Paul Levitz, the Legion and Hyper Time
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I think it's usually if not always a
> good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
> think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
> base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
I agree ... but in this case, I'm no longer sure that's true about Legion:
Lost. Unlike previous runs, more people seem to have stopped talking about
this book; it's not inspiring discussion so much as apathy among certain
people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
quickly.)
[Followups to rac.lsh.]
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
List Owner, Legion-List @ egroups.com -- for all kinds of LSH talk!
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
Johanna Draper Carlson
> How do Legion: Lost sales compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of
> their runs?
The estimates posted monthly have L:L 2 at just over 19K. LSH and
Legionnaires were around 25K about the time of Team 20; Legion of
Superheroes #125 was 17.5K, Legionnaires #81 was 17K. (Again, by estimate.)
So Lost is doing better than the final issues, but it dropped 8% between #1
and #2, with another drop expected (due to usual ordering patterns). If that
drop is the same or greater, it's below the numbers of the previous final
issues ... and those numbers are at Aquaman's level, if that's a valid
example to judge by.
> Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post.
Strange that the same thing hasn't happened with the v4 discussion; you'd
think people would have had much more time to get tired of that. :)
You have a point, but you're speculating as to reason. There's all kinds of
evidence that can be interpreted all kinds of ways to suit one's opinion. I
think it's sad that, for example, a chat that used to fill the AOL rooms
twice a week now considers 5 fans good attendance, and some weeks has more
pros than fans attending. Can that be put down entirely to the quality of
the work? Of course not. Is it entirely due to other reasons? I don't think
so.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Silver Age, Aquarium, Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
Murray Fox
k...@tsoft.net wrote:
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales -- I'm too busy enjoying
> > the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
> > personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
> > compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
>
> > Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> > those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> > are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
> > that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
> > said :) )
>
> I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
> frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
> his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
> that they see. I dunno.
>
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
> say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
> facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
> has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
> wind, I guess.
I like his art, too. For what it's worth. Quite a lot. The Legion hasn't looked
this good in years and years. I'm hoping he'll stick around for a long long time.
And that the book is around for a long long time, too, as well. Cuz there's not
much point in keeping Coipel if there isnt' a book for him to illustrate.
murr
Kevin Daniels
Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it's usually if not always a
> > good idea to just concentrate on putting out what you the editor/creators
> > think is a good book and not worrying about pleasing any particular fan
> > base-- particularly if they're going to bitch and then buy anyway.
>
> I agree ... but in this case, I'm no longer sure that's true about Legion:
> Lost. Unlike previous runs, more people seem to have stopped talking about
> this book; it's not inspiring discussion so much as apathy among certain
> people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
> now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
> it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
> quickly.)
>
I haven't been paying too much attention to sales -- I'm too busy enjoying
the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
said :) )
Plus, the book becoming a monthly instead of what was essentially a
biweekly has cut down posting frequency.
--
Kevin Daniels
zoroa...@my-deja.com
good I ended up liking it. I am not stuck on continuity...the story
takes precedence. In the case of Legion Lost...it is MUCH better than
the previous Legion & Legionairres series. What I like about Legion
Lost? It is not bad...the art is good and story is allright. If the
characters didn't look 12 years old I might like it better. All in all
I still want a return to the old days.
Jorge
In article
<kevindaniels-0...@1cust200.tnt70.chi5.da.uu.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Seward
: people. We'll have to see what happens to sales around issue 4 or so. Right
: now, it's dropping quickly, but that may level off. (Unfortunately, since
: it's only about 2K above Aquaman levels, leveling off better happen
: quickly.)
: [Followups to rac.lsh.]
I'm living in the boonies. I haven't even seen A LL issue,yet.
Brian H. Bailie
> The recent stuff...is really bad. I always thought DC did a great job
> in revamping characters. Giffen's volume 4 was a good example. It went
> downhill after Giffen left.
>
> Since Levitz wrote my favorite legion stint...and he is such a big
> shot...why doesn't he do something???
>
> Stop drawing them like 12 year olds!!! I miss the real Legion....why
> hasn't Paul done something about them?!
He has.
Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
to speculate who that might be).
Good, bad, or indifferent, he DID try.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Steve Reed
>Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
>the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
>to speculate who that might be).
I'd heard it was only Giffen who so offered. And Levitz IS one of "the powers
that be," as Executive Vice President and Publisher. If he'd insisted on doing
it, the only one to say no was Jenette Kahn. And that I would doubt.
I think it was that both of them were wary, this time, about letting Giffen
run amuck with the Legion again. With how Giffen trashed Levitz's hard-built
legacy, I can't say I blame them.
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased.
Thus do we refute entropy." -- Spider Robinson
"Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. Shaken, not stirred." -- Jean-Luc Bond
k...@tsoft.net
> the dynamic art, plots that move forward and characters who have
> personalities for the first time since 1997. How do Legion: Lost sales
> compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of their runs?
> Of course, one of the reasons there hasn't been much discussion is because
> those who hate L:L have gotten tired of their rants, and those who like it
> are tired of having to defend themselves everytime they post. (I guess
> that means the ranters aren't that quiet when something positive is being
> said :) )
I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
that they see. I dunno.
I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
wind, I guess.
Oh, and I like the writing too, although the end of the Blight storyline
was a bit weak. It doesn't feel like a watered-down TV cartoon any more,
and the characters are getting distinct voices. Too bad the plot
direction (specifically, writing out more than half the team for a year)
is turning people off.
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
conserving bandwidth by not having superfluous material in my .sig
Sk8Maven
> What I like about Legion Lost? It is not bad...the art is good and story is
> allright. If the characters didn't look 12 years old I might like it better.
This is a really bizarrely ironic comment. All through Jeff Moy's (IMHO
outstanding) tenure on Legionnaires, a certain subset of fans bitched
and whined and moaned about how he was drawing a "kiddie Legion", a
"baby Legion", a "Legion of little kids", and an "Archies in space".
Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion", "they
all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with mid-life
crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently accept
no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
writing or drawing the zine.
Maven
Sk8Maven
> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
> the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
> to speculate who that might be).
The way I heard it, Giffen proposed this as a "pachage deal" -- BOTH him
AND Levitz or else *neither* -- and the DC higher-ups (Levitz is one of
them, by the way) weren't buying at that price.
Maven
Sk8Maven
> I'd heard it was only Giffen who so offered.
So had I.
> And Levitz IS one of "the powers
> that be," as Executive Vice President and Publisher. If he'd insisted on doing
> it, the only one to say no was Jenette Kahn. And that I would doubt.
>
> I think it was that both of them were wary, this time, about letting Giffen
> run amuck with the Legion again. With how Giffen trashed Levitz's hard-built
> legacy, I can't say I blame them.
Especially after the ProFem fiasco, I think Levitz would be among the
first and loudest to veto any further Giffen involvement with the
Legion.
Maven
Dale Hicks
>
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
> say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
> facial details on small figures, but that's about it). And anyway, no one
> has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
> wind, I guess.
I think if people are like me, their opinions are on record. There
are just a handful of regulars still around the ng, and I think I can
make good guesses on their opinion.
I myself dropped the title when (a) Moy was let go and (b) when the
new dark direction of the team was announced under the editorship
that had yet to thrill me with the stories.
But I have kept an eye on the issues that manage to stay on the stands
(although I wonder if this will drop as my comics store adjusts the
orders), and I think that Copiel has tremendous promise. His work
does have tons of energy, and he seems to be only breaking the anatomical
rules to further the dynamic look of the book, and not out of weak
chops.
I think it's too dirty for my tastes, but an inker that decided to
clean it up instead of following the sketchy pencils would cure that.
Contending Elayne's observations, I dropped the book, and I'm waiting
the next great rework of the Legion.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Ben Weiss
> This is a really bizarrely ironic comment. All through Jeff Moy's (IMHO
> outstanding) tenure on Legionnaires, a certain subset of fans bitched
> and whined and moaned about how he was drawing a "kiddie Legion", a
> "baby Legion", a "Legion of little kids", and an "Archies in space".
>
> Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
> Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion", "they
> all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
>
> I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
> what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with mid-life
> crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently accept
> no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
> writing or drawing the zine.
I don't think that's entirely fair, Maven. Unless you can show me that it's the
same people complaining.
Moy draws teenagers who look like teenagers (well, like most teenagers would *like*
to look), and in his case, the complaints did seem to with the philosophy of the
series. In Coipel's case, it's that his characters seem to vary in age by 10 years
in different panels of the same issue.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
zoroa...@my-deja.com
>
> This is a really bizarrely ironic comment. All through Jeff Moy's
(IMHO
> outstanding) tenure on Legionnaires, a certain subset of fans bitched
> and whined and moaned about how he was drawing a "kiddie Legion", a
> "baby Legion", a "Legion of little kids", and an "Archies in space".
>
> Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
> Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion",
"they
> all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
>
> I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
> what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with
mid-life
> crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently
accept
> no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
> writing or drawing the zine.
>
> Maven
>
I don't mind young characters. Lots of new characters start of about
16 to 20 years of age anyways. I don't mind 16 year old
characters...but I don't like pre-pubescent looking characters.
As for the middle aged Legion....I would probably like a few middle
agers on there. Or atleast mature characters...but I would also like
new young characters!
The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
years in that time and then making them 12 years old again. That is
why most fans don't buy the book. It's the actual of reboot of
history. Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition. The "let's start
all over" killed the Legion. Again...look at the sales. Before LL
they weren't even in the Top 100.
Jorge
Johanna Draper Carlson
> The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
> years in that time and then making them 12 years old again. That is
> why most fans don't buy the book.
Currently, I believe "most fans" (insomuch as any of us can speak for them
all) don't buy the book because they recognize the poor quality. But it's
easy to assume that our personal attitudes must be shared by everyone. :)
> look at the sales. Before LL they weren't even in the Top 100.
