Final Night: Foreshadowing for the Internet (obscure spoiler)
Len Leshin
I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
Thorsland."
Is that taps I hear in the distance?
--
Len L.
lle...@davlin.net
Carl Fink
In article <504v2i$r...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
You mean aside from his repeated statement that the audience for DC
Comics consists of really stupid twelve-year-old boys? That's a
paraphrase, but it's fairly close.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems Note new URL! http://www.dm.net
"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one"
Alexandre Dumas fils
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <504v2i$r...@panix.com>,
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
: You mean aside from his repeated statement that the audience for DC
: Comics consists of really stupid twelve-year-old boys? That's a
: paraphrase, but it's fairly close.
I'd be curious as to the context. Sounds to me like he's busting
someone's chops. Kevin knows very well that this isn't DC's entire
audience (well, okay, maybe their MAIN audience... oops... <g>).
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! "Now, don't be afraid in the New Age; ##
there's a seeker born every minute!" _##_
Mike Chary
Dave Van Domelen <dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <3225EF...@davlin.net>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> wrote:
>>I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
>>Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
>>"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
>>Thorsland."
>
>spoiler space for events post-Final Night....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Parallax dies reigniting the Sun. So they figure that if we hated
>Dooley for turning Hal into Parallax (we don't...we hate Marz), we'd hate
>Thorslund for killing Parallax.
Wait a second, I thought we hated Dooley too, but for Aquahook?
Damn, I guess I missed a meeting. Who took the minutes at the last
RACCabal meeting? Rick, wasn't it?
> However, as all right-thinking netters know, Parallax isn't Hal
>Jordan. I think it's time to start dredging Jamaica Bay for pods, eh?
>
> Dave Van Domelen, thinks Parallax is a living ring construct based on
>Hal's memories, and Hal is on ice somewhere....
Parallax is really Hal, but he's actually right and the current DC
Universe deserves to die.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley "The best argument against
democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Dave Van Domelen
In article <3225EF...@davlin.net>, Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> wrote:
>I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
>Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
>"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
>Thorsland."
Well, there's a slight fallacy in that statement, but first some
spoiler space for events post-Final Night....
Parallax dies reigniting the Sun. So they figure that if we hated
Dooley for turning Hal into Parallax (we don't...we hate Marz), we'd hate
Thorslund for killing Parallax.
Rick Jones
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> Damn, I guess I missed a meeting. Who took the minutes at the last
> RACCabal meeting? Rick, wasn't it?
THERE (fnord) IS (fnord) NO (fnord) CABAL.
> Parallax is really Hal, but he's actually right and the current DC
> Universe deserves to die.
Any universe with the Legion of Super-Heroes and Flash in it deserves a
long and prosperous life. It just needs a few changes. Now where's my
purple cloak?
Anyway, I doubt I'll have Thorsland after FN, even if he did make the
"where's the Hulk" joke at SDCC. Nice guy.
--
Rick Jones "If any inquiry is made about this meeting, we
ri...@blkbox.com request full denial."
Mey...@aol.com "I'd say you people already suffer from full denial."
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/ --CIA & Mulder, X-Files, Shadows
Matthew Daly
dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
>
> Dave Van Domelen, thinks Parallax is a living ring construct based on
>Hal's memories, and Hal is on ice somewhere....
Well, THAT'S sure to piss Guy Gardner off when he finds out.
-Matthew, besides, she's dead. Euwww....
--
Matthew Daly I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com even read everything I've bought.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
CpSpalding (cpspa...@aol.com) wrote:
: Len Leshin wrote:
: <<I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
: Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
: "People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
: Thorsland."
: Is that taps I hear in the distance?>>
: I know they intend to kill Hal, but I wonder why a respected DC editor
: like Thorsland would starting being arrogant and obnoxious like Dooley.
When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
I've *never* heard this about him from ANYone who's ever met him.
What, did he run over your dog or something?
It's one thing not to care for someone's work, but please don't make
accusations like this about their personality unless you can support them
with specific examples.
: This Watch This Space feature is
: pretty bad, between all this "We're just like Seinfeld" and "Wouldn't it
: be cool if they made a movie about us" fluff, there is very little of
: interest. Bring back Direct Currents or The Answer Man.
Are you serious? I *never* used to read that other stuff, but I look VERY
forward to "Watch This Space." I think the writing on it has been a lot
of fun.
CpSpalding
In a message dated Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:27:04 -0700
Len Leshin wrote:
<<I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
Thorsland."
Is that taps I hear in the distance?>>
I know they intend to kill Hal, but I wonder why a respected DC editor
like Thorsland would starting being arrogant and obnoxious like Dooley.
Tres weird. Anyway, its always a good idea for DC to take private little
squabbles and throw gasoline on them. This Watch This Space feature is
Patrick Smithers
> Parallax dies reigniting the Sun. So they figure that if we hated
> Dooley for turning Hal into Parallax (we don't...we hate Marz), we'd hate
> Thorslund for killing Parallax.
> However, as all right-thinking netters know, Parallax isn't Hal
> Jordan. I think it's time to start dredging Jamaica Bay for pods, eh?
>
> Hal's memories, and Hal is on ice somewhere....
Bwah ha ha ha! Not!
Hal Jordan is really Monarch!
No, he's Extant, after he
No, Parallax is Extant!
No, Monarch is really Parallax, and Captain Atom is Hal Jordan, thrown
though time, after being coated with an alien metal when he re-ignited
the sun ...
Hank Hall is Parallax!
Ah, forget it. I know Priest is really Monarch.
Mike Chary
In article <504vo8$g...@news.blkbox.com>, Rick Jones <ri...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>> Damn, I guess I missed a meeting. Who took the minutes at the last
>> RACCabal meeting? Rick, wasn't it?
>
> THERE (fnord) IS (fnord) NO (fnord) CABAL.
Oh, I'm sorry, was that out loud?
>> Parallax is really Hal, but he's actually right and the current DC
>> Universe deserves to die.
>
>Any universe with the Legion of Super-Heroes and Flash in it deserves a
>long and prosperous life. It just needs a few changes. Now where's my
>purple cloak?
Yes, like being one universe out of a mulitverse.
Johanna Draper
In article <504pt8$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CpSpalding <cpspa...@aol.com> wrote:
>I know they intend to kill Hal, but I wonder why a respected DC editor
>like Thorsland would starting being arrogant and obnoxious like Dooley.
Hey, Dooley's only obnoxious when he's having to say the same thing for the
millionth time -- the rest of the time, he's charming and funny.
>Anyway, its always a good idea for DC to take private little
>squabbles and throw gasoline on them.
It's a JOKE!!!!
>This Watch This Space feature is pretty bad, between all this "We're
>just like Seinfeld" and "Wouldn't it be cool if they made a movie about
>us" fluff, there is very little of interest.
If you don't like it, I'd suggest you write to DC and let them know.
Johanna
--
"She took me in the bedroom to show me her computer. She asked me if I
liked it; I told her she was cuter.... With all of the people yellin'
and clappin', anything can happen, anything at all."
--- "Anything Can Happen", Was Not Was
Bob Heer
cpspa...@aol.com (CpSpalding) wrote
> squabbles and throw gasoline on them. This Watch This Space feature is
> pretty bad, between all this "We're just like Seinfeld" and "Wouldn't it
> be cool if they made a movie about us" fluff, there is very little of
Amen. Or Giordano's "Meanwhile..." or whatever Michael Eury's column was
called ("Inside DC"?). "Watch this Space" is easily one of the worst of
DC's hype pages, and I hope it doesn't last long. I used to regret that the
original page design of the column wasted over half the page, but now
that they've started filling the page I wish they'd go back to wasting
half the page.
The best dc hype page, of course, was "The Daily Planet". Rozakis doing
the Answer Man bit, Hembeck doing a comic strip, and the latest
releases, with credits. Totally cool.
Bob
Drew Zeigler
> CpSpalding (cpspa...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Len Leshin wrote:
>
> : <<I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
> : Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
> : "People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
> : Thorsland."
>
> : Is that taps I hear in the distance?>>
>
> : I know they intend to kill Hal, but I wonder why a respected DC editor
> : like Thorsland would starting being arrogant and obnoxious like Dooley.
>
> When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
>
> I've *never* heard this about him from ANYone who's ever met him.
>
> What, did he run over your dog or something?
Well, Elayne, you're cordially invited to visit DC's Green Lantern boards
on AOL. You want arrogance and obnoxiousness from Dooley? You'll find
it. And even more so, contempt. Lots and lots of contempt for anyone who
doesn't agree with his 'vision' of what Green Lantern should or will be.
