

[Mia]

It does sometimes. Occasionally, you'll think of someone as quite nice and be happy to purchase (or indeed, as I work in a comic shop, to recommend) their work.
If you find out that they're an arsehole (or criminal, or whatever) and it may colour your view of their work.

However, I try not to let it, because my main objective is to promote quality work. If you buy a well-crafted comic book, for instance, it lets companies know that there is a market for well-crafted comic books.
And I think that's more important than passing judgement on people's private lives.

Of course, there are degrees. I'd certainly be more willing to pass on reading something written by an unrepentant paedophile over someone who was 'rude to a friend of mine at a convention once'.

And as for the whole 'such-and-such is an arsehole' thing, it's always possible that it's a momentary thing. Tom Beland may have been having a shitty day when he commented on Greg's review. Neal Adams may have had a roaring headache when he was rude to Falcoria at San Diego a couple of years ago. Dan may have been in mid-brainfart when he made comments about Lea Hernandez.

Frankly, if we're going to declare everlasting enmity to everyone who was 'a bit mean to someone' at some point, then frankly, kill me now.
Because I don't mind saying that I can be a complete prick at times.

I'd rather forgive (even if I don't forget), because life is too short to be racking up lists of that sort of crap.


I absolutely agree. I do take into account the fact that the creator may be having an 'off' momment. It's when I see it happen, again and again and again. That the lack of respect for that person sets' in.

[Dan Apodaca]

If a suspected poedophile has not been convicted then they have to be treated as innocent.

By the government.

As for a bigot I don't have a problem with buying a book by a bigot unless I found out that they were using the money they earned to fund bigotry. To cut of their earnings just because I disagree with their views would be completely against the spirit of free speech

Again, only if you were the government. I think the phrasing "cut off their earnings" is a little overexaggerated, as you're not cutting off their earnings, just cutting them down.

And really, I can't see how providing financial support for a bigot isn't supporting bigotry.

[curefreak]

By the government.



Again, only if you were the government. I think the phrasing "cut off their earnings" is a little overexaggerated, as you're not cutting off their earnings, just cutting them down.

And really, I can't see how providing financial support for a bigot isn't supporting bigotry.
what do you consider about people who buy artists work who dont know about there personal lives? im sure there are tons of artists out there who have done stuff just as bad as the others ive mentioned but have enough smarts to stay out of the spotlight.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

What? How would reading his comic (and thereby putting money in his pocket) be sadism? I think I must be missing your point completely here

To enjoy his misery.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

However if their work is awful to begin with, then I won’t think twice about getting rid of the book. Some years back during one of those live online interviews where people e-mail in questions and the creator answers them. Someone asked Devin Grayson what her reaction was to the negative fan feed back. And her reaction was ‘Guess what everybody! Opinions are like a/holes!’

Since her treatment of Nightwing stank to begin with. I had no qualms about dropping the book.


If you didn't like her writing, I can understand not buying the book (and everyone should learn to stop buying if they don't like what is happening - it's really liberating).

However, as for what she said, you're aware that 'Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one' is a really common saying, aren't you?

It's not meant to be offensive, it's just a fact. We all have opinions, and we all have arseholes.
It just means there's no reason you should pay that much attention to them.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Hehe, thanks, you're the first person I've heard from who didn't like it. What was it you didn't like?
I really didn't like it either.

It just has nothing going for it beyond it's concept.
Beyond that, it's just a bunch of cliches and anti-climax's.

Where all the buzz for it came from is really beyond me.

[Mia]

If you didn't like her writing, I can understand not buying the book (and everyone should learn to stop buying if they don't like what is happening - it's really liberating).

However, as for what she said, you're aware that 'Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one' is a really common saying, aren't you?

It's not meant to be offensive, it's just a fact. We all have opinions, and we all have arseholes.
It just means there's no reason you should pay that much attention to them.

Yes I am aware that it is a 'common saying'--pretty many vulgar words are common. It's also a vulgar way of dissmissing criticism. Not to mention extreemely ignorant and childish.

[The Batman]

If you say so....

It seems to me it's just a way of putting opinions in their proper perspective. If a creator, especially one that deals with fans online regularly, were to take everyone's opinions to heart they'd probably throw themselves off a building or something. People say some pretty mean shit online about creators, often enough to their faces. I mean I've seen Gail Simone called a bigot because someone didn't care for the way she wrote Black Alice as a Wiccan and Geoff Johns accused of stealing ideas from fanfic, trying to bribe people at cons to say nice things about him online and repeatedly ask him how he could live with himself for basing Stargirl on his late sister.

If I had to deal with that kind of stuff I'd probably adopt a "opinions are like assholes" approach too.


As to the topic at hand. It really depends on what they've done and how good the work is. I usually try to just judge work on its merits and leave the people behind it out of that equation whenever possible and I do take alot of industry gossip and stories about so and so being a jerk with a big grain of salt.

[K'Nort]

For me, there's a huge difference between an artist being a jerk and there being some sort of actual moral issue. I'll blow off the former but not the latter. Kinda like buying dolphin-safe tuna or not wearing fur.

As I was telling someone last night, even if they put Micah Ian Wright on The Spectre (and if it wasn't crap in the first place), I'm not going to read it.

And as some have already said here, it's really easy for people's personalities to get really blown out of character on the internet, and single incidents say very little.

[The Batman]

Wright's the guy who wrote Stormwatch: Team Achilles and lied about his military background right?

I really enjoyed his work on that title and would've probably been willing to overlook him lying about his background I think.

[howyadoin]

you're aware that 'Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one' is a really common saying, aren't you?Jesus, don't open that can of worms again.

[Dan Apodaca]

For me, there's a huge difference between an artist being a jerk and there being some sort of actual moral issue. I'll blow off the former but not the latter. Kinda like buying dolphin-safe tuna or not wearing fur.