LL isn't in the Top 100, either. During Team 20, the book was selling
safely, at least. Now, it's below 20K (by estimate) and still dropping, as I
posted earlier.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Silver Age, Aquarium, Darklight, Private Beach, Keyhole
List Owner, Legion-List @ egroups.com, for chat reports and discussion
Elayne Riggs
> I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
> frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
> his art that I like so much.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think it's an acquired taste, and I
think many fans don't "read" art in the same way that they read words--
there's often a tendency not to be able to see past the surface form. And
to many people, Copiel's surface forms aren't very eye-pleasing.
> I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it.
Hey, I've been trying to study this kind of thing for the past couple
years and I still lack the artistic vocabulary! :)
- Elayne
--
"He has his head so far up his arse he can't see the shit hit the fan."
- Mark Farmer (as quoted by A. Davis)
Elayne Riggs
> I like his art, too. For what it's worth. Quite a lot. The Legion hasn't looked
> this good in years and years. I'm hoping he'll stick around for a long long time.
You and Karl are in luck. Copiel's just been signed to an exclusive with
DC, which means they're going to keep him busy for some time to come.
Elayne Riggs
> I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
> what...
Bingo.
Elayne Riggs
> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
> the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be"
Keith Giffen tends not to tell the full story. Think logically: if Levitz
wanted to write the Legion, don't you think he'd be able to? Levitz isn't
the problem here.
Elayne Riggs
>> Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
>> to speculate who that might be).
> The way I heard it, Giffen proposed this as a "pachage deal" -- BOTH him
> AND Levitz or else *neither* -- and the DC higher-ups (Levitz is one of
> them, by the way) weren't buying at that price.
Much closer to the truth. Giffen isn't a DC employee, he's in no position
to initiate package deals. And frankly, IMHO there's far less of a demand
for his services on this book than he thinks there is.
Todd Kogutt
Dale Hicks wrote:
I myself dropped the title when (a) Moy was let go and (b) when the
> new dark direction of the team was announced under the editorship
> that had yet to thrill me with the stories.
Yep, I dropped LSH and LGS in protest over the firing of the creative teams and
the hiring of Abnett and Lanning, a writing team that has yet to produce
something I find readable.
---SCAVENGER
Jim Caldwell
>You and Karl are in luck. Copiel's just been signed to an exclusive with
>DC, which means they're going to keep him busy for some time to come.
Are they? The press release stated that the exclusive ran through August 2000.
While that date was questioned, it was never clarified as a typo. So all we
know right now is that he'll be on Legion until the end of LOST.
Jim Caldwell
<remove the effluvium from my address>
"Contempt for the audience! It's what killed Dennis Day!"
- Phil "Frank Sinatra" Hartman
John Wm
>The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
>years in that time and then making them 12 years old again. That is
>why most fans don't buy the book. It's the actual of reboot of
>history. Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition. The "let's start
>all over" killed the Legion. Again...look at the sales. Before LL
>they weren't even in the Top 100.
Amen, brother! I don't know why it's so hard for DC to grasp this. They can do
Legion Lost or anything else with these characters and we still won't consider
them as the real Legion. I just don't connect to this Legion.
I honestly felt cheated by DC when they rebooted the Legion and all its history
with it. Some say its history is what dragged down the Legion in the first
place, but I say that's what made the Legion so special.
John
_____________________________
"This is not an attempt on my part to rip down everything that Legion fandom
had held so dear, to sabotage the book, to turn it into a bleak, nightmarish
realm." -Keith Giffen, 1989
Give Me That Ole Time Real Legion!
John Wm
writes:
>Moy is GONE, the supposedly more "adult" and "sophisticated" Olivier
>Coipel is in, and what do we hear? "Kiddie Legion", "baby Legion", "they
>all look 12 years old" -- STILL!
>
>I have to think that some people will *never* be pleased, no matter
>what, until the Legion is once more 40-plus and wrestling with mid-life
>crisis the way they were in TMK. Some people will self-evidently accept
>no younger age as anything but "infantile" -- regardless of who's
>writing or drawing the zine.
I've always wondered why the Legion had to be either the adult Legion or the
kiddie Legion. I've been in several volunteer organizations and they've never
been all old or all young, it's always been a mixture of all ages.
John Wm
<b.h.b...@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
>the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
>to speculate who that might be).
I thought Paul Levitz WAS the powers that be.
Steve Rich
Creative teams should evolve the series based on what's happened before. Just
because something corny happened during the runs of previous creative teams
doesn't mean they have to dwell on it and not move on.
It's not only the rich history that made it special, but also the huge cast of
characters, both main and supporting. The pre-boot Legion was never a real
complicated premise. In my estimation, tthe history and cast only serve to entice
the new reader (to the pre-boot series) to dig through the back issues and savor
them.
But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.
John Wm wrote:
> In article <8fdohh$8ls$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zoroa...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
> >years in that time and then making them 12 years old again. That is
> >why most fans don't buy the book. It's the actual of reboot of
> >history. Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition. The "let's start
> >all over" killed the Legion. Again...look at the sales. Before LL
> >they weren't even in the Top 100.
>
> Amen, brother! I don't know why it's so hard for DC to grasp this. They can do
> Legion Lost or anything else with these characters and we still won't consider
> them as the real Legion. I just don't connect to this Legion.
>
> I honestly felt cheated by DC when they rebooted the Legion and all its history
> with it. Some say its history is what dragged down the Legion in the first
> place, but I say that's what made the Legion so special.
>
> John
Michael Alan Chary
>
>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>that they see. I dunno.
Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
He's a lousy artist.
>
>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
costume. It's just not true.
> And anyway, no one
>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>wind, I guess.
I took you to task over this before.
--
In memoriam Walter Payton, 1954-1999, the greatest Bear of all time.
"Being the fastest? I wasn't. Being the strongest? I wasn't. Being the biggest?
I wasn't. I had something that nobody else had. I think I was the smartest."
-- Sweetness
Sk8Maven
> I don't mind young characters. Lots of new characters start of about
> 16 to 20 years of age anyways. I don't mind 16 year old
> characters...but I don't like pre-pubescent looking characters.
So are you STILL bitching about the long-departed Jeff Moy, or has the
highly touted Olivier Coipel not lived up to your expectations?
> As for the middle aged Legion....I would probably like a few middle
> agers on there. Or atleast mature characters...but I would also like
> new young characters!
You're stuck with the present lot, which is less than *half* the
original team and includes several of the *least* mature members, for
another nine issues. (Several of the *most mature -- at least
emotionally -- are back on the U.P. side of the Rift, and only *one*
(M'Onel) has any chance whatsoever of showing up before L:Lost ends.
> The crime is using 30 year old characters that have aged about 5 to ten
> years in that time and then making them 12 years old again.
That applied to exactly *one* character -- Jan Arrah, aka Element Lad.
He's the only one who was reverted all the way back to age 12. The rest
were introduced at ages ranging from 14 (Garth and Ayla) to 17-18 (Jo,
Tinya, Lyle?) -- and have aged several years since then.
> That is why most fans don't buy the book.
In your opinion. In other people's opinion the creative team ran out of
ideas and/or were hamstrung by an incompetent editor who replaced them
with TOO radically different newcomers when there only needed to be
*one* replacement (him!).
> It's the actual of reboot of history.
This sentence is a little incoherent. Mind clarifying?
> Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition.
And twisted it into pretzel shapes for shock value again and again and
again.
> The "let's start all over" killed the Legion.
Not true -- it was moribund *before* Zero Hour, and the reboot was a
stay of execution.
> Again...look at the sales. Before LL they weren't even in the Top 100.
They still aren't. So what does that prove, except that there has never
been a worthy successor ro Paul Levitz on the zine(s)?
Maven
Johanna Draper Carlson
> You and Karl are in luck. Copiel's just been signed to an exclusive with
> DC, which means they're going to keep him busy for some time to come.
Last I heard, the contract was only through August. Of course, they could
always renew it.
(Why is this thread still in rac.dcu?)
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Keith Giffen tends not to tell the full story. Think logically: if Levitz
> wanted to write the Legion, don't you think he'd be able to?
I believe Mr. Levitz, when writing, behaves as a writer, accepting the
authority of the editor. I don't believe he would abuse his power as
publisher to get himself the job.
Jeff Troutman
news:391AE00A...@advtech.uswest.com...
I really liked their work on RESURRECTION MAN. When I heard they were
getting the Legion gig, I wondered if their style would fit those books.
So far, it just hasn't done much for me.
Jeff Troutman
Johanna Draper Carlson
> the two Chicago comic shops I frequent have
> been selling out Legion Lost, re-ordering and selling out the reorders.
There seems to be a lot of regional variation -- in contrast, my shop can't
sell 2 issues off the shelf. There's no demand here, if that's anything to
judge by.
But as you say, sales on the future issues will be more revealing
Jeff Troutman
> Steve Rich wrote:
> > This starting comics with a history from scratch is a cop out. Creative
teams
> > should evolve the series based on what's happened before.
>
> into a corner that *maybe* only Paul Levitz at his best could have
> gotten them out of (and even he would have had to pull sone
> six-foot-tall white rabbits out of a hat)? Do you make them deal with
> the FUBARs as best they can, or do you decide the situation is
> unsalvageable and it would be *better* to start over with a clean slate?
I had heard words to the effect that there was little choice: reboot or
cancellation. Things had gotten that bad, saleswise.
>
> The Legion was FUBAR. It had been FUBAR since the double whammy in
> issues 3-5. It got even more FUBAR when the Moon and Earth went boom,
> and *totally* FUBAR with juvenile and older duplicates of so many
> characters running around. (Giffen's solution to that one was going to
> be ugly, bloody, and sadistically mind-bending: he intended to reveal
> that the *older* Legion were clones, and then maneuver both groups into
> a bloodbath whose survivors would be determined -- literally -- by
> drawing names out ot a hat. I don't know what his intentions were if the
> same character was drawn twice -- discard the second one? use whichever
> one he preferred and kill off the other? banish the older one to the
> outer reaches? I rather doubt he had thought that far ahead, since he
> got the boot right after blowing up the Earth.)
I find this downright bizarre. When did Giffen say all this?
Jeff Troutman
Sk8Maven
> This starting comics with a history from scratch is a cop out. Creative teams
> should evolve the series based on what's happened before.