And, no, he didn't run over *my* dog, or anyone else's. I'd never call
one of my favorite heroes of all time a dog. At least when people run
over dogs, its not usually intentional.
--
Jesse is to Johnny as Scrappy is to Scooby.
Doug Scott
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
: I've *never* heard this about him from ANYone who's ever met him.
Last time I encountered Kevin Dooley on an AOL chat hour, he was
arrogant and obnoxious. Every time someone would ask a question
related to Hal or the Corps he would jusy respond "Why?... why?".
He came off sounding like a snotty 10 year-old. I've never met him
face-to-face.
<=DS=>
Jeremy Billones
>> When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
>> I've *never* heard this about him from ANYone who's ever met him.
Well, I've never met him, but I didn't appreciate the WETRATS cracks
in the (Aquaman?) lettercols.
In article <hellboy-3008...@news.linknet.net>,
Drew Zeigler <hel...@linknet.net> wrote:
>Jesse is to Johnny as Scrappy is to Scooby.
I can't tell which of my fav'rite heroes you're dissing there.
Either way, 'your *ss is grass and I'm the lawnmower!' :)
Jeremy Billones bill...@primenet.com
Objective Reality Isn't Go Caps & Orioles! ISTJ USSF Certifiable
"...Because reading the Legion means ignoring goofy science."
Elmoman and O'Brien
Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> writes:
> I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
> Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
> "People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
> Thorsland."
The Internet responds: People at DC who do not understand why people on
the Internet hate Kevin Dooley will not understand why people on the
Internet will not hate Dan Thorsland when Hal Jordan kicks the bucket
reigniting the sun.
And *those* are more than enough dependent clauses for one day. It's
Silverale time!
--
"Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote."
--Grover Cleveland, 1905
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov)
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Dwight Williams
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:
> In article <504vo8$g...@news.blkbox.com>, Rick Jones <ri...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>>Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>>
>>> Damn, I guess I missed a meeting. Who took the minutes at the last
>>> RACCabal meeting? Rick, wasn't it?
>>
>> THERE (fnord) IS (fnord) NO (fnord) CABAL.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, was that out loud?
>
>>> Parallax is really Hal, but he's actually right and the current DC
>>> Universe deserves to die.
>>
>>Any universe with the Legion of Super-Heroes and Flash in it deserves a
>>long and prosperous life. It just needs a few changes. Now where's my
>>purple cloak?
>
> Yes, like being one universe out of a mulitverse.
Already done, if I remember my "mirror universe" _Darkstars_ issues and
_Sovereign 7_ backstory correctly. And let's not forget the "Worlds
Collide" crossover, no matter _what_ spin DC editorial tries to put on
Earth-Milestone...
Don't you just love service like that.<snapping of fingers>
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Stephen J. De Young
In article <507c62$p...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> I'm very curious as to the "tone" of the posts to which
> Kevin sarcastically replied. Were they of the nature of "Hey Dooley,
> Green Lantern SUCKS!", or were they more "I've been disappointed with the
> current direction, and I was wondering why you felt these moves had to be
> made..."? If I were a creator, I'd be hard-pressed NOT to slam the kind
> of people who express themselves the former way.
>
> I'm not defending Kevin-- I wasn't there, and he's perfectly capable of
> finding his way to Usenet to defend himself if he wishes (I double dare
> you, Dooley! <g>). I don't read much stuff he edits or writes either, so
> this isn't even a discussion about his work. All I'm saying is, from my
> particular experiences seeing and talking to Kevin, he's not like you
> describe him at all.
>
I've gotta agree. I've chatted with Kev on AOL a couple times, and
exchanged a couple pieces of mail with him, and he was always extremely
polite to me. If I were him, I wouldn't even look at the Green Lantern
folder over there, I rarely do, and I would consider myself something of a
GL fan. All that ever goes on there is a bunch of tag-team griping about
how Kyle sucks, Dooley Sucks, Hal is God, etc. The first time I chatted
with him, we began chatting because essentially everyone else in the room
was attacking him about Hal, whereas I asked him some actual questions
about Mr. Miracle. I think we need to get rid of the mob mentality a
little, folks. Its easy to get caught up in, because you like Hal, and a
bunch of other people are with you, so you all go after Dooley. I've seen
this happen, and even fallen into it a couple times in the similar
situation involving Jurgens wiping out the JSA. Sometimes you need to
just back off and realize that your only going to recieve the respect that
you give.
--
Steve De Young
sj...@mail.idt.net
"Look upon my works, O mortals, and despair!"
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
[Two meta-notes: First, if you're going to respond to a post of mine in
this newsgroup, and your post is going in here, there's NO NEED to send it
to me via E-mail too. I've often stated I read or skim every single post
in this group, and posting your response here will save me duplication of
effort and in-box clutter. Secondly, may Elmo forgive me for all the
quoting, but since I'm starting a new thread I wanted to present the
entire context of the old one.]
Drew Zeigler (hel...@linknet.net) wrote:
: In article <504v2i$r...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > CpSpalding (cpspa...@aol.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Len Leshin wrote:
: >
: > : <<I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
: > : Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
: > : "People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
: > : Thorsland."
: >
: > : Is that taps I hear in the distance?>>
: >
: > : I know they intend to kill Hal, but I wonder why a respected DC editor
: > : like Thorsland would starting being arrogant and obnoxious like Dooley.
: >
: > When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
: >
: > I've *never* heard this about him from ANYone who's ever met him.
: >
: > What, did he run over your dog or something?
: Well, Elayne, you're cordially invited to visit DC's Green Lantern boards
: on AOL. You want arrogance and obnoxiousness from Dooley? You'll find
: it. And even more so, contempt. Lots and lots of contempt for anyone who
: doesn't agree with his 'vision' of what Green Lantern should or will be.
*AOL*? I mean, no offense, Drew, but A-O-friggin-L???
Oh please. I have no desire to visit any of the AOL boards. I gave them
up a long time ago because I found VERY little of substance thereon. I
stick to the Chat rooms, where two-way communication is much better.
Now, I don't read GREEN LANTERN so I have no desire to check out that
board but, from what I could see elsewhere, the usual method of fan
"disagreement" with a creator's vision often takes the form of immaturity
and pettiness. I'm very curious as to the "tone" of the posts to which
Kevin sarcastically replied. Were they of the nature of "Hey Dooley,
Green Lantern SUCKS!", or were they more "I've been disappointed with the
current direction, and I was wondering why you felt these moves had to be
made..."? If I were a creator, I'd be hard-pressed NOT to slam the kind
of people who express themselves the former way.
And while we're on the subject of tone: Yeah, a lot of creators don't
have very good net.personalities sometimes. Kevin could indeed be one of
these (although his e-mail personality has always seemed fine to me, and,
as I mention, he has never been anything BUT gracious and a hell of a lot
of fun in person). It happens. You can't convey tone of voice via posts.
Oftimes people (especially on a service like AOL, which is many people's
first taste of online activity) confuse a sarcastic remark with a mean
one. And those writers who are prone to wicked and dry senses of humor--
Dooley, John Byrne, Mark Waid-- aren't always able to translate that onto
this particular form of "print."
I'm not defending Kevin-- I wasn't there, and he's perfectly capable of
finding his way to Usenet to defend himself if he wishes (I double dare
you, Dooley! <g>). I don't read much stuff he edits or writes either, so
this isn't even a discussion about his work. All I'm saying is, from my
particular experiences seeing and talking to Kevin, he's not like you
describe him at all.
- Elayne
DKCOPSON
wouldn"t that be nice We wait long enuff and something like like that
will happen. Hal GL has been my #1 hero since 1960 and I aint a happy
reader.
David Scott Doty
ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) wrote:
>In article <504v2i$r...@panix.com>,
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>>When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
>
>Comics consists of really stupid twelve-year-old boys? That's a
>paraphrase, but it's fairly close.
I heard this comment from Dooley *very* secondhand, so I
would like to find out if he actually said it or not before
I go off on him.
Someone told me that, at the height of the evil-Hal nonsense,
Dooley had said that he was writing Hal like an OKC bombing
survivor. Can anyone verify or dispute this? As someone
who lives in OKC, I find this comment obnoxious and hateful
for reasons I won't bother to go into unless I find out that
Dooley actually said it. . ..
Jack Grimes
In article <1996Aug3...@riph7.rice.edu>, mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Elmoman and O'Brien) says:
>
>Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> writes:
>> I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
>> Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
>> "People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
>> Thorsland."
