The online behavior of Comic Book Professionals

[Ari Gold]

Do you have an example where they are "going off" without first having harsher things than that being said by a poster in the chain or a prior to it? Seems more a case of you believing they would act a certain way.

Which is "worse":

A) I don't like Wacker as a person and a human being

or

B) I think Slott's writing on that story was lazy

[Mister Mets]

Agreed. People should not call Wacker names.

Not sure if it's the more appropriate question though. If somebody said the same words as Ben but replaced "JMS" with "Wacker" or "Slott" people in this thread would be going off.

I don't think so. He said it in a polite way.

If a person made that comment about Wacker, there would be the question of whether it's fair to punish the writers and artists who work with him, and are responsible for the finished comic.

If a person made the comment about Slott, there wouldn't be a strong reaction. I might ask what comments of Slott's the poster thought were so objectionable, just because I'm more familiar with comments by JMS on Before Watchmen as well as his facebook argument with Stephen Wacker and Mark Waid over Spider-Man sales.

I still maintain that it's harmful for the comic book industry when fans consider anything other than the quality of the work, outside of truly extreme cases.

But it's possible that it would be difficult for Ben to read a JMS comic without considering his interpretation of the morals and worldview of the writer.

[ShaggyB]

Which is "worse":

A) I don't like Wacker as a person and a human being

or

B) I think Slott's writing on that story was lazy

I would say "B" is worse. "B" insults/attacks the man's work ethic. "A" basically tells a person you dont like them personally. (though id tend to think the human being portion is unneeded.)


For the record, I take issue with JMS's facebook comments, but not his Before Watchmen comments that ive seen. I find him correct on those.

[Mia]

because too often it sounds like he's being sarcastic or trying to be a smartass again nothing against the guy but it's hard to tell when he's being serious and when he's just yanking someone's chain for the laughs

No offense. But you must be new around here . Or to comics in general. I have been collecting comic books for a very, very, long time. And for the most part I have found that many of the comic book pros/proffesionals are either rude, immature or grossly unprofessional. If I behaved in ways in which I have seen many pros behave in my line of work, I would be fired.

There are exceptions of course like Scott Snyder (Batman writer) and Mike Carey who absolute gentlemen and models of mature adult behaviour. But most of them I just find to be un-pleasant. Fortunately most of the biggest offenders of this kind of childish and unprofessional behaviours are either not writing stuff I like or tackling a character I am overly fond of so I don't have to support their books.

[Raphael Edwards]

I find it strange that you meticulously quoted all that material, and yet somehow completely ignored the second part of the last snippet to "prove" your "point."

I didn't ignore a damn thing. The dudes posts even in there entirety flip-flop over what he claimed to have meant. Go back and read them, and you'll see my "points" are easy enough to "prove".

[Raphael Edwards]

I would say "B" is worse. "B" insults/attacks the man's work ethic. "A" basically tells a person you dont like them personally. (though id tend to think the human being portion is unneeded.)

I think you're purposely trying to be obtuse. A is easily worse.

[Dog]

I didn't ignore a damn thing. The dudes posts even in there entirety flip-flop over what he claimed to have meant. Go back and read them, and you'll see my "points" are easy enough to "prove".

Here's what you quoted.

No, they are your feelings and you are entitled to them, you only quoted part of it, if you are mad at a comic/creator/company for stories you don't like you might have some issues and I don't mean the ones in your longboxes. [emphasis mine]

And here are your words, posted immediately after that quote.

So which is it? Is it "insane" for a fan to be angered by fictional work, or are we "entitled" to our anger? Maybe you just have a hard time remembering your own posts, but that's your fault, not mine.

It's both. He's not "flip-flopping" (is it 2004?) or contradicting himself. You can feel any damn way you please, but that doesn't make it sane or rational. And the less bonkers among us then also have the right to point out that nuttiness.

[ShaggyB]

I think you're purposely trying to be obtuse. A is easily worse.