So what do you do with a series that's been totally FUBAR'ed and painted
into a corner that *maybe* only Paul Levitz at his best could have
gotten them out of (and even he would have had to pull sone
six-foot-tall white rabbits out of a hat)? Do you make them deal with
the FUBARs as best they can, or do you decide the situation is
unsalvageable and it would be *better* to start over with a clean slate?
The Legion was FUBAR. It had been FUBAR since the double whammy in
issues 3-5. It got even more FUBAR when the Moon and Earth went boom,
and *totally* FUBAR with juvenile and older duplicates of so many
characters running around. (Giffen's solution to that one was going to
be ugly, bloody, and sadistically mind-bending: he intended to reveal
that the *older* Legion were clones, and then maneuver both groups into
a bloodbath whose survivors would be determined -- literally -- by
drawing names out ot a hat. I don't know what his intentions were if the
same character was drawn twice -- discard the second one? use whichever
one he preferred and kill off the other? banish the older one to the
outer reaches? I rather doubt he had thought that far ahead, since he
got the boot right after blowing up the Earth.)
> Just because something corny happened during the runs of previous creative teams
> doesn't mean they have to dwell on it and not move on.
That requires good ideas and competent writing -- both of which have
been scarce on the Legion lately.
> It's not only the rich history that made it special, but also the huge cast of
> characters, both main and supporting.
I'll agree with you there, but unfortunately Mike McAvennie does NOT
agree -- and he's the editor in charge of Legion at present. He thinks
ten or twelve members and NO supporting cast is more than enough.
> The pre-boot Legion was never a real complicated premise. In my estimation, the
> history and cast only serve to entice the new reader (to the pre-boot series)
> to dig through the back issues and savor them. But that's my opinion... I could
> be wrong.
You probably are. I for one would *never* have picked up another Legion
comic (I quit back around the time of the Crisis on Infinite Earths) if
there had not been a reboot. The idea of spending hundreds of dollars
for back issues and slogging through thirty years of history did not
appeal to me in the least.
Ironically, my interest in the postboot Legion has been slowly and
agonizingly tortured to death (by ABNETT & LANNING and their
scribble-buddy COIPEL), and I have been FORCED to do exactly what I
dreaded in the first place.
The more I see of what I missed the first time around, the *less* I am
able to stomach the grotesquely twisted travesty that is currently being
published under the title "Legion Lost".
Damn right it's lost. It was lost a *long* time ago, and it will be an
even longer time before anyone finds it again.
Maven
Sk8Maven
> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think it's an acquired taste, and I
> think many fans don't "read" art in the same way that they read words--
> there's often a tendency not to be able to see past the surface form. And
> to many people, Copiel's surface forms aren't very eye-pleasing.
Which is like saying that the Fauvists used "rather strong colors", or
that the Cubists were "a little bit abstracted".
I wonder what would happen if Coipel did the rough layouts, somebody
else finished them up, and an inker who liked to streamline and simplify
(instead of slavishly copying every scratch, dirt smear and coffee ring)
did the inking?
Maven
Sk8Maven
> >Keith Giffen said that both he and Paul Levitz *volunteered* to take over
> >the Legion again, but were turned down "by the powers that be" (feel free
> >to speculate who that might be).
>
> I thought Paul Levitz WAS the powers that be.
Well, he's second-in-command, which is pretty close. Wanna bet *he's*
the one who said, "No way!"?
Maven
Kevin Daniels
Carlson" <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> kevind...@earthlink.net (Kevin Daniels) wrote:
>
> > How do Legion: Lost sales compare to LSH and Legionnaires at the end of
> > their runs?
>
> The estimates posted monthly have L:L 2 at just over 19K. LSH and
> Legionnaires were around 25K about the time of Team 20; Legion of
> Superheroes #125 was 17.5K, Legionnaires #81 was 17K. (Again, by estimate.)
> So Lost is doing better than the final issues, but it dropped 8% between #1
> and #2, with another drop expected (due to usual ordering patterns). If that
> drop is the same or greater, it's below the numbers of the previous final
> issues ... and those numbers are at Aquaman's level, if that's a valid
> example to judge by.
>
I'm intrigued to see the preorders on upcoming issues. Admittedly, these
are isolated examples, but the two Chicago comic shops I frequent have
been selling out Legion Lost, re-ordering and selling out the reorders.
Plus, this week there were more copies of LL#3 ordered than previous
issues -- a reflection of demand for the Legion of the Damned issues?
--
Kevin Daniels
Dale Hicks
> The idea of spending hundreds of dollars
> for back issues and slogging through thirty years of history did not
> appeal to me in the least.
Can we kick her out for saying this?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
(who's waiting to see where the Archives peter out before grabbing
those early 200's he's missing)
Dale Hicks
> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
> >
> >I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
> >artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
> >say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
> >facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
>
> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
I'd debate you on the dynamism of his work, except I don't have any
of his work to use as evidence. On newsstand (err.. comic store)
browsing, I've seen a lot of the art with the characters in motion
and the panels alive. I'm not sure how you can quantify this, though.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Michael Alan Chary
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
><8fffag$e7g$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>> >artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>> >say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>> >facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
>>
>> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
>> [...] They are not present.
>
>I'd debate you on the dynamism of his work, except I don't have any
>of his work to use as evidence.
Happily, I do. LL 3 Page 1. A splash page with a ship blasting out of the
field. (The wrong direction, of course. Blasting *away* from the next page
guiing the reader's eye toward the facing ad instead of toward the next
page) In any event, if he were going to be dynamic, now's the time, yes?
There's no focus point for the ship to come from. The picture is flat.
Most of the things which might be speed lines, used traditionally to
indicate movement, are pointed in a different direction than the space
ship. They are also not straight. The blast exhaust from the spaceship
points in different direction from most of the speed lines as well. There
are a few speed lines, if that's what they're supposed to be parrallel to
the apparent direction of the ship. They are short, crowded off the page
on top and also not straight. The other alternative is the ship is flying
into the page, and firing. That interpretation makes the speedlines work
even less well, but at least the panel flow is going toward the next page.
The rest of the book doesn't improve in any way.
> On newsstand (err.. comic store)
>browsing, I've seen a lot of the art with the characters in motion
>and the panels alive. I'm not sure how you can quantify this, though.
Page six. Again, no perspective or focus point. It looks like KQ is trying
to grab Shikari. She's not, but there's nothing in the panel placement to
indicate any motion. Shikari's wings are flapping, but she could be
hovering. We don't know. (The apparently motion in the top panel leads up
and away from the bottom panel. The structure of the bottom panel leads
away from the next page rather than toward it. Panel flow is dead.)
Dale Hicks
>
> LL 3 Page 1. A splash page with a ship blasting out of the
> field. (The wrong direction, of course. Blasting *away* from the next page
> guiing the reader's eye toward the facing ad instead of toward the next
> page)
I've always wondered about whether that rule was necessary. I've
seen all of the storytelling artists mention that, but I'm not
sure if I'm sold on the "all action goes L > R" rule, as it seems
horribly restrictive on composition. Perhaps I should grab the
book as an experiment, to see if the results are as jarring as
everyone mentions.
> Page six. Again, no perspective or focus point. It looks like KQ is trying
> to grab Shikari. She's not, but there's nothing in the panel placement to
> indicate any motion. [...] Panel flow is dead.
That's attacking other composition errors, isn't it?
Or does your definition of dynamism include panel flow and storytelling?
I was restricting the term to action poses and speed lines (which you
did attack earlier).
> Shikari's wings are flapping, but she could be
> hovering. We don't know.
Not evident from the pose? If not, then it sounds as if speed lines
are missing.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
David Goldfarb
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>There are no positive aspects to [Coipel's] art. No perspective, no anatomical
>sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>He's a lousy artist.
Say it, brother.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "You do it. I'm bitter."
aste...@slip.net | -- MST3K
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
Steve Reed
>k...@tsoft.net wrote:
>>[...] I've posted several times about liking Coipel's stuff, but I lack the
>>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>>facial details on small figures, but that's about it.)
>Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
>You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
>qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
>costume. It's just not true.
Demonstrable qualities -- yes, a perfectly reasonable and needed distinction,
and something that I cannot seem to get anyone to admit is reasonable on the
DC Comics message boards.
It's too facile to say that "they're all fanboys" over there. It's more that
the entire notion of art having -any- objective and demonstrable qualities,
even on the most basic levels of conveying a story, is foreign to them. That
is more of an artifact of our educational system worshipping the non-objective
and arbitrary.
--
* Stev...@earthling.net *
"Man masters nature not by force but by understanding.
This is why science has succeeded where magic failed:
because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature."
-- Jacob Bronowski
zoroa...@my-deja.com
>
> That applied to exactly *one* character -- Jan Arrah, aka Element
Lad.
> He's the only one who was reverted all the way back to age 12. The
rest
> were introduced at ages ranging from 14 (Garth and Ayla) to 17-18
(Jo,
> Tinya, Lyle?) -- and have aged several years since then.
I meant the art makes them look 12 years old.
Also I meant that I believe one of the Legion's strength was it's rich
history. The reboot/s got rid of that.
>
> > Atleast v.4 kept that history/tradition.
>
> And twisted it into pretzel shapes for shock value again and again
and
> again.
Your right. I agree with you there. At first it was fun seeing it
twisted but then it got old.
>
> > The "let's start all over" killed the Legion.
>
> Not true -- it was moribund *before* Zero Hour, and the reboot was a
> stay of execution.
>
> > Again...look at the sales. Before LL they weren't even in the Top
100.
>
> They still aren't. So what does that prove, except that there has
never
> been a worthy successor ro Paul Levitz on the zine(s)?
>
> Maven
Again your right. When I first got v.4 I hated it. Took me about 4
issues to get into it. But where was it going? As a
maxi-series/elseworld it would have been great. But the high concept
was doomed to go down.
That's all I ask is worty successor to Paul Levitz...and the "old"
continuity if possible.
thanks Maven,
Jorge
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sk8Maven
> > field. (The wrong direction, of course. Blasting *away* from the next page
> > guiing the reader's eye toward the facing ad instead of toward the next
> > page)
>
> I've always wondered about whether that rule was necessary. I've
> seen all of the storytelling artists mention that, but I'm not
> sure if I'm sold on the "all action goes L > R" rule, as it seems
> horribly restrictive on composition.