You're totally right that there is a big difference between the two issues. Being a jerk isn't the same as molesting children.

And as some have already said here, it's really easy for people's personalities to get really blown out of character on the internet, and single incidents say very little.

Sure, but that doesn't really apply to the incident with Beland. He was pretty clear on the blog about what he meant and how he said it. I don't think anybody's been confusing his message. Also, this isn't the first time he's blown up at somebody for seemingly nothing. There was also that time he went off on Bendis for some off-hand remark about (I think it was) Brazil. As I remember it, it was an inoffensive throwaway line that Beland tried to make out to be a xenophobic sentiment.

[Dan Apodaca]

what do you consider about people who buy artists work who dont know about there personal lives? im sure there are tons of artists out there who have done stuff just as bad as the others ive mentioned but have enough smarts to stay out of the spotlight.

This has been talked about already. Unknowingly supporting something bad is not anywhere near the same as willingly doing so.

[K'Nort]

People had brought up examples beyond Beland so I was generalizing. I haven't read the blog posts and don't intend to. A creator's general personality is a non-issue. I wasn't trying to make the too-obvious point that jerks are different from child molesters, but rather that I draw my own line between them rather than to one side of both.

[The Batman]

Um, what exactly did Beland do?

[Mia]

If you say so....

It seems to me it's just a way of putting opinions in their proper perspective. If a creator, especially one that deals with fans online regularly, were to take everyone's opinions to heart they'd probably throw themselves off a building or something. People say some pretty mean shit online about creators, often enough to their faces. I mean I've seen Gail Simone called a bigot because someone didn't care for the way she wrote Black Alice as a Wiccan and Geoff Johns accused of stealing ideas from fanfic, trying to bribe people at cons to say nice things about him online and repeatedly ask him how he could live with himself for basing Stargirl on his late sister.

If I had to deal with that kind of stuff I'd probably adopt a "opinions are like assholes" approach too.





Adopting that kind of attitude in your head and saying it out loud are two different things all together.

If one of my clients voiced a complaint to me. And I responded to them with 'Opinions are like a/holes'. I would have been fired. If you want to tell me what organisation or company I can behave that way with paying customers and not get fired or suffer negative reprecusions to my career. Please let me know and I'll send them an application.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Yes I am aware that it is a 'common saying'--pretty many vulgar words are common.

It amazes me that a name for a part of the body can be vulgar after hundreds of years of it being in use.
Either way, you dropped her book because she used an expression everybody uses?

It's also a vulgar way of dissmissing criticism. Not to mention extreemely ignorant and childish.

How is it ignorant and childish to point out every single person in the world has an often differing opinion?

Sounds like knowing the score to me.

Jesus, don't open that can of worms again.

Was this some big drama?
That someone used a common expression?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

If one of my clients voiced a complaint to me. And I responded to them with 'Opinions are like a/holes'. I would have been fired.

That's because you work for someone else.

Also, she didn't say it in response to a complaint.
She said it when asked a question about how she deals with complaints.
To VERY different things all together.


If you want to tell me what organisation or company I can behave that way with paying customers and not get fired or suffer negative reprecusions to my career. Please let me know and I'll send them an application.

Anything freelance, like comic book writer.

Then your behaviour is at your own discretion.

[Mia]

It amazes me that a name for a part of the body can be vulgar after hundreds of years of it being in use.
Either way, you dropped her book because she used an expression everybody uses??

I dropped the book because her treatment of the character was attrotious, her writing bad and her manner insulting.



How is it ignorant and childish to point out every single person in the world has an often differing opinion???

Except she didn't say that. She used a vulgar and insulting expression, which was very off putting to many people.





That's because you work for someone else.

And if you would like to tell me which company or organisation I can tell a client or customer 'Opinions are like a/holes' . Without getting fired or adversely affecting my career, then please let me know, So I can send in an application.


Anything freelance, like comic book writer.

Then your behaviour is at your own discretion.

As it is with everyone else. And it does not mean that behaviour doesn't have consequences.

[The Batman]

Adopting that kind of attitude in your head and saying it out loud are two different things all together.

If one of my clients voiced a complaint to me. And I responded to them with 'Opinions are like a/holes'. I would have been fired. If you want to tell me what organisation or company I can behave that way with paying customers and not get fired or suffer negative reprecusions to my career. Please let me know and I'll send them an application.

Well FunkyGreenJerusalem pretty much covered it for me. That being said, would you have preferred that Devin Grayson be phony and say that she takes every little bit of criticism to heart??

Forgive me for saying this but you really seem to be reacting a little out of proportion given what Grayson said.

[Subotai]

Well, It may be the wrong thing to do, but I'm not tossing my Criterion copy of Chinatown out the window. Or my autographed Pete Rose Expos card.

[TheDeeMan]

Hmm, ood question. Well, John Byrne's been a dick for years, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying his classic runs on X-Men, FF, etc. You just have to separate the artist with the art.

Dee

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I dropped the book because her treatment of the character was attrotious, her writing bad and her manner insulting.


In your other post you said you felt that, but it was her comment that made you drop it.


Except she didn't say that. She used a vulgar and insulting expression, which was very off putting to many people.
It's not a vulgar and insulting expression.
It's a very common expression.


And if you would like to tell me which company or organisation I can tell a client or customer 'Opinions are like a/holes' . Without getting fired or adversely affecting my career, then please let me know, So I can send in an application.

She didn't say it in response to a complaint.
She said it when asked a question, in a publicity interview/chat, about how she deals with complaints.
Two VERY different things all together.


As it is with everyone else. And it does not mean that behaviour doesn't have consequences.

