The online behavior of Comic Book Professionals

[David Walton]

I thought it was when Wheaton got him an action figure at the Star Trek Con or something.

Yeah, same episode I'm speaking of. Wil was having a big party and he invited Leonard and the gang. That was his first appearance after the big split.

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, that's fine. It's just that Mr. Mets wants posted examples of SW being X, Y, or Z yet no requests are made when SW calls out anyone else. Just inconsistent is all.

No one's thought of starting a thread about the behavior of Cyberhubbs, or Ben Smith.

In any discussions about the online behavior of Slott or Wacker, statements are inevitably made that can be tested. If a claim is that Wacker is too much of a jerk to people who just express negative opinions, examples can help determine if this is the case, or if Wacker's critics are regularly wrong, which would also be relevant to this discussion.

Its been about 20 pages since my original post, but I still want to clarify.

I think if Dan Slott wasn't as close to the situation there wouldn't be any problem with his behavior. The issue is that he in an artist. A writer. A profession that will always draw confliction opinions on your work. Because of the nature of the comic book game there is also a very strong following and community attached. He's going to have opinions flying at him at all time. Why should he be defending his work online against the readers? His fans. People that are entitled to their opinion and come to message threads such as these to express them.

ALSO, he shouldn't have to defend it. If his work gave him the reputation as as good of a storyteller as many of his contemporaries, then he should feel as if his work speaks for itself.

You would never go to a museum to have the artist himself pipe in about how hard he worked on it or how you may not understand the work. No. You are allowed to see the piece undisturbed by the views of the creator because ultimately, those opinions are biased.

We are allowed to go to these forums and speak freely about his or others work. There is no need for him to defend himself or Ramos' work online. He is an adult, and a professional. If he is proud with his work, he should just be happy that people are talking about it.

I think you're conflating several things.

You don't expect to see an artist talk about his work in a museum. Likewise, you can read your comic book in the comfort of your home without worrying about Slott or Wacker interrupting you.

However, artists will often discuss and explain their work in other forums. You can speak freely about a professional's work, but he's able to respond to that.

[Chris S.]

that was a critique of Mass Effect 1, in that if you chose a female character you could get a certain female character to fall in love with you and have sex with you. Most players would have never stumbled across it as its pretty well buried in the dialogue of choices, but that pesky media had to highlight it like every player would see it on day one. Thank god they never played God of War.... Kratos gets it on with 2 women in the 2nd level.

I was always amazed they got away with that in God of War. I read an article once about how a game tried to have a sex scene and thus Best Buy and Wal Mart wouldn't sell it. I don't remember what game it was, but then shortly after that I was playing God of War and it was a what the hell moment for sure.

And the big complaint about Mass Effect was that if you were a girl you could have sex with girl characters. On the flip side if you were a boy you couldn't do the same thing with male characters.

I'm still proud of my Mass Effect 2 character that slept with all the women and then got the hot brunette to fall in love with me anyway. Everyone online said it wasn't possible but I did it!

[raybell123]

No creator should be able to defend anything, not in the face of unreasonable attacks, the spread of misinformation, or otherwise. People should be able to go around and say that there is rape in ASM without any sort of defense, that seems fair.

Art without discussion and critical thought is a failure. It's completely subjective and open to free interpretation. It may or may not be what the author intended, but as readers it is our job (and half the fun of reading) to pick these works apart and interpret them how we please. The author defending the work and telling us what we are supposed to see is counter-productive. Like I said, Slott should be happy that we are discussing it. That should be the tell that he has at least pinched something raw. That's exactly what art is supposed to do.

[CyberHubbs]

No one's thought of starting a thread about the behavior of Cyberhubbs, or Ben Smith.

The true crime here.

[CyberHubbs]

Art without discussion and critical thought is a failure. It's completely subjective and open to free interpretation. It may or may not be what the author intended, but as readers it is our job (and half the fun of reading) to pick these works apart and interpret them how we please. The author defending the work and telling us what we are supposed to see is counter-productive. Like I said, Slott should be happy that we are discussing it. That should be the tell that he has at least pinched something raw. That's exactly what art is supposed to do.

Eh. People ask the artists what they were thinking while doing a particular piece all the time. And then the artist is like, "Well, what do YOU think I was thinking?" And then the person asking the original question is all like this is some bullshit, throws his drink at the wall and then the artist takes credit for the new piece he's calling "Angry Wine on Eggshells."

[ower]

well, as many times Marvel has been on the verge of bankruptcy and had to be bailed out there's a chance he still might be.

Sounds like I should really worry if you ever became my boss.

Phew!