It seems to be imposed by the ingrained Western-world habit of reading
(and writing) text from left to right. That makes it pretty basic and
*very* widespread. Almost all Western art follows the left-to-right
rule.
(Chinese and Japanese art tends to "read" from the top down, because
that's the way they write and have for millennia.)
Maven
Steve Rich
happened after the Magic Wars in v. 3 or up to no. 3 in v. 4. As much as I preferred
Mon-El over Superboy, yanking young Kal-El out of the 30-plus year history was a
mistake (along with all the other changes you mentioned with the moon and our
homeplanet going kablooey).
To me, the post-boot reminds me of when Coke changed their formula back in the 80s.
If you wanted a Coke, it was the best you were going to get at the time to satisfy
that desire, but you still longed for the older version. They brought back Coke
Classic sooner than later.
Sk8Maven wrote:
> there had not been a reboot. The idea of spending hundreds of dollars
> for back issues and slogging through thirty years of history did not
> appeal to me in the least.
>
Brian H. Bailie
> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Keith Giffen tends not to tell the full story. Think logically: if Levitz
> > wanted to write the Legion, don't you think he'd be able to?
>
> I believe Mr. Levitz, when writing, behaves as a writer, accepting the
> authority of the editor. I don't believe he would abuse his power as
> publisher to get himself the job.
Exactly.
Day to day operations is one thing, but the creative end is something
different.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Elayne Riggs
Andy doesn't "slavishly copy." He does his job, which is to delineate the
pencils. Out of all the inkers tried on this book, his style actually fit
Copiel's best.
- Elayne
--
"He has his head so far up his arse he can't see the shit hit the fan."
- Mark Farmer (as quoted by A. Davis)
Michael Alan Chary
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
><8ffsgm$fip$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>
>> LL 3 Page 1. A splash page with a ship blasting out of the
>> field. (The wrong direction, of course. Blasting *away* from the next page
>> guiing the reader's eye toward the facing ad instead of toward the next
>> page)
>
Well, apparently it's not necessary to get a paying job in comics. I would
argue it's necessary for people to easily follow a comics story though.
>seen all of the storytelling artists mention that, but I'm not
>sure if I'm sold on the "all action goes L > R" rule, as it seems
>horribly restrictive on composition. Perhaps I should grab the
>book as an experiment, to see if the results are as jarring as
>everyone mentions.
I'm not talking left to right necessarily. I am talking the action should
go toward the next page/panel. This direction improves panel flow. It's
not easy to todo. Jack Kirby had to put little arrows in because he liked
drawing picture which were essentially static images. Keith Giffen at teh
time of the Great Darkness Saga is my personal choice for greatest comics
artist of all time. His flow is impeccable. Coipel seems entirely
unfamiliar with the concept.
The other option then is dynamism within a single panel.omehow indicating
movement within image such that the flow between panels doesn't matter for
guiding the eye. Nuh-uh. His panels have no focus point. No perspective,
and the conventional imagery of comics is used in a confusing fashion.
(The speed lines I analyzed) Where is this dynamism Karl claimed was
there? What "motion" in the panel is guiding the eye? Where is there any
direction at all? I didn't just pick this as a good example. It was the
first page. I then flipped the book at random to page six. Page 2-5 are no
better, though the Corn Nuts advert is probably not Coipiel's
responsibility.
>> Page six. Again, no perspective or focus point. It looks like KQ is trying
>> to grab Shikari. She's not, but there's nothing in the panel placement to
>> indicate any motion. [...] Panel flow is dead.
>
>That's attacking other composition errors, isn't it?
The last bit is, which is why it was in a parenthetical section of my
post. It's not that I am saying Coipiel has one or two outstanding
weaknesses. I don't think he does anything well except maybe draw
backgrounds. To me the most important thing an artist does in comics is
draw attractive pictures. That's enough of a matter of taste that people
disagree and I'll let it go sometimes like Lee Moder or Kelly Jones. Their
art just isn't attractive to me. But if art makes the reader's eyes bleed,
if it's so ugly, then it's a problem. Todd Nauck and Coipiel are in that
category.
>Or does your definition of dynamism include panel flow and storytelling?
Not panel flow, that why I had that statement in parentheses. It does
include story-telling, because that's the function of dynamism in comics.
Usually in strips. Nobody ever tries dynamism, and I don't think Coipel is
either. If he is trying that, he's failing miserably.
>I was restricting the term to action poses and speed lines (which you
>did attack earlier).
Are you unfamiliar with the "(" and ")" punctuation mark function? :)
Oh, wait, you just used them yourself. Why won't you let me?
>> Shikari's wings are flapping, but she could be
>> hovering. We don't know.
>
>Not evident from the pose? If not, then it sounds as if speed lines
>are missing.
You don't need me. Look yourself :)
Dale Hicks
> In article <01bfbbc2$3a2647a0$d2fa4cd8@celeron>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Page six. Again, no perspective or focus point. It looks like KQ is trying
> >> to grab Shikari. She's not, but there's nothing in the panel placement to
> >> indicate any motion.
> >
>
> Are you unfamiliar with the "(" and ")" punctuation mark function? :)
Well, I deleted the bit that you want excised. However, perspective
and focus points are part of the art chops and storytelling chops,
respectively.
I was arguing that it's possible to have the dynamic fluid figures and
energy charged speed line panels while not having the other elements
to make him a good sequential artist. And of the little samples I've
seen, I like this element of the work (storytelling I can't analyze,
as I don't read the books I don't buy).
I think he could be a good pinup style artist, given a more dominant
clean inker.
> To me the most important thing an artist does in comics is
> draw attractive pictures. That's enough of a matter of taste that people
> disagree and I'll let it go sometimes like Lee Moder or Kelly Jones. Their
> art just isn't attractive to me.
On this I agree. Elayne seems to be hinting that the truly deep
people can look past this to the other elements of the work, and
I feel that's wrong, at least in the aesthetic sense that I read
comics for. Perez rates over Gibbons based purely on looks,
although both have the other elements of a good comics artist.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Ojerasmus
>I've always wondered about whether that rule was necessary. I've
>sure if I'm sold on the "all action goes L > R" rule, as it seems
>horribly restrictive on composition.
Well you can have it flowing down the page or even down and to the right from
the last panel on a tier or a large panel. The L>R aspect isn't as important as
towards the next panel whereever that may be.
It doesn't have to hurt the composition either, Kirby did some great splash
pages where he had certain objects breaking the L>R flow of the rest of the
panel and it actually brought the eye naturally to that focus point and even
helped storytelling (I remember one where a young Loki has a totally different
direction from a crowd of supposedly allied asgardians and it immediately told
you that the one character had different aims to his fellows, even without Loki
being in costume you knew he was trouble because he disrupted the composition)
A digression but one that hopefully illustrates that a good artist can use the
technique to their own ends and not be restricted by it.
Owen Erasmus
Sk8Maven
> >I've always wondered about whether that rule was necessary. I've
> >seen all of the storytelling artists mention that, but I'm not
> >sure if I'm sold on the "all action goes L > R" rule, as it seems
> >horribly restrictive on composition.
>
> Well you can have it flowing down the page or even down and to the right from
> the last panel on a tier or a large panel. The L>R aspect isn't as important as
> towards the next panel whereever that may be.
It seems to be one of the more informed complaints about Coipel that he
*doesn't* have a clue about this.
Maven
Michael Alan Chary
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
><8fh3om$k4q$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <01bfbbc2$3a2647a0$d2fa4cd8@celeron>,
>> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Page six. Again, no perspective or focus point. It looks like KQ is trying
>> >> to grab Shikari. She's not, but there's nothing in the panel placement to
>> >> indicate any motion.
>> >
>> >That's attacking other composition errors, isn't it?
>>
>> The last bit [which I removed] is, [...]
>> Are you unfamiliar with the "(" and ")" punctuation mark function? :)
>
>Well, I deleted the bit that you want excised. However, perspective
I did not want it excised. I just wanted it clear that I was discussing a
different aspect of Coipiel's art. He's so awful at drawing it tended to
conflate, but when I discuss dynamism, typical panel flow is anoter thing.
He doesn't do either and at least one would be nice.
>and focus points are part of the art chops and storytelling chops,
>respectively.
Perspective has to do with dynamism. Focus point with panel flow, but they
both have to do with story telling by adding a sense of motion. Focus
points and perspective should really be in every comic imae, though
because you want the reader to be able to tell *something* is going on.
>I was arguing that it's possible to have the dynamic fluid figures and
>energy charged speed line panels while not having the other elements
>to make him a good sequential artist.
It is certainly possible to do this, yes.
> And of the little samples I've
>seen, I like this element of the work (storytelling I can't analyze,
>as I don't read the books I don't buy).
And I am saying that I've read every issue of LSH and LL he's done, and
those aspects are not present in his work.
>I think he could be a good pinup style artist, given a more dominant
>clean inker.
I suppose he might be able to do Moebius or McFarlane type posters if his
work didn't make people's eyes bleed.
>> To me the most important thing an artist does in comics is
>> draw attractive pictures. That's enough of a matter of taste that people
>> disagree and I'll let it go sometimes like Lee Moder or Kelly Jones. Their
>> art just isn't attractive to me.
>
>On this I agree. Elayne seems to be hinting that the truly deep
>people can look past this to the other elements of the work, and
Let me be absolutely clear on this:
I think Elayne is wrong. I don't think Coipiel does anything well as an
artist. I think he is actively bad at almost anything. I have provided
concrete examples for most of what I am talking about. I also believe very
strongly that there are objective standards in art and that most people
who claim art is subjective are just namby-pamby wussies who are not
capable of producing actual reasons to justify their preferences. Fine, if
it's an issue of taste, than enjoy yourself, and leave the big boys alone
to discuss art intelligently. Deep people might be able to see past the
surface, but intelligent people can see when there's nothing below the
surface and when the surface qualities are so massively bad as to outweigh
issues like form and motion. (Coipiel's form and motion aren't any
better than the rest of his art. Look at how KQ *moves*.)