No.
In a corportation/company your behaviour is at their discretion
As a freelancer, it's at yours - you can say to clients whatever you feel is appropriate.
When under someone elses employment, to a customers face would get you fired.
As a freelancer, what happens next is decided between the relationship with you and the client.
Some people have no problem with the expression and would appreciate the honesty, some would get their knickers in a twist (to use another, possibly vulgar, expression).

But again, she didn't say this to client, nor did she post it in response to a negative review, she said it in response to a question from a fan.

[Mia]

Well FunkyGreenJerusalem pretty much covered it for me. That being said, would you have preferred that Devin Grayson be phony and say that she takes every little bit of criticism to heart??.

No I would have prefered her to act with a bit more proffessionalism and restraint in answering a question like that. I can think of at least five responses she could have given without coming across as 'phony'.



"You know I've never really given it much thought."
"I try and do the best work that I can put out and I try not to think about or let the negative opinions get me down."
"You can't satisfy everybody."
"It really is shame that some fans are not enjoying my work. But I have many other fans who do."
"We all have different takes on the character. And I realise that it won't appeal to everyone."




Forgive me for saying this but you really seem to be reacting a little out of proportion given what Grayson said.

If you think what she said is appropriate or proffessional reaction to paying customers, and that my reaction is 'out of proportion'. Then I don't know what to say. But as I've said several times before if I ever talked to one of my clients or customers that way. I would be out of a job. I don't know many organisations who would allow their employees to address their customers that way and get away with it. If you want to tell me a company or organisation that does. Then please PM and let me know, I'll send in application.

[Mia]

In your other post you said you felt that, but it was her comment that made you drop it..


Here's my original quote.




There are a few creators whose public behaviour or personalities have rubbed me the wrong way. However if they are working on a character I love or their work isn’t atrocious. Then I will hold my nose and buy the book, and try to forget who has penned or drawn it. I don’t see why I should stop reading about a character I’ve liked for years because the creator is not a nice person. However I will say that it will make me less inclined to pick up anything else by them.

However if their work is awful to begin with, then I won’t think twice about getting rid of the book. Some years back during one of those live online interviews where people e-mail in questions and the creator answers them. Someone asked Devin Grayson what her reaction was to the negative fan feed back. And her reaction was ‘Guess what everybody! Opinions are like a/holes!’

Since her treatment of Nightwing stank to begin with. I had no qualms about dropping the book. .






It's not a vulgar and insulting expression.
It's a very common expression..

Okay. It's not a vulgar or insulting expression. Then please let me know which organisation or company I can use it on a client and or customer and either not have it adversely affect my career or have me fired. And I will go and apply there.


She didn't say it in response to a complaint.
She said it when asked a question, in a publicity interview/chat, about how she deals with complaints.
Two VERY different things all together...

It still does not negate the fact that her response was unproffessional and ignorant.



No.
In a corportation/company your behaviour is at their discretion
As a freelancer, it's at yours - you can say to clients whatever you feel is appropriate.
When under someone elses employment, to a customers face would get you fired.
As a freelancer, what happens next is decided between the relationship with you and the client.
Some people have no problem with the expression and would appreciate the honesty, some would get their knickers in a twist (to use another, possibly vulgar, expression).

But again, she didn't say this to client, nor did she post it in response to a negative review, she said it in response to a question from a fan.

Yeah tell that to the thousands of people who get fired after mis-behaving at the office Christmas party.

In my experience, someone like Devin Grayson wouldn't get fired for that reason. They would just make up an excuse for something else. Or put her name at the top of the list during the next round of layoffs.


By the way, does anyone know what book comic book she's writing now?

[yo go re]

Here are some companies: Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse... like he said, anything freelance. Anything where you're speaking for you, not for your employer.

So your problem is just with ass? Not her dismissing the complaints, but just the word "ass" and your assertion that it's vulgar? Isn't that an awful lot of power to give three letters?

[The Batman]

No I would have prefered her to act with a bit more proffessionalism and restraint in answering a question like that. I can think of at least five responses she could have given without coming across as 'phony'.



"You know I've never really given it much thought."
"I try and do the best work that I can put out and I try not to think about or let the negative opinions get me down."
"You can't satisfy everybody."
"It really is shame that some fans are not enjoying my work. But I have many other fans who do."
"We all have different takes on the character. And I realise that it won't appeal to everyone."


So you'd like her to say something that means essentially the same thing only doesn't have the word asshole in it?

If you think what she said is appropriate or proffessional reaction to paying customers, and that my reaction is 'out of proportion'. Then I don't know what to say. But as I've said several times before if I ever talked to one of my clients or customers that way. I would be out of a job. I don't know many organisations who would allow their employees to address their customers that way and get away with it. If you want to tell me a company or organisation that does. Then please PM and let me know, I'll send in application.


Grayson's job is first and foremost to write stories that'll sell comics and not customer service. Different jobs have different requirements so you should really stop comparing what she does to what you do. Being a comic creator also seems to be different than a regular job but rather a person taking on another role within the comic book community. Part of the idea of comic book community that includes both fans and creators is that we're going to get a certain level of familiarity, for good or ill, from creators and in turn creators will get a certain level of familiarity, again for good or ill, from the fans. Grayson's comments are an example of that familiarity and they certainly don't offend me or most people of this thread for that matter.

That being said, I think that you just dislike Grayson, probably because she 'ruined' Nightwing in your eyes, and this just seems like another stick for you to beat her with.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

No I would have prefered her to act with a bit more proffessionalism and restraint in answering a question like that. I can think of at least five responses she could have given without coming across as 'phony'.



"You know I've never really given it much thought."
"I try and do the best work that I can put out and I try not to think about or let the negative opinions get me down."
"You can't satisfy everybody."
"It really is shame that some fans are not enjoying my work. But I have many other fans who do."
"We all have different takes on the character. And I realise that it won't appeal to everyone."