>
>the Internet hate Kevin Dooley will not understand why people on the
>Internet will not hate Dan Thorsland when Hal Jordan kicks the bucket
>reigniting the sun.
Exactly. Dan doesn't forget important bits of continuity. Dan doesn't
alienate the older fan base. Dan doesn't replace timeless characters with
brainless ones.
---
Jack R. Grimes | http://home.aol.com/lbmgmd |Email: |
|Coming soon: Brand new Web Page! |LBM...@epix.net |
'Lambada Bowling |-----------------------------------|LBM...@aol.com |
Marauder:Guatemala| ____Witty/Profound Epigram Line | |
Masters Division' | | (or stock quote, depending |Nuclear Warhead:|
| v on my creativity) |31.364N, 54.342W|
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
"Super-heroes were created to represent the best in all of us. We should|
aspire to match their nobility, not their ability to shoot big chrome |
guns." -- Mark Waid. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Luebker
Stephen J. De Young wrote:
> ...I think we need to get rid of the mob mentality a little, folks. Its
> people are with you, so you all go after Dooley. I've seen this happen,
> and even fallen into it a couple times in the similar situation involving
> Jurgens wiping out the JSA. Sometimes you need to just back off and
> realize that your only going to recieve the respect that you give.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need to treat these various creators
with respect
However, it needs to be a two-way street. I've repeatedly seen the
situation where a comic creator finds himself questioned about one of
his creative decisions for the Nth time, and the he takes the "because
I'm in charge and you're not, so too bad--get over it" attitude.
While that's arguably a fair statement of the actual situation, it's not
necessarily good public relations.
It's also a long way from how the editorial PTB of the Silver Age
presented themselves. Marvel, especially, made a point of telling the
readers that they were the "real editors" of their books. While this
obviously wasn't true, it at least made fans feel that they could
disagree with the direction a book was taking without being treated
contemptuously. It made a lot of us who grew up in the sixties believe
that our views mattered to the people who had stewardship of our
favorite characters, and I like to think that by making the readers
believe they were more than spectators to the creative process, it
helped deepen our involvement with comics, probably contributed
significantly to the growth of fandom in general, and in my case, helped
foster a life-long affection for the hobby.
In short, readers like to think their views and feelings about their
favorite books are being heard (if not actually taken into account), and
I would hope that professionals in the field could maintain a
professional demeanor, even when asked the same question or faced with
the same complaint for the thousandth time. Most of the pros were fans
at one time, and I'd have to guess that their involvement in the field
is a direct result of THEIR wanting to be heard.
Finally, those of us who are friends or acquaintances with those working
in the field will almost always know a different side of those people.
So comparing our experiences on a personal level with how the same
people comport themselves in public fora is a kind of non sequitor. The
former doesn't necessarily dictate the latter.
Mark Luebker
Raphael Liriano
Stephen J. De Young wrote:
>
> Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> > I'm very curious as to the "tone" of the posts to which
> > Kevin sarcastically replied. Were they of the nature of "Hey Dooley,
> > Green Lantern SUCKS!", or were they more "I've been disappointed with the
> > current direction, and I was wondering why you felt these moves had to be
> > made..."? If I were a creator, I'd be hard-pressed NOT to slam the kind
> > of people who express themselves the former way.
> >
> > finding his way to Usenet to defend himself if he wishes (I double dare
> > you, Dooley! <g>). I don't read much stuff he edits or writes either, so
> > this isn't even a discussion about his work. All I'm saying is, from my
> > particular experiences seeing and talking to Kevin, he's not like you
> > describe him at all.
> >
> exchanged a couple pieces of mail with him, and he was always extremely
> polite to me. If I were him, I wouldn't even look at the Green Lantern
> folder over there, I rarely do, and I would consider myself something of a
> GL fan. All that ever goes on there is a bunch of tag-team griping about
> how Kyle sucks, Dooley Sucks, Hal is God, etc. The first time I chatted
> with him, we began chatting because essentially everyone else in the room
> was attacking him about Hal, whereas I asked him some actual questions
> little, folks. Its easy to get caught up in, because you like Hal, and a
> bunch of other people are with you, so you all go after Dooley. I've seen
> this happen, and even fallen into it a couple times in the similar
> situation involving Jurgens wiping out the JSA. Sometimes you need to
> just back off and realize that your only going to recieve the respect that
> you give.
>
Sorry But I have Chatted with Kevin too And I have to Disagree too. I
know when you have made a decision you gotta to stick with it but to the
point of stubborn one way view almost to the point of idiocy. Either the
guy is very stubborn or just plain stupid or plain deaf. I know that the
powers that make GL a more accessible commercial Book (Dooley) could
handle the transition between Hal to Kyle better but everybody agrees on
that except Him. What that’s call is not arrogant and obnoxious.
RL
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mark Luebker (mlue...@pop.nlci.com) wrote:
: It's also a long way from how the editorial PTB of the Silver Age
: presented themselves. Marvel, especially, made a point of telling the
: readers that they were the "real editors" of their books. While this
: obviously wasn't true, it at least made fans feel that they could
: disagree with the direction a book was taking without being treated
: contemptuously. It made a lot of us who grew up in the sixties believe
: that our views mattered to the people who had stewardship of our
: favorite characters...
Even though they pretty much didn't?
It almost sounds to me like you're saying you'd rather be lied to as a
reader than have actual two-way communication whose outcome is "But you
have to remember, we're the ones who do the books."
I've talked and exchanged e-mails with some editors about this topic. One
of them said, "The thing about e-mail and being online now is that the
fans know too much," then later on he almost seemed to reverse himself and
lament, "But by and large the fans know so little about what actually
happens up here at 1700 Broadway, about the process of putting a comic
book together."
And I understood what he meant-- that we don't *have* the "luxury" of
Silver Age innocence any more. Not only insofar as comic books, but in
most of our entertainment. (I think that's one of the reasons many folks
peg the death of Gwen Stacey as the coda to the Silver Age; it's a major
loss-of-innocence landmark.) Today's instantaneous communications allow
cynicism to foster that much more quickly, encourage more people to jump
the gun and prejudge, and yes, make for more effective feedback to those
creators who opt to go online. But in their own way, they promise readers
as much of a false sense of "being in charge" as the Silver Age letter
columns did. The business still doesn't work the way many fans want it
to, no matter how many different ways they may whine about it.
: and I like to think that by making the readers
: believe they were more than spectators to the creative process, it
: helped deepen our involvement with comics, probably contributed
: significantly to the growth of fandom in general, and in my case, helped
: foster a life-long affection for the hobby.
Frankly, I think online services do much the same for today's fans. I
met most creators with whom I'm now friendly through online services.
Those friendships, along with my love of reading, helped deepen *my*
involvement with comics, fostered *my* affection for the hobby, and sure
as hell is contributing significantly to the growth of current fandom!
: In short, readers like to think their views and feelings about their
: favorite books are being heard (if not actually taken into account)...
And they aren't? If so, what the hell is the point of all those Chats on
DC Online?
"Heard" and "acted upon" are and have always been two different things.
We're the readers; they're the creators. That's how the process is. You
wanna see changes, the best way to do that is to come up with ideas of
your own and go through the same channels these guys (and gals) went
through. Submit your proposals. Get your name known. Hone your talent.
Otherwise you're pretty much just a kibbitzer. <g>
: I would hope that professionals in the field could maintain a
: professional demeanor, even when asked the same question or faced with
: the same complaint for the thousandth time. Most of the pros were fans
: at one time, and I'd have to guess that their involvement in the field
: is a direct result of THEIR wanting to be heard.
This is something I'll be addressing in my FAQ for this newsgroup about
fans and creators communicating with one another.
: Finally, those of us who are friends or acquaintances with those working
: in the field will almost always know a different side of those people.
: So comparing our experiences on a personal level with how the same
: people comport themselves in public fora is a kind of non sequitor. The
: former doesn't necessarily dictate the latter.
Didn't mean to imply it did. But I've heard other people who hardly know
Kevin talk about, for example, how patient and gracious he is at
conventions. I think the difference here is mainly between how one comes
across online and, okay, in letter columns and how one presents oneself
in person. Granted, a writer or editor deals with words all the time,
you'd think it'd be easy to deal with public fora in that case. But not
always. These people are primarily storytellers, and storytelling is an
intrinsically different *type* of communication than is, in essence,
letter writing. (Yes, they overlap sometimes, but you know what I
mean.) And online communication is, essentially, letter writing.