>I feel that's wrong, at least in the aesthetic sense that I read
>comics for. Perez rates over Gibbons based purely on looks,
>although both have the other elements of a good comics artist.
Perez actually isn't all that wonderfulo, but I like his stuff so I don't
complain.
Dale Hicks
>
> Let me be absolutely clear on this:
I seem to have hit a nerve. :)
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
(who isn't convinced on a pure objectivity of art, so he'll leave
the big boys alone right now)
Johanna Draper Carlson
>(who isn't convinced on a pure objectivity of art, so he'll leave
>the big boys alone right now)
You don't have to be convinced to be able to differentiate between these two
hypothetical analyses:
1. I like it. It's pretty. and
2. I like it. The composition draws the eye well, the characters are
well-distinguished through body language, and the backgrounds are detailed.
That is, it gets back to the difference between an opinion and a
well-informed, well-expressed opinion.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
indy Magazine Contributing Writer -- http://www.indymagazine.com
Comicology Contributing Editor and Writer of Ask Answer Lass!
Michael Alan Chary
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in article
><8finvi$qr1$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>
>> Let me be absolutely clear on this:
>
>I seem to have hit a nerve. :)
>
Damn right. I'm sick of producing reasoned analysis with direct
reference to the books and having people say "It's all a matter of
taste" as though it actually meant something. It doesn't. Reason and
evidence are important. If you don't think so, that's up to you, but
don't expect me to act like your opinion should matter.
Sk8Maven
> I meant the art makes them look 12 years old.
Whose art? You never answered that question. If it's the *current*
artist, Olivier Coipel, that you' referring to, then that's one more
vote (besides mine) in refutation of the thesis that Coipel's version of
the Legion "looks more adult".
If it isn't the current artist, it no longer matters -- they've all gone
on to other assignments and will probably not be back.
Maven
Ojerasmus
>strongly that there are objective standards in art and that most people
>who claim art is subjective are just namby-pamby wussies who are not
>capable of producing actual reasons to justify their preferences.
Agreed totally, at least with regard to art that is supposed to tell a story.
While it may be possible to produce art that fails these standards but still
has some redeeming features there are testable techniques to comic book art.
Giffen used to embody just about all of them. Even if you didn't like him you
couldn't dispute the way he handled certain facets of the job. Similarly even
if you like an artist like Copiel it is possible to show that he is failing in
fundamental areas.
Owen Erasmus
GregGildr
>I've always wondered why the Legion had to be either the adult Legion or the
>kiddie Legion. I've been in several volunteer organizations and they've never
>been all old or all young, it's always been a mixture of all ages.
Part of that, I believe, is a holdover from the early '60s, when the Legion's
constitution prohibited anyone over the age of 18 from joining, the theory
being that adults would not follow orders set down by teenagers.
By Levitz's time, most of the longtime Legionnaires were already past 18, but
that rule was still in force, so that younger members were still joining.
However, it was never portrayed as if there was a significant age difference
between the longtime and newer members.
Greg G.
Ben Weiss
> Andy doesn't "slavishly copy." He does his job, which is to delineate the
> pencils. Out of all the inkers tried on this book, his style actually fit
> Copiel's best.
Who the heck did they try? Doesn't DC have any clean inkers who can tighten the
figures and turn those blobs into recognizable faces? Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Ben Weiss
> You don't have to be convinced to be able to differentiate between these two
> hypothetical analyses:
> 1. I like it. It's pretty. and
> 2. I like it. The composition draws the eye well, the characters are
> well-distinguished through body language, and the backgrounds are detailed.
>
> That is, it gets back to the difference between an opinion and a
> well-informed, well-expressed opinion.
Here's another test: Can you go back and see what the writer is talking about?
By pointing out the lack of speed lines and vanishing points, Michael has
explained why my eye just slides past Coipel's panels of inanimate objects, from
the Stem to the ships in L:L #3.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Sk8Maven
> By Levitz's time, most of the longtime Legionnaires were already past 18, but
> that rule was still in force, so that younger members were still joining.
I gather they had amended the rule to state that *new* members must be
under 18. A point was made of that when the rule was waived for Polar
Boy (who was over 18 but had had a standing invitation extended while he
was still under that age).
> However, it was never portrayed as if there was a significant age difference
> between the longtime and newer members.
There weren't that many new members, and they mostly hung out with each
other and their friends at the Academy. Maybe if there had been more
social interaction between the old and new members, the differences
would have been highlighted.
Maven
DCOLevitz
I thank those who say I defer to editorial authority as it regards my role as
writer--I've tried to do that, though the inherant conflicts make it hard for
me to judge if I have succeeded.
I don't recall Mike Carlin offering me the Legion in recent years, though I
suspect he'd have happily accepted if I had volunteered. As is obvious from
sales, comments and efforts on projects like LEGION LOST, no one in authority
has been thrilled with how the LSH has done in the past couple of years.
And the real powers-that-be which keep me from going anywhere near the Legion,
or any regular assignment, are my kids...they're still in the age range which
convinced me to give up regular writing: between talking and the magic moment
when parents turn into no fun. I want to enjoy them while I can, and trust
that I can return to the keyboard som e day.
Paul Levitz
Sk8Maven
> I don't recall Mike Carlin offering me the Legion in recent years, though I
> suspect he'd have happily accepted if I had volunteered. As is obvious from
> sales, comments and efforts on projects like LEGION LOST, no one in authority
> has been thrilled with how the LSH has done in the past couple of years.
So, how does it feel to realize that you really *were* irreplaceable?
(It's been more than "the past couple of years", it's been ever since
you stepped down...IMHO. I've been collecting the issues you wrote --
missed them the first time around, more fool I. Can't say I agree with
everything that you did, but on the whole the quality level was *way*
higher than anything I've seen since.)
Just out of curiosity, do you think there was any way to resolve the
TMK/SW6 continuity tangle cum painting-into-a-dark-corner *without*
cleaning the slate via a total reboot and restart? Most of those who had
aught to do with it say they tried their damnedest and there just wasn't
any other way. So I thought I'd ask the guy who disentangled the
Superboy/Ultra Boy/Reflecto mess.
> And the real powers-that-be which keep me from going anywhere near the Legion,
> or any regular assignment, are my kids...they're still in the age range which
> convinced me to give up regular writing: between talking and the magic moment
> when parents turn into no fun. I want to enjoy them while I can, and trust
> that I can return to the keyboard some day.
We all have our priorities. I respect you for following yours, and hope
that you will return to the Legion some day (and that there is still a
Legion for you to return *to*).
Maven
GregGildr
>There weren't that many new members, and they mostly hung out with each
>other and their friends at the Academy.
If you count Wildfire, Tyroc, Dawnstar, Blok, Invisible Kid II, White Witch,
Tellus, Quislet, and Magnetic Kid (I hope I haven't left anybody out), that's a
fairly sizeable number who joined relatively late and who must have been under
18. But you're right that some of them did hang out with their academy friends
-- which could be interepreted as a generational preference.
Maybe if there had been more
>social interaction between the old and new members, the differences
>would have been highlighted.
I think DC was mostly trying to avoid the issue of how old the Legionnaires
were, as the subject was rarely brought up and even then only in vague
generalities (such as Star Boy growing a beard, members getting married, having
children, etc.). It was especially a consideration when Superboy was a member
-- if he never ages past 18 in the stories, and the others all progress into
their mid-20s, then sooner or later Kal is bound to notice. The secret of
prolonged youth (S/LSH #235) was a cop-out. DC never refered to it again and
just sort of sidestepped the issue of age differences.
Greg G.
Tom Galloway
DCOLevitz <dcol...@aol.com> wrote:
>And the real powers-that-be which keep me from going anywhere near the Legion,
>or any regular assignment, are my kids...they're still in the age range which
>convinced me to give up regular writing: between talking and the magic moment
>when parents turn into no fun. I want to enjoy them while I can, and trust
>that I can return to the keyboard som e day.
Well, there is a solution to this. After all, there's a precedent of a 13
year old writing the Legion, so I'd at least be interested in seeing how
a Levitz Family written Legion would turn out. :-)
tyg t...@netcom.com
Elayne Riggs
Ben, you're missing something here. DC *likes* Coipel's style. That's
why they've signed him to an exclusive. Why would Mike ask Andy or any
other inker to change that style?
Elayne Riggs
> I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
exclusive contract.
TheLargeCahoona
than what was previously being served up. So it sold out. How many copies
did they print? Probably not many, if they were using past sales histories
as a guideline.
"Elayne Riggs" <fire...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8fosdm$r8d$7...@news.panix.com...
Edward Mathews
: For the record:
: And the real powers-that-be which keep me from going anywhere near the
: Legion,
: or any regular assignment, are my kids...they're still in the age range which
: convinced me to give up regular writing: between talking and the magic moment
: when parents turn into no fun. I want to enjoy them while I can, and trust
: that I can return to the keyboard som e day.
I hope to see that day, since any person who is in a position similar to
your own who would put his kids first is precisely the guy I want writing
superhero comics for kids. :)
Ed (uncle of a wonderful niece) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.nyu.edu/~em11/
"Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the
undertaker will be sorry." -Mark Twain
Elayne Riggs
> I doubt it. Hardcore fans are just just glad to have ANYTHING that's better
> than what was previously being served up.
Your theory isn't borne out by a lot of the posts on this newsgroup.
- Elayne
Jim Caldwell
>Andy doesn't "slavishly copy." He does his job, which is to delineate the
>pencils. Out of all the inkers tried on this book, his style actually fit
>Copiel's best.
So who did they try? I've only seen Lanning's inks on Coipel's pencils. Was
there a lot of behind-the-scenes auditioning of inkers?
Jim Caldwell
<remove the effluvium from my address>
"Contempt for the audience! It's what killed Dennis Day!"
- Phil "Frank Sinatra" Hartman
Bill Roper
But, Elayne, that would depend on your definition of "better". :)
--
Bill Roper, ro...@xnet.com
Dwight Williams
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
>
> I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
> connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
> exclusive contract.
What the hey. I *know* Abnett and Lanning are competent. Surely they
must've had *something* to do with the sales figures being as they were.