They are all phony.
That's not how she feels about it - none of those even have the sentiment of 'everybodies got an opinion'.
Most of those are quite wishy-washy.

Is it her phrasing you didn't like, or the fact that she just didn't care that some people (like yourself) didn't like the book?

You get she wasn't calling people arseholes right?



If you think what she said is appropriate or proffessional reaction to paying customers, and that my reaction is 'out of proportion'. Then I don't know what to say. But as I've said several times before if I ever talked to one of my clients or customers that way. I would be out of a job. I don't know many organisations who would allow their employees to address their customers that way and get away with it. If you want to tell me a company or organisation that does. Then please PM and let me know, I'll send in application.

Become a freelance writer.
You can do what you want/say waht you want.
As long as you sell, the companies don't care.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Here's my original quote.


Where you say you only dropped the book after the comments, despite your feelings for the book.
your quote shows exactly what I said.


Okay. It's not a vulgar or insulting expression. Then please let me know which organisation or company I can use it on a client and or customer and either not have it adversely affect my career or have me fired. And I will go and apply there.

Get a job without clients or customers - I have no contact with them and can say what I want.
However, when I've worked with both customers and clients, I haven't even been able to disagree with them - as they are paying me to do what they want.

Of course if a graphic designer or sound mixer I was using said it to me, it wouldn't put me off using them.
ESPECIALLY, if they said it in the context of which Ms. Grayson used it - talking about other people not present.

As for jobs, freelance writer, freelance whatever. Tradesmen. Anything technical where you have got the chops. Film and Television (I work TV, and that wouldn't ellicit a response.)


It still does not negate the fact that her response was unproffessional and ignorant.

It wasn't unprofessional - she's a writer, and was asked how she dealt with a side effect of her job - people not liking it. She answered as to how she dealt with it - that saying.
As for ignorant.... I can't argue it as it makes no sense.


Yeah tell that to the thousands of people who get fired after mis-behaving at the office Christmas party.

Again, I can't argue as it doesn't make sense.
I was talking about freelancers - they aren't usually at christmas parties.
Customers and clients aren't at christmas parties either.
And as I've said, in my experience, 'Opinions are like arsehole, everybodies got one' is common office talk - christmas parties are when people say what they really think.


In my experience, someone like Devin Grayson wouldn't get fired for that reason. They would just make up an excuse for something else. Or put her name at the top of the list during the next round of layoffs.

She's a freelance writer - they wouldn't need a reason to get rid of her, nor does she get layed off.
She's not an employee of DC Comics, and she was doing an interview to promote herself.
All DC would care about is the sales of the book she's working on.
They fired the guy from Alias comics for making homophobic statments, and Micah Wright for lying to them, and gave no reasons beyond that and no apologies.
Therefore, they, like everyone else in the world, took no offence at a writer using an expression, in the exact context the expression was created for, during a friendly chat with fans.


By the way, does anyone know what book comic book she's writing now?

No idea - she's a freelancer - they come and they go.
Perhaps she got a TV offer, perhaps she's writing a book.
Perhaps she's working on a new project at DC right now.
It doesn't matter to this conversation.

[howyadoin]

Was this some big drama?
That someone used a common expression?You can probably guess the answer by now.

[The Batman]

The dislike of the expression or the Devin Grayson hatred?

[dancj]

To enjoy his misery.
Sorry - I haven't got a clue what you're talking about or how it relates to what I originally said.
By the government.

By anyone. There are plenty of people who've had their lives ruined because of false accusations. I think we have a moral obligation to give others the benefit of the doubt and reat them as innocent if they haven't been found guilty of anything.

Again, only if you were the government. I think the phrasing "cut off their earnings" is a little overexaggerated, as you're not cutting off their earnings, just cutting them down.
I'm not sure why you seem to believe that only the government have any moral obligations. The whole point of free speech is that you should be able to have and express your views - whatever they may be. If doing so means that you are unable to earn a good living, or even as good a living as you were earning before then that erodes that freedom of speech.
And really, I can't see how providing financial support for a bigot isn't supporting bigotry.
Because the bigot isn't bigotry. By supporting the person with those beliefs you are just supporting a person, nothing more - unless that bigot turns out to be putting everything they earn into a bigoted cause.

[Joe Rice]

I'm not sure why you seem to believe that only the government have any moral obligations. The whole point of free speech is that you should be able to have and express your views - whatever they may be. If doing so means that you are unable to earn a good living, or even as good a living as you were earning before then that erodes that freedom of speech.

No, it really doesn't. Freedom of speech means you CAN say what you want, not that there will not be any repurcussions. If you want to say bigoted things feel free, but you cannot expect other folks to want to support you afterwards. That in NO WAY erodes freedom of speech.

I mean, really, this concept of yours is blowing me away. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to support anyone else financially. It's completely unrelated. Byrne is definitely free to say whatever dumbass thing he wants to say. And when he does, the rest of the public is free to stop buying his work because he's a jerk. You don't HAVE to stop buying, but you don't have to buy it either.

Because the bigot isn't bigotry. By supporting the person with those beliefs you are just supporting a person, nothing more - unless that bigot turns out to be putting everything they earn into a bigoted cause.

To some folks, giving money to a bigot for their work is akin to putting your stamp of approval on their bigotry. Most folks don't want to stamp thusly and therefore do not give the money.

[Agentum]

Well, i like to say that i don't care, but around here things like that spreads fast and i get to know it even if i wish i had not.

Like Byrne, i have a very hard time to like that man really, he is everything on the net that i dislike aboyt people, boastful, a bully and a mythoman that never can admit he is wrong or change.
So i think it was better when i didn't know anything about them.