Trevor Barrie
Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> wrote:
>I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
>Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
>"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
>Thorsland."
What will those of us on the internet who don't know who Kevin Dooley or Dan
Thorsland are think?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Trevor Barrie (tba...@cycor.ca) wrote:
: Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> wrote:
You, um, won't get the joke? :)
I thought it was pretty funny (but then, I like "Watch This Space" a lot
lately). And it's proof, of course, that whether the PTB *listen* to rac*
folks, they *are* reading this newsgroup.
Bruce Baugh
>lament, "But by and large the fans know so little about what actually
>happens up here at 1700 Broadway, about the process of putting a comic
>book together."
This could, of course, be rectified. One of the things it would take is
an editor willing to put in a fraction of the online time that, say, J.
Michael Straczynski does, and actually _discuss_ things. It would almost
certainly require releases from the usual standards of confidentiality
in the comics field so that the rest of us could get hard, solid
information about the way work goes.
We aren't telepaths (just anal-retentive :-), and there are things that
fans will not know unless pros tell them. Some fans won't know them even
then, of course.
There are things that an editor would be in a good position to discuss:
- how far ahead are major events planned?
- what happens when a key person leaves or changes jobs?
- how are creative teams assigned, anyway, and by whom?
..and so forth and so on. Someday, I hope, one will address these and
similar questions.
There are creators (primarily writers, but that's just who I notice) who
do a good job discussing these things from their end. I'd like to see
others addressed, too.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100
Johanna Draper
In article <50fph4$3b8...@mighty-jack.superspies.tpc>,
Bruce Baugh <br...@kenosis.com> wrote:
>One of the things it would take is an editor willing to put in a
>fraction of the online time that, say, J. Michael Straczynski does,
>and actually _discuss_ things.
Most editors don't want to get fired, either for giving out confidential
information or for not getting their work done (if they were taking time to
hang out online).
>releases from the usual standards of confidentiality in the comics
>field so that the rest of us could get hard, solid information about
>the way work goes.
Why should we get that? We pay too much attention to behind-the-scenes
stuff as it is.
And as soon as anyone said anything the least bit unfavorable ("we didn't
have as much time as we'd like on this book", for example), they'd get
reamed. There's no benefit to what you suggest, and way too many negatives.
Johanna
--
"We come into this world alone and go out the same way;
It's a crying shame to do it in between....
Come on baby, pack your bags. Living alone is such a drag."
--- "Someone to Come Home To", Animal Logic
Stephen J. De Young
In article <50fph4$3b8...@mighty-jack.superspies.tpc>, br...@kenosis.com
(Bruce Baugh) wrote:
> In article <50cn7t$e...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> >lament, "But by and large the fans know so little about what actually
> >happens up here at 1700 Broadway, about the process of putting a comic
> >book together."
>
> This could, of course, be rectified. One of the things it would take is
> an editor willing to put in a fraction of the online time that, say, J.
> Michael Straczynski does, and actually _discuss_ things. It would almost
> certainly require releases from the usual standards of confidentiality
> in the comics field so that the rest of us could get hard, solid
> information about the way work goes.
>
> We aren't telepaths (just anal-retentive :-), and there are things that
> fans will not know unless pros tell them. Some fans won't know them even
> then, of course.
>
> There are things that an editor would be in a good position to discuss:
>
> - how far ahead are major events planned?
> - what happens when a key person leaves or changes jobs?
> - how are creative teams assigned, anyway, and by whom?
>
> ..and so forth and so on. Someday, I hope, one will address these and
> similar questions.
>
> There are creators (primarily writers, but that's just who I notice) who
> do a good job discussing these things from their end. I'd like to see
> others addressed, too.
>
Well, there is a Production Chat on AOL every week that talks about
these kinds of things, but that's only on DCOnline....
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Bruce Baugh (br...@kenosis.com) wrote:
: In article <50cn7t$e...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >lament, "But by and large the fans know so little about what actually
: >happens up here at 1700 Broadway, about the process of putting a comic
: >book together."
: This could, of course, be rectified. One of the things it would take is
: an editor willing to put in a fraction of the online time that, say, J.
: Michael Straczynski does, and actually _discuss_ things.
Forgive me, Bruce, but this is yet another example of how "the fans know
so little about what actually happens..." Every editor I've talked to,
EVERY SINGLE ONE, is *so* constantly swamped that to assume they have
TIME for these kinds of protracted discussions is kind of naive.
I know JMS is constantly swamped too, but he types 120wpm, and these guys
hunt and peck. :)
: It would almost
: certainly require releases from the usual standards of confidentiality
: in the comics field so that the rest of us could get hard, solid
: information about the way work goes.
Isn't that what 2-way communication on DC Online is designed to do?
: There are things that an editor would be in a good position to discuss:
: - how far ahead are major events planned?
: - what happens when a key person leaves or changes jobs?
: - how are creative teams assigned, anyway, and by whom?
: ..and so forth and so on. Someday, I hope, one will address these and
: similar questions.
Have AOL folks asked these questions in the Chats, or are they too busy
(forgive me) whining? I know that in the Legion Chats one of the first
questions we always ask the creators are "what issue are you working on
now?" BTW, as a rule issues are worked on three months in advance.
Also, your above questions are *very* editor-dependent. Different people
tend to work with different methods.
Jeremy Billones
In article <50h30j$3...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Bruce Baugh (br...@kenosis.com) wrote:
>: This could, of course, be rectified. One of the things it would take is
>: an editor willing to put in a fraction of the online time that, say, J.
>: Michael Straczynski does, and actually _discuss_ things.
>
>hunt and peck. :)
He also (a) has no life (and admits it), and (b) sleeps about 2 hours a day.
Spooon
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>I know JMS is constantly swamped too, but he types 120wpm, and these guys
>hunt and peck. :)
He types 120 wpm with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!!??? Geez, imagine how
fast he would be if he weren't so encumbred!!
Spooon, who sometimes goes by the name James R. Henry
Spo...@juno.com
rl...@uakron.edu
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Spooon (rl...@uakron.edu) wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >I know JMS is constantly swamped too, but he types 120wpm, and these guys
: >hunt and peck. :)
: He types 120 wpm with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!!???
Well, how do you think he GOT the CTS in the first place? <g>
I'm curious as to whether Peter David suffers from any sort of repetitive
stress injury, since he types, last I checked, around 130-140wpm.
- Elayne (a measly 90-95 or so)
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: : >I know JMS is constantly swamped too, but he types 120wpm, and these guys
: : >hunt and peck. :)
: : He types 120 wpm with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!!???
: Well, how do you think he GOT the CTS in the first place? <g>
: I'm curious as to whether Peter David suffers from any sort of repetitive
: stress injury, since he types, last I checked, around 130-140wpm.
: - Elayne (a measly 90-95 or so)
Ha-hah! I can beat you! Nyaaaaah! (Around 120 or so) Live and suffer,
Elayne!! ;-)
On an almost related note, I did sort of get kind of CTS for a summer last
year. Curiously enough, USENET traffic dropped by 80% during that time, as
well.
--
\\ \\ |_/ The lemmings are back, and there's no place for me to hide \_|
\\-\\ |_\ "Quip _IS_ a valid word in newswriting!" - Me /_|
( X-X) |_/ *Mugger of Troy McNemar* *Mocker of Chris Bird* \_|
{_^_} -|_\ Liberator of Wheeler's Couches! E-Mail:ho...@syr.edu /_|
First And Last And Always
In article <504v2i$r...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>When has Kevin Dooley ever acted arrogant and obnoxious?
>
just been rereading the entire run, including skimming the letter
columns, and "arrogant and obnoxious" are two of the words that have
repeatedly crossed my mind. He is frequently dismissive and rude
about letter-writers who are in any way critical of the comic. He'd
rather belittle the writer, or dismiss a very good point with an
attempt at a joke, than take seriously a point raised. Among his
less irritating habits is to conspicuously ignore a question or
point, even when it's raised in several letters *in the same issue*.
Then there was the WETRATS thing, although he had the decency to
apologize for that later.
Maybe the guy's just cursed with a spectacularly insensitive and rather
unfunny sense of humour, but he comes over as overly defensive and
completely lacking in respect for those readers who care enough about
the comic to write in.
It really grates because the comic itself is intelligently written;
I'd like to think PAD would take the time to answer some of the letters
honestly and intelligently.
Mike
--
Mike Collins
Elmo from the Black Lagoon
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
> Wait a second, I thought we hated Dooley too, but for Aquahook?