Now how do we improve on that?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Maintainer/Founder - DEOList for _Chase_ Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hay
> And the real powers-that-be which keep me from going anywhere near the Legion,
>or any regular assignment, are my kids...they're still in the age range which
--
TANSTAAFM
Elayne Riggs
Nonsense, it would depend on your definition of "are." :) :) :)
Seriously, TLC seemed to be discussing the current mindset of fans, rather
than a wish-list mindset, but the current mindset of at least many fans on
this thread would seem to belie his optimism.
Elayne Riggs
> Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Kevin Daniels <kevind...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I haven't been paying too much attention to sales...
>>
>> I hear the first issue of LEGION LOST sold out. There may very well be a
>> connection between that and DC's subsequent signing of Coipel to an
>> exclusive contract.
> What the hey. I *know* Abnett and Lanning are competent. Surely they
> must've had *something* to do with the sales figures being as they were.
I don't think they've been signed to any exclusives, but I could be
misremembering. In any case, I believe the common wisdom is still that
art carries a book rather than writing (except if you're talking about a
writer with a cult of personality behind him/her).
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>
>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>that they see. I dunno.
> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
> He's a lousy artist.
All apologies, but I do not believe you.
>>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
> You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
> qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
> costume. It's just not true.
You're saying that my enjoyment of the expressions Copiel puts on his
small faces is equivalent to some kind of visual hallucination? Is my
satisfaction with his work some form of insanity? Should I be committed,
perhaps deprogrammed so that I get violently ill whenever I see Copiel's
art?
>> And anyway, no one
>>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>>wind, I guess.
> I took you to task over this before.
Yikes!
In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
conserving bandwidth by not having superfluous material in my .sig
Michael Alan Chary
>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>that they see. I dunno.
>
>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>> He's a lousy artist.
>
>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
>>>I've posted several times about liking Copiel's stuff, but I lack the
>>>artistic vocabulary to get into a detailed discussion about it. (I can
>>>say that it's really dynamic, and that he does a good job of portraying
>>>facial details on small figures, but that's about it).
>
>> Neither of these things is true. You aren't talking about opinion, now.
>> You aren't saying "I like this." You are talking about demonstrable
>> qualities. They are not present. It's like claiming Batman has a red
>> costume. It's just not true.
>
>You're saying that my enjoyment of the expressions Copiel puts on his
>small faces is equivalent to some kind of visual hallucination?
I'm saying he does not do a good job of portraying facial detail on small
faces. LL 3, Page 4, panel 1. Two faces smaller than normal (normal being
in comics panel terms about the size of a dime, maybe a little smaller).
No detail. Panel 2, again, two face, no detail. You don't need to believe
me. Everyone reading this post can open up the book and look for himself.
He doesn't put any detail into small facial expression. It's not there.
Either no features or a couple squiggly lines. An if you maintain that's
somehow enough, than you must be orgasmic over people like Dick Dillin or
Jeff Moy who actually stick in mouths and lips and teeth and eye brows and
so forth.
> Is my
>satisfaction with his work some form of insanity? Should I be committed,
>perhaps deprogrammed so that I get violently ill whenever I see Copiel's
>art?
Your satisfaction is a personal feeling. I am glad you like his art. But
tread carefully on the objective reality of what ends up on a page,
because we all have comics too, and all we have to do is open up to page
19, panel 1 LL 3, and watch the brilliantly detailed portrayal of Saturn
Girl's nose as a dot.
>>> And anyway, no one
>>>has ever followed up to agree or disagree, so I'm just shouting into the
>>>wind, I guess.
>
>> I took you to task over this before.
>
>Yikes!
>
>In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
>
>Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
>Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
for all I know but you you may be right.
david leon
> You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
> looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
> for all I know but you you may be right.
> --
Argh! Quoting Billy Joel? How can anyone top that. "It sucks!"
"No it doesnt!"
"It sucks and I'm right!"
"No it doesnt and your wrong!"
"oh yeah, well she's always a woman to meeeee!"
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <si3qvoc...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <shjpma3...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I like Copiel a lot, and although I understand that tastes vary, I find it
>>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>>that they see. I dunno.
>>
>>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>>> He's a lousy artist.
>>
>>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
> You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
> textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
> compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
Utmost esteem is good...
I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
possible reason for different reactions:
The entire premise of a TV show or movie (let's call it "The X-Files") is
based on a whopping misinterpretation of how computers work, or how
neurochemistry works. As a computer geek, I find the episode
substantially weakened by this, but some other people who don't know much
about computers seem to enjoy it. Or my friend who's getting his PhD in
neuroscience is bothered by mistakes that I totally miss, so our enjoyment
of the episode differs.
So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
other level.
Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
That's what this all come down to, after all -- you're saying that "comic
art has objective rules" trumps the "tastes vary" argument. Some artists
have the skill to break those objective rules and be praised for it --
Bill Sienkiewicz, for example. Music is full of new trends that break old
rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
comic art in a good way or a bad way? Well... That's kind of
subjective... :)
All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person who likes things that
color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its flaws, somehow manages
not to confuse my understanding of the story. The left-to-right thing
doesn't confuse me. The squiggly faces and sketchy lines somehow get
assembled in my mind into attractive detailed figures. The illusion of
motion is evident to me despite the bizarre angles of the speed lines and
odd perspective. All the things you find wrong with Copiel contribute to
an overall impression in my mind in a way that other types of wrongness
you use as examples (Batman in a red cape, disappearing/reappearing
details in Liefeld's art) don't.
So... You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and
you don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these
things and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them
in ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
of the room. I do sincerely hope that Copiel's art improves to the point
where everyone else can enjoy it like I do.
>>In any case, I'm happy being wrong!
>>
>>Happy Being Wrong! <dances little jig> Happy Being Wrong! I'm Crazy and
>>Wrong and a Lousy Critic and I LIKE IT!!! Wheee!
Wow, I sure did drink a lot of coffee yesterday afternoon.
> You may be right. I may crazy. But it just might be a lunatic you're
> looking for. Too late to fight. Too late to change me. You might be wrong
> for all I know but you you may be right.
Only the good artists die young.
Nathan Sanders
In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
>is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
>other level.
Entirely possible, of course. Horrible movies like TITANIC, whose
characters have fewer than one dimension of personality and whose
plot was boring, predictable, and trite, can end up making tons of
money appealing to the masses. Thus, on an objective artistic scale
(which --- I agree with Mike --- exists), TITANIC and Coipel are
miserable, but on an objective scale of "entertainment value" (sales),
TITANIC certainly succeeded (the jury is still out on Coipel).
I think the average person on rac* tends to care more about the former
scale (note the many vocal supporters of CHASE over on racdu), and
doesn't give a fig about the latter scale.
>Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
Breaking objective rules is one thing. Ignoring them is a different
matter. Flouting the rules only works when you know what the rules
are, and if you flout them in a meaningful way. Coipel might know
the rules (though it's hard to see evidence of that), but he's
definitely not flouting them in a meaningful way (for me).
>Music is full of new trends that break old
>rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
>the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
But jazz doesn't break the rules randomly and arbitrarily. Otherwise,
you'd get random notes and dischordant progressions. That doesn't
(generally) happen, so they're sticking to some sort of uber-rules.
>comic art in a good way or a bad way? Well... That's kind of
>subjective... :)
Just as there are objective rules for art, there are objective rules for
how to break those first rules (and so on...meta-rules all the way down).
>of the room. I do sincerely hope that Copiel's art improves to the point
>where everyone else can enjoy it like I do.
He'll have to start by not giving all the characters pig-faces. Or at
least, give each character a consistent pig-face from page to page.
Nathan
--
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Sk8Maven
> Only the good artists die young.
That's not true either -- Titian lived into his 80's or possibly 90's.
Maven
Ben Weiss
> >Music is full of new trends that break old
> >rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
> >the objective rules of music. Does Copiel break the objective rules of
>
> But jazz doesn't break the rules randomly and arbitrarily. Otherwise,
> you'd get random notes and dischordant progressions.
Actually, I've been told that in jazz, the rule is "When you hit a wrong note,
repeat it."
But comic art, unlike, say, music on a CD, exists for more than its own sake;
it's there to tell a story. If a jazz artist suddenly decides to throw some
Tupac Shakur lyrics into the mix, it's novel experimentation. If the lead
actress in a Broadway production of "Oklahoma!" does the same, it's breaking the
rules.
Experimentation in comic art or stage singing is only appropriate if it's in the
service of the overall story. IMO, Coipel's art obscures, rather than
illuminates, what A&L are trying to communicate.
Ben
eleme...@lsh.org
Carl Fink
Non sequitur. He said that only good artists died young -- not that
*all* good artists die young, which Titian would be a counterexample
to.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Sk8Maven
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 22:22:57 GMT Sk8Maven <sk8m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >kjhNO...@tsoft.net wrote:
> >> Only the good artists die young.
> >
> >That's not true either -- Titian lived into his 80's or possibly 90's.
>
> Non sequitur. He said that only good artists died young -- not that
> *all* good artists die young, which Titian would be a counterexample
> to.
Spoilsport. :-P
Maven
Michael Alan Chary
>>>>>frustrating that so many other people fail to see the positive aspects of
>>>>>his art that I like so much. Or maybe I'm blind to the negative aspects
>>>>>that they see. I dunno.
>>>
>>>> Tere are no positive aspects to his art. No perspective, no anatomical
>>>> sense, no panel flow, no panel structure. No dynamism. His stuff's ugly.
>>>> He's a lousy artist.
>>>
>>>All apologies, but I do not believe you.
>
>> You're welcome to your beliefs. I did, however, think to explain with
>> textual evidence. You'll forgive me then if your beliefs aren't that
>> compelling to me despite my holding you personally in the utmost esteem.
>
>Utmost esteem is good...
>
>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>possible reason for different reactions:
I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively) Before you were talking
about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
>So maybe my sensitivity to the objective mistakes you see in Copiel's art
>is lower, and I'm able to gloss over those mistakes and enjoy it on some
>other level.