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm not sure why you seem to believe that only the government have any moral obligations.

Actually, I'm saying exactly the opposite. What you're talking about are legal obligations, and only the government has legal obligations.

[Sean Whitmore]

I'll be perfectly honest...I'm selfish when it comes to this subject.

I'd prefer not to support anything Pat Lee does. By all accounts the man is a thief and smug as all hell about it...and I don't even like his art anyway. But honestly, if he drew a Transformers comic again, I'd consider buying it because it's Transformers. He's got some Batman/Superman issue coming out soon, and I will be buying it, because it's Batman and Superman.

In the case of Tom Beland/John Byrne/Reginald Hudlin, I don't feel the need to "punish" them for the crimes of being bitchy, insane, or having a huge racial chip on their shoulder. Partly for the same selfish reason (John Byrne could insult my entire race daily but I'm not gonna stop reading Superman because of it), but also because there's a difference between a personal life and a professional life. Beland's childish response won't make me vote for him in a popularity contest, but if he can tell an interesting story with engaging characters (and I have no idea if he can or can't), then I'll read it.


SEAN

[Josh S]

If I enjoy your work I'll probably cut you ALOT more slack than I would someone whose work I wasn't familiar with. I probably wouldn't stop reading CAPTAIN AMERICA if I found out Brubaker was a racist/pedophile/etc because I'm enjoying the book. However, if I found out that one of the people working on HULK (which I'm going to start picking up) was even a little snotty to fans I'd be inclined to read something else.

[Ryan Day]

If you think what she said is appropriate or proffessional reaction to paying customers, and that my reaction is 'out of proportion'. Then I don't know what to say. But as I've said several times before if I ever talked to one of my clients or customers that way. I would be out of a job. I don't know many organisations who would allow their employees to address their customers that way and get away with it.

But you aren't Devin Grayson's customer or client, nor is anyone who buys whatever book she's writing. She sells scripts to DC, DC sells books to comic stores, and comic stores sell books to you. Most writers aren't even employed by publishers in the traditional sense, (though I don't know what goes into an exclusive contract) so there's not even any firing to be done.

I also think that any good boss, when presented with a conflict between a belligerent client and a productive employee, would take the employee's side. If a customer calls you up every week to bitch and complain, there comes a point when it's only sensible to say "fine, take your business elsewhere." I worked for a publisher who terminated several author contracts because they were being difficult to work with, and he thought it was more important to stand by his employees instead of the authors that (in theory) bring in the money.

[Sean Whitmore]

Besides the fact that "opinions are like assholes" is one of the tamest, non-insulting way to respond to criticism there is (which is really the most pertinent thing to keep in mind), comic writers are not in the customer service business. Or rather, not in the customer service side of the business. They aren't the real estate agents, they're the one who draw up the blueprints. Or possibly the construction workers, I don't know how far you wanna take this analogy.

Yes, you or I would be in trouble for saying that to a customer (well, you would; I blessedly don't deal with customers either :) ) But comic writers are more akin to directors than they are to retailers or customer service reps or any other job where the customer's always right.


SEAN

[dancj]

No, it really doesn't. Freedom of speech means you CAN say what you want, not that there will not be any repurcussions. If you want to say bigoted things feel free, but you cannot expect other folks to want to support you afterwards. That in NO WAY erodes freedom of speech.

Obviously we differ in how far we feel freedom of speech should extend. In the 1982, Lou Grant was forced off the air by advertisers because of Ed Asner's political views. To me this would scare other actors into being less open about their views, which erodes their freedom of speech.

Actually, I'm saying exactly the opposite. What you're talking about are legal obligations, and only the government has legal obligations.

No. I'm talking about moral obligations.

[Joe Rice]

Obviously we differ in how far we feel freedom of speech should extend.

No, we do not. Don't paint me into some "anti-freedom of speech" corner with your weird rhetoric. You'll find few more die-hard defenders of that freedom anywhere, if you ask me. But freedom of speech does NOT mean everyone has to like what you say or that offensive speech should be financially protected against the wishes of the people. You're allowed to express yourself as you wish. It's completely stupid to expect the world at large to financially support you if they don't agree with you though.

With the Lou Grant bit, the advertisers had every right to boycott the show. The network had every right to ignore them, but they didn't. No one's freedom of speech was curtailed. A television show went off the air because of ignorant sponsors and a spineless media exec. Yeah, that sucks, but there's absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Nothing stopped the public at large from boycotting the sponsors that boycotted ths show, either. I'm sure some did, and they were well within their rights to do so.


In the 1982, Lou Grant was forced off the air by advertisers because of Ed Asner's political views. To me this would scare other actors into being less open about their views, which erodes their freedom of speech.

[Greg Hatcher]

I forget who said this, but I think it applies here: Our country protects free speech, sure. But there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution protecting Paid Speech. Say whatever you want. Publish whatever you want. But if people don't LIKE what you're saying, you are an idiot to think they'll keep giving you money to say it. You have every right to your opinion; you have no right at all to have customers pay for your opinion. That's not the free speech principle, that's the free market principle.

[Winslow]

Obviously we differ in how far we feel freedom of speech should extend. In the 1982, Lou Grant was forced off the air by advertisers because of Ed Asner's political views. To me this would scare other actors into being less open about their views, which erodes their freedom of speech.

I understand what you're saying, I think the Dixie Chicks is a better example.

However, when a pop culture artist uses their fame as a power tool or platform for political expression, and there's a backlash, that to me is the nature of the beast of politics.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.

No. I'm talking about moral obligations.

There is usually nothing immoral about a private enterprise mitigating the risk of losing customers. However there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.

For me, that line is IF an artist is speaking out about a moral injustice that people don't want to hear, then there is a sense where private enterproise should get a backbone and support the artist.