Can I just be contemptuous of him?
--
"When even one American--who has done nothing wrong--is forced by fear to shut
his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."--Harry S Truman
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov)
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Elmo from the Black Lagoon
cpspa...@aol.com (CpSpalding) writes:
> Anyway, its always a good idea for DC to take private little
> squabbles and throw gasoline on them.
No point to taking it wrong; DC just doesn't get it.
> This Watch This Space feature is pretty bad,
I like it. Not taking stuff seriously is important. Essays like
Dick Giordano's Meanwhile... take a lot of effort. WTS can be cranked
out quickly and it's vaguely amusing. A little more substance'd be nice,
though.
Johanna Draper
In article <1996Sep...@riph7.rice.edu>,
Elmo from the Black Lagoon <mor...@riph5.rice.edu> wrote:
>cpspa...@aol.com (CpSpalding) writes:
>> Anyway, its always a good idea for DC to take private little
>> squabbles and throw gasoline on them.
>
>No point to taking it wrong; DC just doesn't get it.
I'm sorry, Elmo, I must be fuzzed or something, but could you say whatever
it is you're trying to say again, cause I didn't understand.
>I like it. Not taking stuff seriously is important. Essays like
>Dick Giordano's Meanwhile... take a lot of effort.
So does humor writing that doesn't step on anyone's toes, like WTS.
>A little more substance'd be nice, though.
Let the PTB know. Right now, they seem to think otherwise.
Johanna
--
"You've got to sing like you don't need the money, love like you'll never
get hurt, dance like there's nobody watching. It's got to come from the
heart if you want it to work." -- Come From the Heart
(A classic for a friend.)
Jeremy Billones
In article <50nqje$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <1996Sep...@riph7.rice.edu>,
>Elmo from the Black Lagoon <mor...@riph5.rice.edu> wrote:
>>A little more substance'd be nice, though.
>
>Let the PTB know. Right now, they seem to think otherwise.
I'm torn. Some of the articles work for me, and some don't.
What I've decided is that there are several sources for "inside"
info that are serious and proper, but very few with any wit
or humor (and some of those go more towards biting sarcasm).
Every once in a while, I like being reminded that these folks
do have fun once in a while.
And whoever decided to start numbering them is a genius.
Jeremy Billones http://www.primenet.com/~billones/
Objective Reality Isn't Go Caps & Orioles! ISTJ USSF Certifiable
"The darkest regions of space - The farthest boundaries of adventure -
One starship journeys into the unknown, Exploring the mysteries that lie
... BEYOND THE BEYOND!"
David Scott Doty
I have to say that one thing in the Aqualman lettercol that
really upset me was when, in his memorial to Neal Pozner,
he used the *memorial comments* to take, like, his fifth
cheap shot at the blue and white costume. You'd think he
could let his pathological hatred of it go long enough to
write a decent farewell. . ..
Dave Doty
Stephen J. De Young
In article <3229CF...@aacr.us.net>, Raphael Liriano
<raf...@aacr.us.net> wrote:
> Sorry But I have Chatted with Kevin too And I have to Disagree too. I
> know when you have made a decision you gotta to stick with it but to the
> point of stubborn one way view almost to the point of idiocy. Either the
> guy is very stubborn or just plain stupid or plain deaf. I know that the
> powers that make GL a more accessible commercial Book (Dooley) could
> handle the transition between Hal to Kyle better but everybody agrees on
> that except Him. What that’s call is not arrogant and obnoxious.
*SIGH* So, Kevin should just say, 'Yah, you guys are right, what we
did sucks, time for massive retcon...' and then he wouldn't be arrogant
and obnoxious? No matter how much you guys gripe about it, sales on GL
have increased drastically since Emerald Twilight, both overall and at my
local store. If sales had dropped off, I'm sure Kevin would have said by
now, 'Yah, I guess we made a mistake....', but since sales are all they
have to go by, I don't think he's being stubborn, he just cares more about
who pays his bills than the legion of Hal-worshippers asailing him at
every turn. Your gripe shouldn't be with Kevin, it should be with all
those people who are making the current book such a success.
Trevor Barrie
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>: What will those of us on the internet who don't know who Kevin Dooley or Dan
>: Thorsland are think?
>You, um, won't get the joke? :)
Hmmm. Perhaps a more direct approach is merited:
Who are Kevin Dooley and Dan Thorsland?
(You see, I have an obsessive need to Get All Jokes:))
Mike Chary
Trevor Barrie <tba...@cycor.ca> wrote:
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>>: What will those of us on the internet who don't know who Kevin Dooley or Dan
>>: Thorsland are think?
>
>>You, um, won't get the joke? :)
>
>Hmmm. Perhaps a more direct approach is merited:
>
>Who are Kevin Dooley and Dan Thorsland?
Kein Dooley writes bad folk songs and goes into the back of movie theatres
and sings them badly, loudly, and offkey in a deep bass while smoking cheap
cigars. Thorsland sings tenor.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley "The best argument against
democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Trevor Barrie <tba...@cycor.ca> wrote:
: >fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: >>: What will those of us on the internet who don't know who Kevin Dooley or Dan
: >>: Thorsland are think?
: >
: >>You, um, won't get the joke? :)
: >
: >Hmmm. Perhaps a more direct approach is merited:
: >
: >Who are Kevin Dooley and Dan Thorsland?
: Kein Dooley writes bad folk songs and goes into the back of movie theatres
: and sings them badly, loudly, and offkey in a deep bass while smoking cheap
: cigars. Thorsland sings tenor.
Oh, and together, they're detectives. <g>
- Elayne (they're DC editors, Trevor)
Jack Grimes
In article <50em0m$o...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>
>Trevor Barrie (tba...@cycor.ca) wrote:
>: Len Leshin <lle...@davlin.net> wrote:
>
>: >I noticed that in this week's comics, there's a page advertising the
>: >Final Night "event" listing 23 statements. Statement #22 reads:
>: >"People on the Internet who now hate Kevin Dooley will now also hate Dan
>: >Thorsland."
>
>: Thorsland are think?
>
>You, um, won't get the joke? :)
>
>lately). And it's proof, of course, that whether the PTB *listen* to rac*
>folks, they *are* reading this newsgroup.
Or, more likely, AOL's GREEN LANTERN message board.
Bruce Baugh
In article <50g4ht$8...@netnews.upenn.edu>, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu
(Johanna Draper) wrote:
>reamed. There's no benefit to what you suggest, and way too many negatives.
Personally, I think that the continued wave of ignorance, rumor, and
counter-rumor _is_ a negative. But it's not my decision to make.
Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon
sj...@mail.idt.net (Stephen J. De Young) wrote:
> *SIGH* So, Kevin should just say, 'Yah, you guys are right, what we
>did sucks, time for massive retcon...' and then he wouldn't be arrogant
>and obnoxious? No matter how much you guys gripe about it, sales on GL
>have increased drastically since Emerald Twilight, both overall and at my
>local store. If sales had dropped off, I'm sure Kevin would have said by
>now, 'Yah, I guess we made a mistake....', but since sales are all they
>have to go by, I don't think he's being stubborn, he just cares more about
>who pays his bills than the legion of Hal-worshippers asailing him at
>every turn. Your gripe shouldn't be with Kevin, it should be with all
>those people who are making the current book such a success.
No, but Kevin should have given a plausible reasoning for what
happened. He's more-or-less given Hal fans the finger, and refuses to
acknowledge that Hal fans ARE Green Lantern fans.
Kestrel
The Fairly Decent Dragon
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:
: sj...@mail.idt.net (Stephen J. De Young) wrote:
: > *SIGH* So, Kevin should just say, 'Yah, you guys are right, what we
: >did sucks, time for massive retcon...' and then he wouldn't be arrogant
: >and obnoxious? No matter how much you guys gripe about it, sales on GL
: >have increased drastically since Emerald Twilight, both overall and at my
: >local store. If sales had dropped off, I'm sure Kevin would have said by
: >now, 'Yah, I guess we made a mistake....', but since sales are all they
: >have to go by, I don't think he's being stubborn, he just cares more about
: >who pays his bills than the legion of Hal-worshippers asailing him at
: >every turn. Your gripe shouldn't be with Kevin, it should be with all
: >those people who are making the current book such a success.
: No, but Kevin should have given a plausible reasoning for what
: happened.
Given the book's current success, why?
: He's more-or-less given Hal fans the finger, and refuses to
: acknowledge that Hal fans ARE Green Lantern fans.