I'm not talking about enjoyment. I'm talking abotu dynamism, detail, panel
flow, structure, whether lines are straight and that sort of thing. It's
doesn't matter whether I like it or not. It's there.
>Or maybe it's the breaking of the objective rules that appeals to me.
>That's what this all come down to, after all -- you're saying that "comic
>art has objective rules" trumps the "tastes vary" argument. Some artists
No. I'm saying "Coipel does not have dynamism in his art and detail on his
small facial representations." That statement has nothing to do with
whether you or I like his art. It's a factual statement on a par with
"The Golden Age Green Lantern had red in his costume. The Silver Age Green
Lantern did not have red in his costume." Neither of those is a statement
about what the better way to design a superhero or even a Green Lantern
costume is. You said people fail to see positive qualities like facial
detail and dynamism. That's a factual statement. You're right to the
extent that I fail to see it, but I say there's a reason I fail to see
those qualities. They are not there.
>have the skill to break those objective rules and be praised for it --
>Bill Sienkiewicz, for example. Music is full of new trends that break old
Bill Siekevitch does not break the rules. He doesn't draw with much
glamor, but his panel flow is impeccable, for instance.
>rules -- lots of people don't like jazz because it violates their idea of
>the objective rules of music.
Only people who don't know the rules of jazz.
>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
his story.
>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>left-to-right thing >doesn't confuse me. The squiggly faces and sketchy
>lines somehow get >assembled in my mind into attractive detailed figures.
Well, maybe one thign: I might suggest that borders on delusion. Half the
faces don't have any details at all.
>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
k...@tsoft.net
> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>
>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>possible reason for different reactions:
> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
close to now).
> Before you were talking
> about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
> can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
> ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
So if half the population is unable to see those 3D "Magic Eye" pictures,
what's the objective reality?
OK, that's not a good analogy on a technical level (after all, those
pictures are inarguably present in a jumbled form). But the point I'm
making here, the last position I'll hold to beyond my subjectivity
fallback, is this: Somehow, when I look at those little squiggly lines in
the small faces, my brain assembles them into expressive, nuanced faces.
Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
willing to accept everything uncritically.
I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
improvement.
>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
> his story.
Some but not all readers.
>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
Yes. Really, I can.
>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
Michael Alan Chary
>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>>possible reason for different reactions:
>
>> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
>> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
>> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
>
>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>close to now).
Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
distinguish him from any artists?
>> Before you were talking
>> about objective reality like how detailed Coipiel's faces are. *That* I
>> can argue with and you don't get to be angry. You get to try to prove my
>> ass wrong with the comics, but it's a factual matter.
>
>So if half the population is unable to see those 3D "Magic Eye" pictures,
>what's the objective reality?
>
>OK, that's not a good analogy on a technical level (after all, those
>pictures are inarguably present in a jumbled form). But the point I'm
Bingo!
>making here, the last position I'll hold to beyond my subjectivity
>fallback, is this: Somehow, when I look at those little squiggly lines in
>the small faces, my brain assembles them into expressive, nuanced faces.
Page 4, Phantom Girl (I refuse to cal her Apparition). What little
squiggly lines? There aren't any? There are a couple marks there, but
really, which lines are you talking about?
Radar: Stop making fun of my height.
Hawkeye: What height? You have no height. Get some height, and I'll make
fun of it.
In like fashion, what lines?
>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
are doing something similar witht he art?
>(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
>realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
>People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
>an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
>Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
>and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
Okay, so maybe you are just blind :)
>This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
>that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
>not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
>plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
>could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
>willing to accept everything uncritically.
Fair enough.
>I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
>would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
>some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
>place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
>improvement.
That's certainly true. What he doesn't have is any *reason* for
improvement. He's getting work. A lot of artists show room for improvement
but don't do it once they get work. Rob Liefeld had a tremendous level of
ability and a young age, but he sucked. I mean, he was better than I am,
but I'm just some guy, not an artist. Derec Aucoin, otoh, improved
dramatically with each issue of R.E.B.E.L.S.
>>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
>
>> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
>> his story.
>
>Some but not all readers.
It takes you no longer than usual to figure it out?
>>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
>> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>
>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>
>Yes. Really, I can.
Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
weapons? What's going on?
>>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
>
>> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
>> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
>
>All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
Tellyour co-workers to try typing with King Kong's hands.
>So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
>almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
>tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
>objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
>into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
>does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
>it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
>is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
Maybe you're wrong.
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> In article <si9de1...@corp.supernews.com>, <k...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>In rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh Michael Alan Chary
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <si5n3k...@corp.supernews.com>, <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I had a chance last night to flip through LL3 and look at the things you
>>>>pointed out. I can't deny that you make some good points, and there are
>>>>some valid objective complaints to be made. I can think of at least one
>>>>possible reason for different reactions:
>>
>>> I think I see part of the problem. You are now saying you *like*
>>> something. That's an opinion. I can't argue with it without pissing you
>>> off. (THough I think I can argue it effectively)
>>
>>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>>close to now).
> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
> distinguish him from any artists?
No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
think).
In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
> are doing something similar witht he art?
Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
about Copiel?
Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
form in some people's perceptions.
I can even point out an art style that I dislike that I think functions on
a similar level: manga/anime. Not all of it -- some is beautifully drawn.
But look at the lower end -- you've got weirdly-proportioned faces with
gigantic eyes, tiny lines for noses, big oval mouths that sometimes fill
up the bottom half of the faces without any cheeks or lips... All
grotesque on any objective scale. But for a lot of fans (a lot of lot of
fans), this all resolves into acceptable art. I don't get it, but I can
see how it works for other people (there's so much of it that it all seems
interchangeable to me; maybe I'd find it more interesting if it were a new
style by one artist, I dunno).
>>(I noticed something similar recently with Deadenders. I suddenly
>>realized consciously that everything was colored in green and brown.
>>People's faces were colored green. Looked at straight-on, it seemed like
>>an odd choice, maybe even a wrong one (people aren't green, just like
>>Batman's cape isn't red). Again, though, my brain was overlooking this
>>and fusing the whole art package into a coherent impression.)
> Okay, so maybe you are just blind :)
Legally blind without my glasses, that's me. Hm, let's see what the art
in Legion Lost looks like with them on... O DEAR GOD NO!
>>This happens regularly enough with Copiel that I find it hard to believe
>>that there isn't some kind of underlying form that makes sense to me but
>>not to most other people -- just like those Magic Eye pictures. There's
>>plenty of art out there that I find objectively bad (lots that you and I
>>could probably agree on), so I don't think I'm entirely bereft of taste or
>>willing to accept everything uncritically.
> Fair enough.
>>I concede everything else up to that point. Publishing Magic Eye comics
>>would be a terrible idea. Art that elicits a certain positive response in
>>some people but appears god-awful to the majority is probably out of
>>place in a mass-market periodical. Copiel has a lot of room for
>>improvement.
> That's certainly true. What he doesn't have is any *reason* for
> improvement. He's getting work. A lot of artists show room for improvement
> but don't do it once they get work. Rob Liefeld had a tremendous level of
> ability and a young age, but he sucked. I mean, he was better than I am,
> but I'm just some guy, not an artist. Derec Aucoin, otoh, improved
> dramatically with each issue of R.E.B.E.L.S.
Time will tell, I guess.
>>>>comic art in a good way or a bad way?
>>
>>> He breaks them in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to follow
>>> his story.
>>
>>Some but not all readers.
> It takes you no longer than usual to figure it out?
Not really. There have been some problem spots.
>>>>subjective... :) > >All goalpost-moving aside, I'm just a weird person
>>> who likes things that >color outside the lines. Copiel's art, for all its
>>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>>
>>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>>
>>Yes. Really, I can.
> Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
> weapons? What's going on?
I had to consciously try to see the ship going away from the reader, or
firing guns. I knew (from the text or from my memory of the plot) that
the Legion ship was leaving the other one, and the splash page looked like
just that.
>>>>You're seeing things that break objective rules of comic art, and >you
>>>>don't like them, and a lot of people agree with you. I see these >things
>>>>and while I agree that some rules are being broken, it breaks them >in
>>>>ways I don't seem to mind, and a few people agree with me. I can live
>>>>with that. My musical tastes, for example, can send people screaming out
>>
>>> Fine, but don't be claiming his faces are detailed or that his ork is
>>> dynamic, because there are ways to measure that.
>>
>>All of my cow-orkers agree that "ork" is a verb, not a noun.
> Tellyour co-workers to try typing with King Kong's hands.
"The fingers you are using are too large. To request a phone with larger
buttons, please mash the keypad with your palm."
>>So what have we learned? I think my position has been distilled down
>>almost all the way to total subjectivity ("I like it, you don't, our
>>tastes differ"), with a bit of stubborn insistence that there is some
>>objective quality to his work that, in the minds of some people, resolves
>>into a satisfying impression in a way that other objectively flawed art
>>does not. Maybe we're being fooled, maybe we're delusional, but maybe
>>it's a Magic Eye picture that only a few people can make sense of (which
>>is probably not a good thing for LSH, but I'm not complaining).
> Maybe you're wrong.
Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
Sk8Maven
> Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
> sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
> to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
> Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
> there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
> form in some people's perceptions.
Maybe so, but it has nothing to do with Myers-Briggs (I'm a clear
Intuitive, and I think Coipel's art is dreadful).
Maven
Michael Alan Chary
><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>If you want to piss me off, junk email works a lot better than arguments
>>>about matters of opinion. I'm pretty mellow, and generally more than
>>>happy to fall back to a position of personal subjectivity (which I'm very
>>>close to now).
>
>> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
>> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
>> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
>> distinguish him from any artists?
>
>No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
>my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
>there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
>that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
>the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
>think).
And Portacio is pretty awful. He's also an order of magnitude better than
Coipel.
>In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
>sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
>Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
>haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
>>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
>
>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>
>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>about Copiel?
Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
science.
>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>form in some people's perceptions.
And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
like a grilled trout.
>I can even point out an art style that I dislike that I think functions on
>a similar level: manga/anime. Not all of it -- some is beautifully drawn.
