Stan vs. Jack

[dan bailey]

I have to disagree. Maneely was very much Stan's go-to guy. I have a hard time believing that that would've changed had he lived, which presumably means Kirby wouldn't have had a chance to demonstrate his immense creativity at Marvel.

It's obvious that Marvel, & comics in general, & for that American popular culture, benefited from the way things worked out; I just think things would've evolved completely differently if Maneely hadn't died so ridiculously young (32!).

[CromagnonMan]

If he never got to do FF and other well known Marvel titles Kirby would still have got some recognition for his work on things like Tales to Astonish. He would probably have been on a par with those other recognised artists of the era rather than "King Kirby".

[dan bailey]

No doubt. Kirby was already very much on his way to being an all-time comics great by the time the '50s kicked in, after all.

[dan bailey]

BTW, this is the point where I'm obligated to note how seriously overdue a nice Maneely retrospective volume is.

[Cei-U!]

BTW, this is the point where I'm obligated to note how seriously overdue a nice Maneely retrospective volume is.

Agreed. Get on it, TwoMorrows!

Cei-U!
I summon the forgotten titan!

[Darrell D.]

Which doesn't surprise me at all, which is why I speculated about being "alone in that regard." It helps if one came up in the punk subculture of the late '70s & '80s, as I happened to.

Though probably young Confessor knows at least some of the writing of both.

Oh, I liked some of Lester Bangs writings, but most were pretentious twaddle.
Ok, derail over, just had to say it...

[Darrell D.]

I have to disagree. Maneely was very much Stan's go-to guy. I have a hard time believing that that would've changed had he lived, which presumably means Kirby wouldn't have had a chance to demonstrate his immense creativity at Marvel.

It's obvious that Marvel, & comics in general, & for that American popular culture, benefited from the way things worked out; I just think things would've evolved completely differently if Maneely hadn't died so ridiculously young (32!).

Right. I have no idea of the creativity of Maneely, but without Jack at Marvel kicking it off with the FF, it would have been a very different animal...and you wonder if it would have limped along very long.

[edhopper]

BD meet Strunk and White.

[dan bailey]

Oh, I liked some of Lester Bangs writings, but most were pretentious twaddle.

Ok, derail over, just had to say it...

FWIW, I don't disagree in any way, shape or form.

[dan bailey]

BD meet Strunk and White.

Which comics did they do?

[Simon Garth]

I've long wondered whether (no offense to my British friends!) that nation in general is bizarrely prone to baby talk -- "hols" for holidays, "footie" for football, "Moz" for Morrissey, "Gaz" for Gary, "prezzies" for presents, etc.

Ease up, Dazza! It may well be true that we Brits do like to apply nicknames and slang to...well, just about everything, but a lot of that Jlo, Wacko Jacko crap is done by the red top tabs to allow them to abbreviate words on the front page and thereby print their headlines even larger to attract the attention of the hard of understanding. They even develop a narrative shorthand, where stories develop to the point where headlines are completely meaningless unless you've been following the story - for example, this real headline from Britain's top selling rag: "Mucca chucksa cuppa water over Macca's lawyer Shacka", and the abbreviation of national characters to Lamps, Gazza, Wazza, Woy, Wossy, and the ever-popular (name of tv show) (first name), eg "Tart Shame of Corrie Phil" to get over the fact that no-one would know that actor's real name but can associate them with the TV show (that one incidentally is an invented headline, not that anyone would know the difference)

[Simon Garth]

It isn't impossible that something like that could have happened, but the evidence shows us that it would have been extremely unlikely. Not only did readers and the industry as a whole fail to appreciate books like The Eternals and the New Gods at the time they were first appearing on the stands, but even now we see that creators who should know better, like Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, fail to give those concepts their due when given the opportunity to write them. Whether that's because of editorial interference or lack of interest from the writers themselves doesn't really matter when considering this question: either way, it tells us that it is extremely unlikely that any editor then or now would been able to work with Kirby in the way you suggest, smoothing over his dialogue without limiting or distorting or more likely extinguishing his creative vision.

That's not really a fair comparison, though - it's not about whether another writer could make good use of Kirby's ideas separately, it's whether a good editor or writer could improve Kirby's writing while working in tandem with him.

Now, fair enough, you like his work as is anyway, but to my mind he's never captured that early-Marvel quality or that early-Marvel market appeal. Maybe his time in the spotlight had just gone by the time he went to DC - certainly when I picked up the few of his comics that I read at the time, I thought they were horribly primitive and old-fashioned compared to other comics I was reading, and the feeling got a lot worse when he returned to Marvel. For all his contribution to the medium in the 60s and earlier, I think the audience, the writers and the artists had moved on to a more sophisticated style.

[The Confessor]

Well, no ... or rather, like so many other things, gibberish is in the eye of the beholder. It's very idiosyncratically written, certainly, but the meaning is pretty obvious, isn't it? He's saying that he's writing at a grad-school level (as opposed to writing for a fourth-grade audience, or reading at a ninth-grade level, or whatever), & that he if can't do so when among other comics fans, when might he do so?

I disagree; the meaning isn't clear at all. I too assumed that he meant the same thing that you did, but I was far from sure about that (and still am not convinced). Also, it's not just idiosyncratically written, the first sentence is poorly grammatically constructed. As others have already pointed out, writing is all about communication at the end of the day and if what a person is trying to communicate is hard to discern because of grammatical short comings, then that communication has failed.

Which doesn't surprise me at all, which is why I speculated about being "alone in that regard." It helps if one came up in the punk subculture of the late '70s & '80s, as I happened to.