And Mark Waid has gotten tired of all the whiners saying, "Bring Barry
back!" over and over. I mean, this is understandable. I miss Hal too.
But, you know, like, get OVER it already. Say your piece, move on. You
don't like the present GL, ain't a whole lot you can do beyond just not
buying the book (which is what I opted to do when Gerry Jones left).
- Elayne
Scott Hollifield
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>: No, but Kevin should have given a plausible reasoning for what
>: happened.
>Given the book's current success, why?
I'll answer that. Because today's creators should have more
justification to write a story than simply, "It sells copies."
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: And Mark Waid has gotten tired of all the whiners saying, "Bring Barry
: back!" over and over. I mean, this is understandable. I miss Hal too.
: But, you know, like, get OVER it already. Say your piece, move on. You
: don't like the present GL, ain't a whole lot you can do beyond just not
: buying the book (which is what I opted to do when Gerry Jones left).
Somebody's....crying...."Bring Barry back!?"
Really?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
And if his justification is, "If it sells copies, a lot of people must
like what we're doing story-wise," then what?
I see where this logic is a bit circular, but I don't doubt that someone,
somewhere, thought out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new was a good idea.
It's been done with other superheroes to varying degrees of success. One
of the reasons for doing away with (or, as I prefer it, retiring) older
supers (not that Hal was old, but I'm speaking in general terms) is to
make books more accessible to newer, presumably younger readers who,
frankly, may not WANT to read about people their parents' age.
Of course, then when you get into post-ZERO HOUR time compression and you
can't keep track of how old everyone is ANYway... ouch! My head's
starting to hurt. <g>
In general I don't mind the idea of succession, and I think it's tailor-
made for something like Green Lantern, which has a *history* of succession
behind it. I don't like the way it was done (especially as I think Gerry
Jones had some very good ideas in this direction, which were rejected),
and I still think they missed the ball by not making the new GL female
(and maybe, just maybe, NOT from the United States?), but that's not to
say that someone didn't think it was a good story idea, and that this
thinking hasn't been borne out by the apparently large number of Kyle
Rayner fans currently buying the book.
Scott Hollifield
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Scott Hollifield (sco...@cris.com) wrote:
>: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>: >: No, but Kevin should have given a plausible reasoning for what
>: >: happened.
>: >Given the book's current success, why?
>: I'll answer that. Because today's creators should have more
>: justification to write a story than simply, "It sells copies."
>And if his justification is, "If it sells copies, a lot of people must
>like what we're doing story-wise," then what?
This would be an invalid conclusion on the face of it. A product that
appeals to the lowest common demoninator is *always* going to have
better sales. It may be because of good stories, or trendy themes, or
naked women on the cover, or any of a hundred other factors.
>I see where this logic is a bit circular, but I don't doubt that someone,
>somewhere, thought out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new was a good idea.
I'm sure someone, even Dooley himself, sincerely thought that this was
a respectable ambition.
But change *for the sake of change* is never a good idea. You have to
have a reason. In this case, the reason was, more sales.
>It's been done with other superheroes to varying degrees of success. One
>of the reasons for doing away with (or, as I prefer it, retiring) older
>supers (not that Hal was old, but I'm speaking in general terms) is to
>make books more accessible to newer, presumably younger readers who,
>frankly, may not WANT to read about people their parents' age.
And this, of course, is a result of the current self-fascinated nature
of today's youth culture. (I'm 26, so I can say this.) In Superman's
glory days, no one ever said, "Hey, let's replace him with a young
version of himself. Our target audience is kids, after all." Sure,
there was Superboy, but Superman always sold better than Superboy.
>In general I don't mind the idea of succession, and I think it's tailor-
>made for something like Green Lantern, which has a *history* of succession
>behind it. I don't like the way it was done (especially as I think Gerry
>Jones had some very good ideas in this direction, which were rejected),
>and I still think they missed the ball by not making the new GL female
>(and maybe, just maybe, NOT from the United States?), but that's not to
>say that someone didn't think it was a good story idea, and that this
>thinking hasn't been borne out by the apparently large number of Kyle
>Rayner fans currently buying the book.
I don't mind the idea of succession either, but nor do I mind
qualifying my dislike of Kyle's initiation by saying that I *do* think
it was a bad story idea. Hal could have been retired respectably, and
we'd still have Kyle. Heck, I might even be buying the book if they'd
done that.
David Scott Doty
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: sj...@mail.idt.net (Stephen J. De Young) wrote:
>
>: > *SIGH* So, Kevin should just say, 'Yah, you guys are right, what we
>: >did sucks, time for massive retcon...' and then he wouldn't be arrogant
>: >and obnoxious? No matter how much you guys gripe about it, sales on GL
>: >have increased drastically since Emerald Twilight, both overall and at my
>: >local store. If sales had dropped off, I'm sure Kevin would have said by
>: >now, 'Yah, I guess we made a mistake....', but since sales are all they
>: >have to go by, I don't think he's being stubborn, he just cares more about
>: >who pays his bills than the legion of Hal-worshippers asailing him at
>: >every turn. Your gripe shouldn't be with Kevin, it should be with all
>: >those people who are making the current book such a success.
>
>: happened.
>
>Given the book's current success, why?
>
>: acknowledge that Hal fans ARE Green Lantern fans.
>
>back!" over and over. I mean, this is understandable. I miss Hal too.
>But, you know, like, get OVER it already. Say your piece, move on. You
>don't like the present GL, ain't a whole lot you can do beyond just not
>buying the book (which is what I opted to do when Gerry Jones left).
>
although I think that it has yet to be tapped well. My main
complaint is that we can't get over Hal, because every six months
Psycho Hal comes on, tries to kill someone, realizes he's a
psycho, and disappears for six months, with a lesson about Kyle
being better than Hal was anyway.
A little bit of spoiler space. . ..
It's looking like Final Night may change that, one way or another
(I'm not sure that the common theory isn't a red herring), but
either way, hopefully this story will be the end of loser Hal,
Once Kevin and Ron stop rubbing it in our faces, some kind of
truce can be developed between the two factions, and people
like me will stop feeling like crap every time we spend money on
a story whose sole purpose is to make Hal look like a pathetic
loser.
Dave Doty, who will like GL much better when Hal's plotline is
resolved- one way or the other.
Yojimbo
I don't think that these are the same issues that we are dealing with
Elayne.In Waid's case, he made a point to describe the hero that Barry
was. He is the whole reason for Wally's taking the harder road bearing
his name. In Waid's case, the treatment of Barry's "Heroic" death befits
his leading a "Heroic" life.
But let's look at the dark side shall we? <G>
Here we have Dooley and Co. (Marz, Banks, et.al.) saying,"we have no
fresh ideas for GL,"so what are we going to do?" Just give me the name
of the sonuvab---h that thought driving one of the most iconic characters
in the ENTIRE DC stable insane was a good idea. Why I oughtta...
But that is a discussion that I have already had with Mr. Dooley last
year on AOL. And he is more than happy to have this discussion with
anyone who wants to spend $2.95/hr. to debate it with him (side note: is
he doing this to increase the $$$ in Chase's bank acct?). He thinks that
just because the figures are up on GL, that justifies what he has done to
the character. He claims that only us,"the ridiculous diehards," were
the ones buying the Hal books at the time. Well. he was wrong.
I was a die hard Hal fan, and I wasn't buying the books. Why? Because
he was right about something, GL did suck at the time. No matter how you
candycoat it, they weren't very good after Broderick left the series. He
needed to do something, but driving him nuts? People thought that it
was just a stupid thing to do dictated by outside market conditions
(Superman's death, Batman's crippling, Spider-Man's clone problem..., you
guys know the score)...
..I think that it was a pre-calculated slap in the face of anyone who
holds the old guard characters at DC in any esteem whatsoever. Why? To
get us to buy the piece of shit, read it, and say,"WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY
THINKING!!!" All this while they rake in over 2 bucks an ish...
I ask you Elayne, am I supposed to like the fact that Hal was made into
the Anakin Skywalker of the DC Universe? Dooley seems to think that it
was a wonderful idea at the time, but maybehe's doing a double-take. GL
sales aren't what they used to be in my area, maybe he's decided to be
nice to Hal. Maybe he's decided to write Hal out in the way most of us
(given the choice between his going insane or...) would've chosen: his
death.