>But look at the lower end -- you've got weirdly-proportioned faces with
>gigantic eyes, tiny lines for noses, big oval mouths that sometimes fill
>up the bottom half of the faces without any cheeks or lips... All
Okay, pull out a copy of Coipel and look for those qualities in his art. I
think you'll be surprised.
>grotesque on any objective scale. But for a lot of fans (a lot of lot of
>fans), this all resolves into acceptable art. I don't get it, but I can
>see how it works for other people (there's so much of it that it all seems
>interchangeable to me; maybe I'd find it more interesting if it were a new
>style by one artist, I dunno).
Manga has a slightly different system.
>>>> flaws, somehow manages >not to confuse my understanding of the story. The
>>>
>>>> Really? You can instantly tell what's happening on page 1?
>>>
>>>Yes. Really, I can.
>
>> Okay. What? Tell me. Which direction is the ship going in? Is it firing
>> weapons? What's going on?
>
>I had to consciously try to see the ship going away from the reader, or
>firing guns. I knew (from the text or from my memory of the plot) that
>the Legion ship was leaving the other one, and the splash page looked like
>just that.
Well, that was my first impulse too, from context. But there's nothing in
the picture itself to indicate that. Additionaly, as I said, that means
the panel flow on a *SPLASH PAGE FERCHRISSAKES* is awful. The art is
guiding the reader to stop reading the bok. Maybe Coipel is just trying to
be honest and save readers.
As to little faces, there aren't any. And there's no dynamism either.
>Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
>you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
>my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
Thanks, but I like my artistic intergrity intact.
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
>><mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Well, I'd start here by asking if you like Coipiel better than other
>>> artists or if your standards are just such that you like many, many, many,
>>> many, many, many, many artists to the point where liking Coipel doesn't
>>> distinguish him from any artists?
>>
>>No, and no. There are a lot of artists I like better (just off the top of
>>my head, Perez, Wagner, Simonson, Sim, Gross, Robertson, Gibbons...) But
>>there are a lot of artists whom I find to be merely pedestrian, and some
>>that I actively dislike. I nearly dropped Rising Stars because I disliked
>>the art. I did drop Ellis' X-Force because of the art (Portacio, I
>>think).
> And Portacio is pretty awful. He's also an order of magnitude better than
> Coipel.
>>In fact, my favorable reaction to Copiel is probably heightened both by a
>>sense of relief that the Legion books are readable again (although I like
>>Moy), and by holding and defending an unpopular opinion. I certainly
>>haven't spent as much time posting about how much I like Perez's art.
> You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
> Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
> people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
> them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
Nah, the unpopularity isn't the original cause. The original cause is
that I like the art. The unpopularity just puts me in the position of
defending it, and defending it heightens my appreciation. That's a pretty
common psychological reaction, and no, it's not rational, but I recognize
it for what it is. I still hold to my original liking -- do you still
admire me?
>>>>Somehow, when I look at panels with weird speed lines and figures, my
>>>>brain assembles them into dynamic action sequences.
>>
>>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>>
>>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>>about Copiel?
> Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
Now you're just being disingenuous. I've said several times that there's
unpopular art (Liefeld, whoever's doing Rising Stars) that I don't like.
>>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
> Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
> are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
> Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
> science.
Do not anger the Sky Gods.
I find the four axes to be useful in describing personality traits, in the
same *general* way that it's useful to have concepts like Happy/Sad,
Optomistic/Pessimistic, Impulsive/Thoughtful, etc. It's easier to say
someone's an optomist than to say that they try to look on the positive
side of things, and it's easier to say someone's an intuitive than to say
that they favor impressions over concrete sensory impressions. Neither
one implies that the person is always that way, and it should be possible
to use the M/B ones without implying the entire 16-type system. But maybe
there's too much baggage to use them that way.
>>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>>form in some people's perceptions.
> And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
> with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
> like a grilled trout.
I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
mind. You can acknowledge that maybe there is "something else" that I'm
seeing, obscured perhaps behind terrible art, or you can go on maintaining
that I'm crazy/blind/etc. Either way, that's the point where we disagree,
and I don't think the argument can be reduced any further.
>>Yup. And in any case, I'll never convince you that I'm right. Not until
>>you can see the world through my eyes. And for that, I'll need to perfect
>>my Perceptoscopic Mentoswapulator. Back to work!
> Thanks, but I like my artistic intergrity intact.
You mean I need to finish my Electroarticular Integrimodulator too?
That'll take weeks! F'nhay!
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian, INTP
"Meeting with Buster Brown Shoes, I realized they could connect
with my vision." - Carlos Santana
Carl Fink
>I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>mind . . .
Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
"copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
Thank you.
--
Carl "nitpi...@nitpicking.com" Fink
Engaging in my one yearly spelling flame on Usenet
Nathan Sanders
In article <slrn8iu323...@home.nitpicking.com>,
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
I thought it was "kwah-PEHL", since he's French...
But that's just moi...
kjhNO...@tsoft.net
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 22:26:56 GMT kjhNO...@tsoft.net <kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>>I acknowledge your objective standards of art -- I do not disagree with
>>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>>mind . . .
> Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
> length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
> you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
> It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
> would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
> using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
> "copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
D'oh!
How embarassing. Normally I'm an excellent speller (you'll note that I've
been very consistent in my misspelling). There must be some intangible
quality to Coipel's name in particular that makes it difficult for me to
spell it -- somehow I'm forming an impression that the correct spelling is
"Copiel." :)
Shutting up... Right about... NOW.
Michael Alan Chary
>> You know, holding an opinion *despite* its being unpopular is admirable.
>> Holding an opinion *because* its unpopular is just bone stupid. Most
>> people have reasons for holding their opinions, so to just disagree with
>> them out of sheer cussedness is to mindlessly gainsay something.
>
>Nah, the unpopularity isn't the original cause. The original cause is
>that I like the art. The unpopularity just puts me in the position of
>defending it, and defending it heightens my appreciation. That's a pretty
>common psychological reaction, and no, it's not rational, but I recognize
>it for what it is. I still hold to my original liking -- do you still
>admire me?
Admire someone for his lack of taste? Why would I want to do that? :)
Common psychological reactions are nice, but not particularly useful from
a discussion standpoint.
>>>> You know how I used to tell people they were writing the story themselves
>>>> when they'd read a whole bunch of stuff into stories? Is it possible you
>>>> are doing something similar witht he art?
>>>
>>>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>>>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>>>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>>>about Copiel?
>
>> Apparently other people not liking it is enough to trigger it.
>
>Now you're just being disingenuous. I've said several times that there's
>unpopular art (Liefeld, whoever's doing Rising Stars) that I don't like.
I was spitballing because of what you siad earlier. Liefeld's art, btw, is
not unpopular. It's wildly popular or at least had been. It's just bad.
Coipel's art is both unpopular and lousy. If Coipel's name were selling
the books in the top twenty titles, I would at least understand why he was
given the job. I'd still think he was lousy because I have eyes, but
hiring him would at least make sense.
>>>Just on a tangent: Have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs survey? This
>
>> Several times. Of various kinds. With wildly varying results. I think they
>> are utterly useless. I think most of psychology is utterly useless, but
>> Myers/Briggs surveys are the tassles on the lunatic fringe of a cargo cult
>> science.
>
>Do not anger the Sky Gods.
>
>I find the four axes to be useful in describing personality traits, in the
>same *general* way that it's useful to have concepts like Happy/Sad,
>Optomistic/Pessimistic, Impulsive/Thoughtful, etc. It's easier to say
>someone's an optomist than to say that they try to look on the positive
>side of things, and it's easier to say someone's an intuitive than to say
>that they favor impressions over concrete sensory impressions. Neither
>one implies that the person is always that way, and it should be possible
>to use the M/B ones without implying the entire 16-type system. But maybe
>there's too much baggage to use them that way.
I find Myers/Briggs tests more useless than IQ tests. (Before
anyone gets on my case, I do rather well on IQ tests. I just do happen to
like them.) I tolerate IQ tests because they result in people giving me
money.
>>>sounds like a classic Sensor/Intuitive split -- the Sensor pays attention
>>>to concrete details (i.e. what's right there on the page) and the
>>>Intuitive is more concerned with impressions. I'm maintaining that
>>>there's something in Copiel's art that helps this favorable impression
>>>form in some people's perceptions.
>
>> And I'm maintaining that there's something about his art that lets people
>> with even aminimal knowledge of art (and that's all I have) pick it apart
>> like a grilled trout.
>
>I don't see any reason why what I'm maintaining negates what you're
>maintaining, or vice versa. These two statements get to the heart of both
>our positions and I think it's clear at this point where our impasse lies.
Because your favorable impression is not objectively quantifiable and thus
useless and a favorable impression of art should not be used to judge mass
media. If you want to buy a Coipel page, fine. But if you want to print
one, that course of action is silly because the man can't draw.
Bill James once said about Rich Dotson, "Any scout who filed a report
saying anything other than 'This sucker can't pitch' should be fired
immediately."
That's about where I stand on Coipel's artistic "ability." Except I'd add
the phrase "out of a cannon."
Michael Alan Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 22:26:56 GMT kjhNO...@tsoft.net
><kjhNO...@tsoft.net> wrote:
>
>>your statement above -- but there's something else about Copiel (that I
>>haven't been able to exactly define) that trumps those standards in my
>
>Look, if you're going to argue about the person's art at great
>length, and claim its excellence on at least the scale of pleasing
>you personally, please LEARN TO SPELL HIS (*#$& NAME!
>
>It's "Coipel", presumably pronounced "koy pell", not "Copiel" which
>would be "copp peel" or perhaps "koe peel". To one trained to read
>using phonics, they don't even look the same and it's jarring to read
>"copp peel" instead of the artist's name.
>
I thought maybe Koy-pee-el'
Mark Lafrenais
>Sure. It's even likely. The question is, why does this happen with
>Copiel's art but not, say, the art in Rising Stars? I'm not so uncritical
>that all bad art resolves into a good impression, so what's different
>about Copiel?
Its not Coipel, but the Legion. The Rising Stars artists are laying
dowmn the ground for the series, whereas Coipel is working on an
established property. One would not expect or wish him to copy what
has gone before, but the essence of the criticism is that his art is
somehow contrary to the spirit of the Legion.