Though probably young Confessor knows at least some of the writing of both.

Indeed I do, dan. Lester Bangs in particular I'm a fan off...although he annoys me almost as much as he entertains me.

Oh, I liked some of Lester Bangs writings, but most were pretentious twaddle.

Errr...yeah, that's kinda what I was trying to say too. Although Lester Bangs ain't got nothing on dear ol' Sandy Pearlman from Crawdaddy! in the pretentious twaddle stakes!

Yeah, when you find yourself being offended by someone's abbreviation of the phrase "comic book," it's probably time for Mr. Grouchy to take a nap

Ha ha....duly noted.

[BDiogenes]

INTRODUCTION. The clarity subject will be addressed first and as accessibly as possible given it is foundational by its nature. You might note I avoid boldfacing, italicizing, and graphic emoticons because I don't want to do anything which will make all my posting everywhere difficult to transfer elsewhere without extra work. Also, I only acquired a computer in Jul. 2010 and so don't know all the shortcuts which make things easier or even doable (laptop did not come with paper booklet); I'm not a computer person. In particular I have trouble highlighting with blue due to my difficulty swiping in general and the impossibility for selected passages for copying, etc.; I need to research that. During weekdays I transact business and typically won't post, and there can be long periods when I must absent myself entirely. [See next post, too, as continuous with this one].

1. SUGGESTIONS AND CONSTRUCTIVE EVALUATION. Let me say that I am open to these and anything I've offered prior in response has been to explain what I HAVE BEEN doing, not foretell what I WILL DO in the future. In fact, I will be influenced by what's been stated . The exception would be the abbreviations and/or diminutives. The only one I introduced is com, and until advised, I didn't know it was original to me, if it is so. shaxper will be unable to name “ten or more” shortenings I “sprung on” you. I do refer to people by their initials after they have earlier been identified, but that does not count. Stuff like sf and sff fans should know. I usually avoid Web-originated coinages like btw, but sometimes I indulge. Thus the shortenings comments detract from the overall evaluation, but I will sort them out and consider everything else on its merits.

2. GIVING EXAMPLES. It would help if examples were offered for when I was writing clearly and when not. shaxper, how did you feel about my first post, the Moviemongers thread opening, as that was composed as an essay or letter of comment?

3. PAST REACTION TO ME.I began posting in 2001 (through other people who had computer or occasionally at the library). With possibly one exception I have never been questioned about my clarity but have caught heat for my so-called wall-of-text style. I trust that isn't irking folks at the moment with the way I have structured the indentations upon which I insist, as opposed to line breaks between all paragraphs.

4. MY AWARENESS. Following from #3 I trust no one feels I would consciously post unclearly or be indifferent to whether readers would understand me, which would be unreasonable on my part. One should start from the premise that people act reasonably although in recent time I've begun to wonder about how wide a span there might be in what people today regard as within reason. So I have thought I was getting through to my readership no differently than I ever have, and without more specifics I won't actually realize what is amiss. All that understood, I don't expect everyone to comprehend everything I post, an ideal equally unreasonable. I am not up on many things past and present of a fannish bent. E.g., I never heard of Joe Maneely or his unfortunate passing, but I now researched him. If I am asserting a vital point, I won't use a reference which would be unknown to many. Also, I said I write at AS HIGH AS a graduate school level, but that isn't constant. Anyone who read comics or sf should be able to grasp me usually.

The dichotomy arises from the circumstance and intention of composition. If, e.g., I'm addressing the whole board, I must be transparent. If I'm posting to berk, I can somewhat tailor how I express myself accordingly.

Everything is relative. I said, “somewhat tailor”, which means pick up from and how berk left off, in berk's case, I utilized “otoh” to structure my post, a short one, and Slam_Bradley complained about too many abbr.'s. It isn't that I am lax about all getting the gist; it's that berk stands as the necessary addressee. berk would be my focus, but typically not to the exclusion of everyone else. In sum, everything posted DOES address the entire board; only the degree varies.
_______I've never posted before on a board devoted to coms. The possibility exists some might be too used to short bits of text to transition well to my pieces. The worst thought is that my writing is deteriorating unbeknownst to me, but others have not generally felt that way.

5. CLARITY OF MEMBERS IN THE FUTURE. That I place this last does not indicate I don't rank it as of primary importance, but I didn't wish it to color all the rest before you digested them. If you have a problem reading a member, you should contact them by pm. Calling them out before the whole board is embarrassing and also not fair to the starter of the thread in which you do it. I feel strongly about this. shaxper might not have objected, but I would have if it pertained to someone in a thread I began. Now I run the risk that if someone disagrees with me they might pass a snide remark about my posting clarity. The courtesy shaxper referenced obviously goes both ways. However, now that this subject has been so fully broached publicly, it should be finished publicly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't p-m me, but if you offer me examples by pm I reserve the right to discuss them openly if need be. It goes without saying that if you don't understand something a member has posted you should ask them specifically about it, either in the thread or by pm. Generalities are not likely to result in a favorable reaction and the clarification or info you seek.

See next post as continuous with this one, but the limit on posts is 10 000 characters; maybe they could be quoted together.

[berk]

Did you read my explication to shaxper on SS versus Galactus as to JK?

No, missed that one - where is it, or can you recapitulate?

Like Dan, personally I don't have a problem with your posting style - but I can understand why other people do and that's all I was trying to say - and, I think, all I will say on the subject.

Although it has given me the idea of everyone doing a self-analysis/criticism of their own posting style. I think I sometimes come across as a bit pedantic and over-serious, maybe even pompous. I have a theory about why that is ... wait, I'm doing it again, aren't I.