So you believe everyone has to like everyone? Calling a writer lazy is taking a shot at them. Telling a writer you dont like them is pointless but at least you arent name calling and attack them.

[Mister Mets]

I think you're purposely trying to be obtuse. A is easily worse.

Why? "B" suggests that the person doesn't take their work seriously. It has an impact on the quality of the material.

[Schmed]

It's both. He's not "flip-flopping" (is it 2004?) or contradicting himself. You can feel any damn way you please, but that doesn't make it sane or rational. And the less bonkers among us then also have the right to point out that nuttiness.

Exactly. But I'd stop trying to reason with him, it's like wrestling with a pig, you get dirty and the pig likes it.

[Schmed]

Which is "worse":

A) I don't like Wacker as a person and a human being

or

B) I think Slott's writing on that story was lazy

B is far worse, in fact if you leave the human being part out of A I find nothing wrong with it at all, people don't need to like each other, they can still be civil. I work with people I don't care for, but I'm cordial with them at work.

[ShaggyB]

Why? "B" suggests that the person doesn't take their work seriously. It has an impact on the quality of the material.

Exactly. "A" just suggest that you dont like the person. Hell if you give a reason, like ben did, I dont see a problem with it. Like I said, the human being part is a bit much... but after reading the facebook back and forth I can see where it comes from.

[Raphael Edwards]

Here's what you quoted.

And here are your words, posted immediately after that quote.

It's both. He's not "flip-flopping" (is it 2004?) or contradicting himself. You can feel any damn way you please, but that doesn't make it sane or rational. And the less bonkers among us then also have the right to point out that nuttiness.

1. That's only 1 of the quotes of him saying people who were angered at fictional work were insane.

2. That wasn't immediately after he posted that. I quoted...

No one ever said I didn't experience happiness, that's what one SHOULD get from entertainment. But anger, seriously, if you are angry at a comic....something is very wrong. I think you are confusing the issue here, I'm not saying I don't get caught up in the stories, I've hated Norman Osborn, I've felt Pete's anguish when Aunt May "died", I was thrilled when he got his dream job at Horizon, I was riveted during the Hobgoblin saga, all these things I've done right beside Peter. But I am not going to get angry at a comic, or a comic creator/company just because I don't like the stories, because that would be insane.

My words immediately after that post of his was...

You experienced happiness, and that was fine, but anyone that experienced anger is "very wrong"? Also, my words have been very clear, have you or have you never experienced anger from these stories you've spent 31 years dedicating your time to? I or anyone else that I noticed wasn't asking for your anger towards the creators of the book, so it seems like you're playing the semantic game here honestly.

So at least pretend to know what you're talking about.


3. He flip-flopped on his position as I said he did whether you think the term is, "so 2004" or not. He maintained that he never got angered at any serial fiction as that would be insane at first, and then when questioned switched it to comic creators and finally the physical comic itself.

4. How would the "less bonkers" of you know if you're "less bonkers"? What a played out statement. So 1995.

.

[Ari Gold]

B is far worse, in fact if you leave the human being part out of A I find nothing wrong with it at all, people don't need to like each other, they can still be civil. I work with people I don't care for, but I'm cordial with them at work.

Exactly. "A" just suggest that you dont like the person. Hell if you give a reason, like ben did, I dont see a problem with it. Like I said, the human being part is a bit much... but after reading the facebook back and forth I can see where it comes from.

Sure, and if you take a few offensive words out of the things people here are whining about that get said to Wacker & Slott, then they wouldn't be a big deal either . . .

EDIT: So to be clear, if I posted in a comment on Wacker that I don't like him as a person, we'd all be cool with that? But when I say I don't like how he belittles criticism of Marvel with ad hominem attacks, then I'm out of line?

[Dog]

There's a difference between being angry at a character's nefarious actions and being angry at a writer because you don't approve of how he used your toy.

4. How would the "less bonkers" of you know if you're "less bonkers"? What a played out statement. So 1995.

Not getting mad at comic writers over stories we don't like is a good starting indication.

What happened in 1995?