[Agentum]

Free speech is ok but don't expect everyone to be your friend after you have said something "sensational".
I mean some people really talk before they think and is acting in ways that i don't like, of course i can decide not to buy his/her stuff anymore.

It has nada to do with free speech.
Maybe other people likes them better for what they say anyway.

Speaking openly to a more wide public like internet you should choose your words before writing them, maybe think about if you really want to start fights over things that maybe is not that relevant to express to everyone.

I mean if i was a racist or something and i drag that into this forum and openly express what i think, i should now that i'm going to get yelled at a lot.
It's common sense i think, and it's really not prevent me to think whatever i want anyway.

I dislike a person even more if he thinks he can say what he wants without being questioned.

[dancj]

No, we do not. Don't paint me into some "anti-freedom of speech" corner with your weird rhetoric.
I didn't. It never occurred to me that you were "anti-freedom of speech
Yeah, that sucks, but there's absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.
I'm not talking about the law or the constitution. And yeah it sucks - and I think it went way beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour
But there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution protecting Paid Speech. Say whatever you want. Publish whatever you want. But if people don't LIKE what you're saying, you are an idiot to think they'll keep giving you money to say it. You have every right to your opinion; you have no right at all to have customers pay for your opinion. That's not the free speech principle, that's the free market principle.
The constitution is irrelevant (especially considering I'm English), but all the same I actually agree with that quote completely. I wouldn't expect anyone to pay to read a work that puts across views that contradicted their own. I'm talking about boycotting someone's work because they happen to have unreasonable views even though those views don't come across in the person's work.
Free speech is ok but don't expect everyone to be your friend after you have said something "sensational".
[snip]
I mean if i was a racist or something and i drag that into this forum and openly express what i think, i should now that i'm going to get yelled at a lot.
It's common sense i think, and it's really not prevent me to think whatever i want anyway.

I dislike a person even more if he thinks he can say what he wants without being questioned.
I don't disagree with any of what I just quoted. It's just the boycotting that I disagree with. I'd be in there with the best of them if someone came to this board with bigotted views. (not that I think Byrne has bigotted views)

[Joe Rice]

I'm talking about boycotting someone's work because they happen to have unreasonable views even though those views don't come across in the person's work.



In other words, financially supporting a belief you find repulsive.

You CAN do it, but you don't have to.

[Agentum]

I don't disagree with any of what I just quoted. It's just the boycotting that I disagree with. I'd be in there with the best of them if someone came to this board with bigotted views. (not that I think Byrne has bigotted views)
So you never feels put of by peoples behaviors? I mean if they treat you like shit in a shop do you still shop there?

Or maybe they put up a sign that says "No one with the name of dancj is welcome here because we hate them", do you still come in?:D


Ok maybe it's not exactly the same thing but i can be put of by so simple things, like when someone i know have been treated badly without a cause, so put of that i don't go there myself.

But i have strong feelings of right and wrong (my right and wrong of course) that effect what i do and don't do.
For me the way from a persons behavior to stop buying his stuff is not that long.

But then again it have to be more than that they had one bad day or something or said ASS in an interwiev for me to take any actions:)

[Ed Cunard]

You CAN do it, but you don't have to.

I still probably would, though. I mean, I'm a crazy T. S. Eliot fan, and his antisemitism makes me feel all twitchy inside, but I still love the hell out of his work.

It's nice for me, because while I find people like, say, Mike S. Miller (from Alias Comics) to be an utter tool, I'm happy that I can say that isn't the reason I didn't bother with his line--I feel comfortable enough to say "no, really, it's just because I don't think the work is all that good."

[dancj]

In other words, financially supporting a belief you find repulsive.
Not financially supporting a belief I find repulsive. Financially supporting a person who has a belief I find repulsive. There's a big difference.

So you never feels put of by peoples behaviors? I mean if they treat you like shit in a shop do you still shop there?

Or maybe they put up a sign that says "No one with the name of dancj is welcome here because we hate them", do you still come in?:D
Neither of those analogies apply in the slightest. They're both examples of unprofessionalism in the work. A true analogy would be someone who ran a shop well, but had offensive beliefs.

[Joe Rice]

Not financially supporting a belief I find repulsive. Financially supporting a person who has a belief I find repulsive. There's a big difference.


Neither of those analogies apply in the slightest. They're both examples of unprofessionalism in the work. A true analogy would be someone who ran a shop well, but had offensive beliefs.

And there'd be nothing wrong with not shopping there.

[Agentum]

Yes he is having swastikas on the walls and great you with "Heil Hitler" but it's nothing wrong with shoping there :-)

Dancj i don't force you to care about this stuff, i just wanted you to understand why other people takes such thing personal even if it's not directed at you personally.

But i have no problem if you don't care about what people say or do a long as it doesn't affect you.

[Greg Hatcher]

Dancj i don't force you to care about this stuff, i just wanted you to understand why other people takes such thing personal even if it's not directed at you personally.

Actually -- I hesitate to put words in his mouth -- but from what I can tell, I think he understands fine. He just doesn't agree. It happens.

The question was "does it affect your enjoyment of the work?" That's completely subjective. For some of us it does. Others not so much. I think trying to add a moral dimension to it -- that it's somehow WRONG to enjoy work by someone who's a jerk -- is missing the point a little. I don't think I could bring myself to buy stuff by Todd McFarlane, but others do. It doesn't make them bad people.

[The Batman]

I also think it's important that we remember that this goes the other way too. Just because we don't care for someone's work doesn't mean that they're automatically bad people. I mean alot of fans seem to take what happens with their favourite characters very very personally and I've seen alot of nasty, personal things said about guys like Winick, Didio, and Johns by people simply because someone doesn't care for how they're writing Green Lantern or Captain Marvel.