SW

[raybell123]

Eh. People ask the artists what they were thinking while doing a particular piece all the time. And then the artist is like, "Well, what do YOU think I was thinking?" And then the person asking the original question is all like this is some bullshit, throws his drink at the wall and then the artist takes credit for the new piece he's calling "Angry Wine on Eggshells."

I mean, I suppose if you want to be told what the author is intending, that is your prerogative. But I still feel that Slott has no need to enter forums to fight back against those who disagree with his work. Or Ramos' work for that matter. It's nice to know that they both worked very hard, but that isn't really the question. We are giving our own opinions on these forums; generating discussion about the art form we love. The author coming and telling us that we are right or wrong doesn't really strengthen his argument.

[Voss]

I mean, I suppose if you want to be told what the author is intending, that is your prerogative. But I still feel that Slott has no need to enter forums to fight back against those who disagree with his work. Or Ramos' work for that matter. It's nice to know that they both worked very hard, but that isn't really the question. We are giving our own opinions on these forums; generating discussion about the art form we love. The author coming and telling us that we are right or wrong doesn't really strengthen his argument.

What are you referring to specifically? I've seen Wacker defend himself against misinformation, do you think that is wrong?

[CyberHubbs]

If that was the case, no one would respond to each other's opinions. If someone -- and clearly a crazy person devoid of whatever it is that makes us human -- didn't like Planetary, and started throwing their opinion around, be it right or wrong, but clearly mostly wrong, then we should be allowed to jump in and defend it. Anyone can. Even a creator. 'Cause there is that chance that the guy with the horrendously inhuman opinion will see the error of his ways.

Plus, really, Ramos and Slott are homeboys. You defend your homeboys.

[stephen wacker]

Its been about 20 pages since my original post, but I still want to clarify.

I think if Dan Slott wasn't as close to the situation there wouldn't be any problem with his behavior. The issue is that he in an artist. A writer. A profession that will always draw confliction opinions on your work. Because of the nature of the comic book game there is also a very strong following and community attached. He's going to have opinions flying at him at all time. Why should he be defending his work online against the readers? His fans. People that are entitled to their opinion and come to message threads such as these to express them.

ALSO, he shouldn't have to defend it. If his work gave him the reputation as as good of a storyteller as many of his contemporaries, then he should feel as if his work speaks for itself.

You would never go to a museum to have the artist himself pipe in about how hard he worked on it or how you may not understand the work. No. You are allowed to see the piece undisturbed by the views of the creator because ultimately, those opinions are biased.

We are allowed to go to these forums and speak freely about his or others work. There is no need for him to defend himself or Ramos' work online. He is an adult, and a professional. If he is proud with his work, he should just be happy that people are talking about it.

This is in direct contrast to the entire history of fan interaction that Marvel pretty much invented.

It's all pretty easy to avoid if you really want to...but I suspect you don't.

You could easily just avoid going to websites where creators like Dan hang out.

And for goodness sakes, stop following him on Twitter!

And certainly do not go to my own Formspring account!

SW

[Marveluted]

I'll be very clear: I liked Amazing #700, and I'm planning to pick up SSM #1.

I came on here to read the reactions from the community because this is a board of people actively following Spider-man. What I got instead was a myriad of threads with editor Stephen Wacker toying with upset fans and fanning the flames for his own amusement. It's his prerogative to do so, but I found it very off-putting.

While I liked Amazing Spider-man #700, I now have a distaste for you Mr. Wacker -- at least as far as your behavior on the CBR boards is concerned. You are now the first person I've ever added to my Ignore List.

[wolfpack4x1]

This is in direct contrast to the entire history of fan interaction that Marvel pretty much invented.

It's all pretty easy to avoid if you really want to...but I suspect you don't.

You could easily just avoid going to websites where creators like Dan hang out.

And for goodness sakes, stop following him on Twitter!

And certainly do not go to my own Formspring account!

SW

Dear wacker, has anyone ever(at Marvel) contacted jim butcher about writing a series?

[raybell123]

What are you referring to specifically? I've seen Wacker defend himself against misinformation, do you think that is wrong?

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com...served-f-bomb/

http://forums.comicbookresources.com...ighlight=Ramos

(starting page 7)

There are others, but my memory only extends to these two specific examples.

I like that Slott wants to stand up for his pal, but we should be allowed to openly discuss the pros and cons of a particular art style, not be scolded by the creative team.

[Mister Mets]

Long story short I believe that the f-bomb was well-deserved. It was also atypical behavior for Slott, who was sick at the time.

And he was responding to an insult on his character. You can say what you want about a work of art, but you may get an angry response if you make a comment about an artist's character.

You're allowed to openly discuss the pros and cons of a particular art style. And anyone on this board is allowed to scold you, including the creative team. Especially if you make a statement that may be untrue, such as saying that Ramos's work is detrimental to sales.