I try to put this all behind me. I can even say as a Hal-fan that I like
the potential Rayner has (please, nobody flame me for that), I even like
the stupid new costume. I just don't like how all of this has come to
pass. What I like even less is how Dooley wears his disgacing Hal Jordan
like a badge of honor every time you bring up the issue with him.
For that I won't let it go.
Yojimbo
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Yojimbo (shm...@telis.org) wrote:
: Here we have Dooley and Co. (Marz, Banks, et.al.) saying,"we have no
: fresh ideas for GL,"so what are we going to do?" Just give me the name
: of the sonuvab---h that thought driving one of the most iconic characters
: in the ENTIRE DC stable insane was a good idea. Why I oughtta...
Fine, Yojimbo, I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm merely pointing
out that it *did* work for a lot of people, and I can understand why
Kevin might feel he has nothing for which to apologize. AND that this
discussion has been near ENDLESS and he and others are probably long
since talked out over it.
: But that is a discussion that I have already had with Mr. Dooley last
: year on AOL. And he is more than happy to have this discussion with
: anyone who wants to spend $2.95/hr. to debate it with him (side note: is
: he doing this to increase the $$$ in Chase's bank acct?).
So fine, you've had this discussion, you disagree, that's that. Why keep
carrying on, then?
: I ask you Elayne, am I supposed to like the fact that Hal was made into
: the Anakin Skywalker of the DC Universe?
I never asked you to. I'm merely questioning the seeming futility of
throwing it in Dooley's face over and over. You mention above that
you've debated this with him. Fine. You've said your piece, he's stated
his position, MOVE ON. Just a suggestion, mind you.
: I try to put this all behind me. I can even say as a Hal-fan that I like
: the potential Rayner has (please, nobody flame me for that), I even like
: the stupid new costume. I just don't like how all of this has come to
: pass. What I like even less is how Dooley wears his disgacing Hal Jordan
: like a badge of honor every time you bring up the issue with him.
: For that I won't let it go.
Then it really becomes your cross to bear too. Your inability to deal
with what you consider Dooley's Folly seems to bother you more than him.
Stephen J. De Young
In article <51ah3i$2...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> You've said your piece, he's stated
> his position, MOVE ON. Just a suggestion, mind you.
>
That's really the whole point. Unfortunately we live in a capitalist
society, where media is judged not by its artistic merit, but upon its
ability to produce revenue, therefore books that alot of people consider
to be well-written (like Mr. Miracle by the Dooley in question) get
cancelled, and abysmal sales on a book lead to measures designed to
improve sales, by which standard their success is measured. The story
happened. If you're better than this sort of thing than Dooley, become an
editor or writer and do better or fix what he's done. If you don't like
it, state your case. But then go on with your life. Don't fall into the
mentality that you have to take every opportunity to harp on your pet
peeve. I've done my share of griping about the Mr. Miracle cancellation,
and now I've moved on, and for the record, I'm willing to pledge here
today to never again gripe about Mr. Miracle being cancelled after only 7
issues. Anybody else willing to move on and say the same about Hal?
Drew Zeigler
(snip snip snip)
> Then it really becomes your cross to bear too. Your inability to deal
> with what you consider Dooley's Folly seems to bother you more than him.
Um, gee, Elayne, despite the fact you were debating for the other side, it
seems you've summed up the problem a lot of us have with Dooley quite
succinctly. What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
He took one a great noble hero and in one petty little move turned him
into an insane mass-murdering villian. Hal's gone and Dooley's made his
mark. Hurrah.
This is a wound that will *never* heal for a lot of us. Never never never...
And, despite the fact that I have been buying GL still out of a sense of
morbid curiousity, I have not enjoyed Kyle. So, don't think that everyone
buying the book still likes him.
After the next issue, I plan to do what I should have done long ago and
drop the book. Hopefully, others will do the same.
I'm now going to adjourn to my living room, where I'm gonna let my Super
Powers Green Lantern kick the Total Justice Green Lantern's butt some
more...
--
Note change of address, I used to be:
hel...@linknet.net
ze...@intersurf.com
Johanna Draper
In article <dzeigler-130...@nntp.netcruiser>,
Drew Zeigler <dzei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
>always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
This is an honest question: Why should it? We're talking about an event
that happened, what, two years ago now? You didn't like it, you told him
about it, he disagrees -- what's the statute of limitations on discussion
of a comic book? If you keep harping on one issue, you look like you're
just a bit obsessed, and you play into negative stereotypes of comic fans.
>So, don't think that everyone buying the book still likes him.
Unfortunately, marketing paradigms don't generally take into account "I
hate it but I still buy it" customers. If you don't like it, don't support
it.
>I'm now going to adjourn to my living room, where I'm gonna let my Super
>Powers Green Lantern kick the Total Justice Green Lantern's butt some
>more...
Hee hee hee.
Johanna
Jeremy Billones
In article <518jdq$g...@mentor.telis.org>, Yojimbo <shm...@telis.org> wrote:
>I ask you Elayne, am I supposed to like the fact that Hal was made into
>the Anakin Skywalker of the DC Universe?
If I thought for one second that the eventual redemption of Hal Jordan
had been planned from the start of Emerald Twilight, I might have given
the creators some slack.
But I don't, so I don't. But sales *did* go up. More's the pity.
Jeremy Billones http://www.primenet.com/~billones/
Objective Reality Isn't Who uses a floppy disk on a UNIX machine?
Mike Chary
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Drew Zeigler <dzei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
>>always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
>
>This is an honest question: Why should it? We're talking about an event
>that happened, what, two years ago now? You didn't like it, you told him
>about it, he disagrees -- what's the statute of limitations on discussion
>of a comic book? If you keep harping on one issue, you look like you're
>just a bit obsessed, and you play into negative stereotypes of comic fans.
Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
to Brooklyn.
Look at what happened witht he Cleveland Browns last year. The fans got
action.
The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
emotional attachment sometimes :)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <51ah3i$2...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > Then it really becomes your cross to bear too. Your inability to deal
: > with what you consider Dooley's Folly seems to bother you more than him.
: Um, gee, Elayne, despite the fact you were debating for the other side, it
: seems you've summed up the problem a lot of us have with Dooley quite
: succinctly. What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
: always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
Okay, maybe I misspoke. I don't have a summer home in Kevin's head. But
I do know he's bothered more by the incessant harping on him than by his
original decision. He's a professional, and as such he stands by his
decision and has moved on; why can't the readers?
This is not to say I don't believe you should tell creators when you think
they've done something that you don't like. I'm just suggesting you say
it once (maybe twice) then MOVE ON. GIVE IT UP. I'm sorry it bothers
you. It bothers me too. I actually went up and offered Mart Nodell
condolences of a sort THREE YEARS AGO, after Dooley and others were
talking about their plans for GL at ComicFest.
And then I dropped it. I moved on. I stopped buying the book after
Gerry Jones left, I miss Arisia and Killowog and especially John Stewart
the way he was in MOSAIC... but I GOT ON WITH IT.
: He took one a great noble hero and in one petty little move turned him
: into an insane mass-murdering villian. Hal's gone and Dooley's made his
: mark. Hurrah.
: This is a wound that will *never* heal for a lot of us. Never never never...
I consider this a real, real problem. I'm sorry, I do. I hate like hell
to drag out the old chestnut, "It's only a comic book," but geez, Drew,
it IS, you know? I'm sorry you feel bad about Hal, but it's out of your
hands. And no amount of whining to Kevin Dooley will bring him back the
way you want him.
Whenever a creative decision is made, there are going to be people
disappointed. I hate like hell the fact that Jericho's dead, that Dawn
(Dove) Granger is gone, that Mark Waid approved the killing of Tora (Ice)
Olafsdotter. I don't like the way Dan Jurgens treated the JSA in ZERO
HOUR. I despise the way many writers still treat female characters.
Aside from that last statement, there's not a hell of a lot I can do
about my feelings once I've made them known. (And now and again, a
creator will agree that he/she may have made a mistake, as Waid has done
re: Tora and the Rogues Gallery members he did away with in UNDERWORLD
UNLEASHED. And then, hey, *he's* moved on too, you see?)
You've made your feelings known ABUNDANTLY, Drew. Please, for your own
sanity, move on!
: And, despite the fact that I have been buying GL still out of a sense of
: morbid curiousity, I have not enjoyed Kyle. So, don't think that everyone
: buying the book still likes him.
I really, REALLY think if you don't like the book you shouldn't be buying
it-- especially as determined as you seem to be NOT to support what Kevin
and the others are doing. But this too is your decision.
: After the next issue, I plan to do what I should have done long ago and
: drop the book.