That seperation of art from artist should be a two way street.

[Dan Apodaca]

No. I'm talking about moral obligations.

No. You're really not. You're talking about Freedom of Speech, and that is strictly a legal obligation. It's not a moral matter at all.

You are talking about the Constitution and all that stuff. You're talking about Freedom of Speech. How is this not obvious?

[curefreak]

i think some people on here dont understand the difference between what someone does in there personal life and what someone express in theyre music or art.
if i was an artist i would have more respect for people if they didnt try to use my personal life as the basis for not liking my art,
mostly cause we are not perfect people and some people just dont come across that well in interviews and such so just because todd mcfarlane comes across as a jerk, for example, doesnt actually mean he is one.

[Dan Apodaca]

i think some people on here dont understand the difference between what someone does in there personal life and what someone express in theyre music or art.
if i was an artist i would have more respect for people if they didnt try to use my personal life as the basis for not liking my art,
mostly cause we are not perfect people and some people just dont come across that well in interviews and such so just because todd mcfarlane comes across as a jerk, for example, doesnt actually mean he is one.

Sure, there are people like that.

But there are also people who don't understand the connection between the art and the artist. Simply put, the art is the occupation of the artist. An artist gets paid when people buy their art. In comics, monetary support (or lack, thereof) is really the only fully effective means of communication between us and the people who make the books. As long as you support the art, the artist gets paid and can spend that money on whatever they want. For some people, it then matters what they want.

But again, that situation doesn't hold if the artist is dead. And really, it's only a problem if the person buying the art has a problem with the behavior in question.

It's something worth talking about, but not so much preaching about.

[dancj]

No. You're really not. You're talking about Freedom of Speech, and that is strictly a legal obligation. It's not a moral matter at all.

You are talking about the Constitution and all that stuff. You're talking about Freedom of Speech. How is this not obvious?

I'm talking about the inherent right that everyone has to freedom of speech. People have this right even if the country they live in has laws that restrict their freedom of speech. It just happens that they live in countries who's laws violate their right to freedom of speech.

That right is above any law.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm talking about the inherent right that everyone has to freedom of speech. People have this right even if the country they live in has laws that restrict their freedom of speech. It just happens that they live in countries who's laws violate their right to freedom of speech.

That right is above any law.

And other people can express their own freedom by not buying the work of someone they find reprehensible or someone who expresses a view they find reprehensible.

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm talking about the inherent right that everyone has to freedom of speech. People have this right even if the country they live in has laws that restrict their freedom of speech. It just happens that they live in countries who's laws violate their right to freedom of speech.

That right is above any law.

No, it's not. Freeedom of speech is a legal concept, not an ethical or moral one.

[curefreak]

I'm curious what you people feel about Lemmy Kilmeister who collects nazi war symbols and collectables and wears them, but as far as i know holds absolutely no racist beliefs? what if this got out to the major media and people started prostesting him and burning his records?

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm curious what you people feel about Lemmy Kilmeister who collects nazi war symbols and collectables and wears them, but as far as i know holds absolutely no racist beliefs? what if this got out to the major media and people started prostesting him and burning his records?

I've never heard of him.

[curefreak]

I've never heard of him.
Lead singer and bass player for motorhead.

[Dan Apodaca]

Lead singer and bass player for motorhead.

It wouldn't matter if people started burning his records, because that's not part of what we're talking about. That's obviously an overreaction.

If people stopped buying their records, though?

I can't say I'd give a damn.

[curefreak]

It wouldn't matter if people started burning his records, because that's not part of what we're talking about. That's obviously an overreaction.

If people stopped buying their records, though?

I can't say I'd give a damn.
Well personally i think burning records is overdramatic and retarded.
but i think the point i was trying to make is where does it end? if lemmy was more popular figure im sure that his nazi fascination would cause problems just like it has with Marylin manson.

[Dan Apodaca]

Well personally i think burning records is overdramatic and retarded.

No one's arguing that. Why are you making it seem like we're in opposition on that?

but i think the point i was trying to make is where does it end? if lemmy was more popular figure im sure that his nazi fascination would cause problems just like it has with Marylin manson.

So, you're making the slippery slope argument. Okay, I'll stop bothering now. You're kicking your own ass.

[curefreak]

No one's arguing that. Why are you making it seem like we're in opposition on that?



So, you're making the slippery slope argument. Okay, I'll stop bothering now. You're kicking your own ass.
I'm kicking my own ass? wow i've never done that before..

[Dan Apodaca]

I'm kicking my own ass? wow i've never done that before..

Yeah, you have. You do it a lot.

[the goddamn batman]

Well, out of the few examples listed:

Tom Belands reaction to a less than positive review wouldn't keep me from buying his work. His remarkes about not wanting someones money for whatever juvenile reason he stated does. I wont buy Toms books, because it seems he doesn't want me too.

Mel Gibson, while I don't agree with his antisemetic remarks, he is entitled to them. His drunk driving at about twice the legal speed limit for what, the 3rd or 4th time, is enough to make me never watch anything he's done or will do. At least not when it's still in a position of benefiting him. I wont give Mel my money anymore. Screw you, Mel. Hate jews all you want, but there is no excuse for repeated drunk driving. You obviously don't care about others, so why should I care about you?


In a case of effecting my enjoyment of the work, no it doesn't bother me. If a book started preaching the glory of the Nazis, I'd drop it.

Sometimes though, it's interesting to read something from a stand point I don't understand. Be it for, know you enemy purposes or seeing something in a different light, I find it interesting. But, that depends on specifics.


I do not feel that I need to agree with everything I read. Nor, do I judge the art by the artist.

[Reptisaurus!]

Well personally i think burning records is overdramatic and retarded.
but i think the point i was trying to make is where does it end? if lemmy was more popular figure im sure that his nazi fascination would cause problems just like it has with Marylin manson.

That's not the same thing at all, though.

Lemmy is freaking cool, and Mary is a whiney little bitch.

Lemmy can pretty much do whatever he wants, and whatever he does is awesome-by-association.

[curefreak]

Yeah, you have. You do it a lot.
But then i would have bruises on my ass.
and last time i checked i dont..

[Gilda Dent]

Yeah, it has an effect, which is why I try not to learn about the personal lives of the talent behind the creation of contemporary works of art. I prefer to come to the art fresh, and let it speak for itself, which is in part why I prefer to know just enough about a work to decide whether to buy it before buying. But when I do encounter something I find morally repulsive, it's definitely going to color how I react to the artist's work.

As an example, when I was in my teens, I loved Orson Scott Card'sEnder's Game and Speaker for the Dead. When I later became aware of Card's being openly homophobic, including vocal support for laws against homosexuality, it made it difficult enough for me to separate the man from the work and I haven't bought anything by him since. I won't support anybody who opposes my having equal rights to him.

There's no hard and fast rule; I take it on a case-by-case basis when I do run into problems like this.

Gilda

[dancj]

And other people can express their own freedom by not buying the work of someone they find reprehensible or someone who expresses a view they find reprehensible.

Indeed they can. I'd never suggest stopping anyone doing that - it's just not something I'd do myself.

No, it's not. Freeedom of speech is a legal concept, not an ethical or moral one.

Do you have any arguments to back that up? I gave reasons why the Freedom of Speech that I'M talking about isn't legal. I know it also exists as a legal concept, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Dan Apodaca]

Do you have any arguments to back that up? I gave reasons why the Freedom of Speech that I'M talking about isn't legal. I know it also exists as a legal concept, but that's not what I'm talking about.

An argument to back it up? It was invented to be a legal right. Freedom of Speech is an idea that came about in response to dictatorships. It was born from government.

You can't just make up new meanings for terms and phrases.

[Sean Whitmore]

You can't just make up new meanings for terms and phrases.


Well, sure we can, people do it all the time. But you're absolutely right in this case.


SEAN

[curefreak]

An argument to back it up? It was invented to be a legal right. Freedom of Speech is an idea that came about in response to dictatorships. It was born from government.

You can't just make up new meanings for terms and phrases.
Ok so when you said i was "kicking my own ass" that isnt a new meaning for a term or phrase?

[ValhallaComics]

Okay... refraining from actually reading all 10 pages of replies to the original post, I'm just going to post my opinion on whether or not a creator's attitude has an effect on the enjoyment of their work.

Yes, yes it does.

Thank you, I'll be here all week!



Really, though... how could it not? Let's say you're reading Green Lantern and you're really digging the art (Why Green Lantern? I don't know... it's a book and I personally detest Ethan Van Sciver). It's a fresh look and you love the style that the artist portrays in your favorite title. So, you go to a comic convention, costing you anywhere between $25-75 (you go to the big ones to meet the creators, because that's how you do). You went to this particular one, because a talented artist, the very same one that's drawing your favorite book, is going to be at the show.

So, you're looking around the Artist Alley and you're looking at all the booths, just taking the whole experience in. Low and behold, you see your artist at his booth. You're a little shy, so it takes you a while to walk up to the table, get your book out to have signed (probably the book with the nicest cover, so you can see the signature clearly, right?), and conjure up enough courage to ask the guy if he'll sign your books.

It's a process... meeting people you admire. You place them on this pedestal and think the world of their artwork, writing, or general creativity. That's why it's difficult to approach some creators and spark off a good conversation. People tend to think of them as more than just other people. Sadly, most of us fail to see that they're doing their job, just like anyone else; they get paid to draw, write, etc. Why is that so important to us?

Anyway, you finally have the cajones to ask the guy for a signature and perhaps a sketch (you've got the money if it costs anything - it's worth it, because he's working on your favorite book). So you get up to the table and see a sign on top, stating "I won't sign anything or talk to you 'cuz I'm a dick." What goes through your mind at that moment?

I'll tell you: You're thinking, "This guy's a jerkoff... Why the hell did he even bother coming to a convention?"

People like that irk the hell out of me and don't deserve to be in the business and they instantly lose any credibility they might have had with me. I may continue to pick up the book, but only if the writing can support the title without him. The only other thing I'd do, is spread the word about how much of a dick the guy was. Word travels fast. If it can ruin a business, it surely can ruin an artist's career. No one wants to work with an ass, hire someone that the fans dislike, etc.

Here's an idea: be professional, be polite, be respectful, be thankful for the fans you have and show them some gratitude. Without them, you're nothing but a guy that can doodle or someone that can lay some words down on a piece of paper.

[Dan Apodaca]

Ok so when you said i was "kicking my own ass" that isnt a new meaning for a term or phrase?

No. The phrase exists with the meaning of "beating yourself". The literal meaning of that sequence of words is not a term or phrase.

[curefreak]

No. The phrase exists with the meaning of "beating yourself". The literal meaning of that sequence of words is not a term or phrase.
But one can't beat himself its physically and metaphorically impossible.

[stealthwise]

But one can't beat himself its physically and metaphorically impossible.

Have you ever seen Fight Club?

[curefreak]

Have you ever seen Fight Club?
Nope. (ten)

[Gilda Dent]

Have you ever seen Fight Club?

There's a very good book, The Knockout Artist, by Harry Crews, that works for this, also.

[Dan Apodaca]

But one can't beat himself its physically and metaphorically impossible.

Exactly. That's why the meaning that you used is void. It's not the meaning ascribed to that phrase.

The meaning ascribed to that phrase is akin to "hurting your own case, badly".