There ya go. :)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:: >>What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
: >>always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
: >This is an honest question: Why should it? We're talking about an event
: >that happened, what, two years ago now? You didn't like it, you told him
: >about it, he disagrees -- what's the statute of limitations on discussion
: >of a comic book? If you keep harping on one issue, you look like you're
: >just a bit obsessed, and you play into negative stereotypes of comic fans.
: Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
: to Brooklyn.
I hear this *constantly* (of course <g>).
: The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
: emotional attachment sometimes :)
Which is fine, and I don't mean to belittle that in my responses to
Drew. Just to say you have to have a *little* perspective to go along
with it. You've said your piece, you've expressed your outrage, move
on. Or, if you're really keen on changing it, work on your talent and
your connections and break into the business and get a freelance gig at
DC and write or draw it the way you want it to be done. <g>
Drew Zeigler
In article <51bq1j$p...@netnews.upenn.edu>, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu
(Johanna Draper) wrote:
> In article <dzeigler-130...@nntp.netcruiser>,
> Drew Zeigler <dzei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >So, don't think that everyone buying the book still likes him.
>
> Unfortunately, marketing paradigms don't generally take into account "I
> hate it but I still buy it" customers. If you don't like it, don't support
> it.
You snipped the part where I said I was dropping the book.
A Seeker of Truth And Fresh Sushi
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: ...You've said your piece, you've expressed your outrage, move
: on. Or, if you're really keen on changing it, work on your talent and
: your connections and break into the business and get a freelance gig at
: DC and write or draw it the way you want it to be done. <g>
Unless, of course, Kevin Dooley is your editor and doesn't allow it. ;-)
Love ya'
Steve
--
sh...@panix.com "Almost anything you do will be insignificant,
but you must do it." - M. Gandhi
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Roland X
In article <51cbjb$a...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> This is not to say I don't believe you should tell creators when you think
> they've done something that you don't like. I'm just suggesting you say
> it once (maybe twice) then MOVE ON. GIVE IT UP.
Not a snowball's chance in hell. <evil grin>
> : Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
> : to Brooklyn.
>
> I hear this *constantly* (of course <g>).
And I'm still rooting for Barry! <g>
(PS- check the new .sig)
> : The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
> : emotional attachment sometimes :)
>
> Which is fine, and I don't mean to belittle that in my responses to
> Drew. Just to say you have to have a *little* perspective to go along
> with it. You've said your piece, you've expressed your outrage, move
> on. Or, if you're really keen on changing it, work on your talent and
> your connections and break into the business and get a freelance gig at
> DC and write or draw it the way you want it to be done. <g>
>
> - Elayne
1) I am. <g>
2) Not everyone _can._ We're not all made out to be writers,
Elayne. And frankly, this isn't even remotely like what happened
to the Dodgers, or even Barry. What happened with Hal, for a lot
of GL fans (and to a lesser extent, the rest of us children of the
Silver Age) was a BETRAYAL. A deep one. This is how I felt about
'The Return of Barry Allen,' and I understand how Drew feels.
If Hal had died the way Kara or Barry had, it wouldn't be as bad.
And the final thing to note is that all this fury may well have
had an effect; Emerald Night, as poor a redemption as it probably
will be, is at LEAST a redemption, and those of us who raged
against the dying of Hal's light may have had something to do
with that.
And that is why we don't let go; because there is always the
hope that we can make a difference.
Who says comics aren't educational? <g>
--
Forget not the Earth-1 Flash, | With
Barry Allen was his name. |apologies
Bearer of the Silver Lightning, |to
keeper of the silver flame. |Mark Rein*Hagen
Drew Zeigler
At the risk of being seen as flaming the beloved Elayne...
In article <51cbag$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote a bunch of stuff, which included the following:
> Okay, maybe I misspoke.
Well, if not before, I think you have this time.
> You've made your feelings known ABUNDANTLY, Drew. Please, for your own
> sanity, move on!
Hey Elayne, I think you're a little confused. "ABUNDANTLY"? I've made 2
posts about this. Two, that's all, count 'em (or let Deja News count em
for you). Anyway, trust me, I don't sit around and stew over this.
Whereas, you've made 13 posts to this or the related threads.
My main reaction here though is: What did I say or do to deserve a reply
with so many all capped words and exclamation marks? Besides address you
personally. I think you're somehow confusing me with the thread. I'm not
the thread. I'm one person who made 2 posts out of over a hundred.
> I really, REALLY think if you don't like the book you shouldn't be buying
> it-- especially as determined as you seem to be NOT to support what Kevin
> and the others are doing. But this too is your decision.
>
> : After the next issue, I plan to do what I should have done long ago and
> : drop the book.
Let me clarify. I actually did stop buying the book after the initial
debacle. I started buying it again when Paul Pelletier started drawing
it. I like his pencils. I stupidly continued to buy it after he left
simply because I never told my store to stop pulling it. Something I have
now told them to do after the next issue.
Anyway, I certainly don't plan to make a career out of bashing Dooley (or
whining about it, as someone put it). And despite the fact that I earlier
mentioned AOL's GL boards, I don't post there. I'm certainly aware that
Hal was a comic book character. I'm sorry but I will always be upset with
what Dooley and Marz did to him. This in turn will always color my
opinion of their work. I dropped Superboy the second Marz took it over (I
remembered to tell the shop this time).
Lastly, I read your post and respect your opinions, Elayne. This despite
the fact that I quite frequently disagree with you. Next time, please try
being a little less strident with me, 'kay? I don't wanna be on no
NetGoddesses bad side...
Drew Zeigler
In article <51cbjb$a...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> : Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
> : >Drew Zeigler <dzei...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> : >>What Dooley was responsible for bothers a lot of us and will
> : >>always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
> : >
> : >This is an honest question: Why should it? We're talking about an event
> : >that happened, what, two years ago now? You didn't like it, you told him
> : >about it, he disagrees -- what's the statute of limitations on discussion
> : >of a comic book? If you keep harping on one issue, you look like you're
> : >just a bit obsessed, and you play into negative stereotypes of comic fans.
>
> : Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
> : to Brooklyn.
>
> I hear this *constantly* (of course <g>).
>
> : The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
> : emotional attachment sometimes :)
>
> Which is fine, and I don't mean to belittle that in my responses to
> Drew. Just to say you have to have a *little* perspective to go along
> with it. You've said your piece, you've expressed your outrage, move
> on. Or, if you're really keen on changing it, work on your talent and
> your connections and break into the business and get a freelance gig at
> DC and write or draw it the way you want it to be done. <g>
Ugh. I have perspective. I have not harped (2 posts, 2 posts, count
them). I have no desire to write or draw comic books. As such, perhaps
(just perhaps) this gives me a little more *objectivity.* I'm free to
give my opinion without worrying whether or not I'm offending a person or
corporate entity I would like to work under. I also have no desire to
have any sort of relationship with most comic creators beyond infrequent,
casual on-line contact.
Please understand, I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just stating one
*perspective* of this situation.
Carl Fink
This post contains niggling and no comics content. Sorry.
In article <51c041$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
>to Brooklyn.
My brother.
>The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
>emotional attachment sometimes :)
Actually "fan" comes from "fancier", but your etymology is more
dramatic and thus more believable. Look it up.
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Dueling Modems http://www.dm.net
"Any given person is an abberation"
Michael Chary
Jack Grimes
In article <51cbag$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>
>Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>: > Then it really becomes your cross to bear too. Your inability to deal
>: > with what you consider Dooley's Folly seems to bother you more than him.
>
>: Um, gee, Elayne, despite the fact you were debating for the other side, it
>: seems you've summed up the problem a lot of us have with Dooley quite
>: always bother us. And he doesn't give a damn.
>
>I do know he's bothered more by the incessant harping on him than by his
>original decision. He's a professional, and as such he stands by his
>decision and has moved on; why can't the readers?
>
>they've done something that you don't like. I'm just suggesting you say
>it once (maybe twice) then MOVE ON. GIVE IT UP.
The thing is, Elayne, if *we* shut up, then *they* get the impression that
they've won. That we've, as you said, given up and Hal and accepted Kyle.
Then Hal is *really* gone.
As long as we keep the heat on Dooley, he'll know that their are some
dissenting voices out there.
>: He took one a great noble hero and in one petty little move turned him
>: into an insane mass-murdering villian. Hal's gone and Dooley's made his
>: mark. Hurrah.
>
>: This is a wound that will *never* heal for a lot of us. Never never never...
>
>I consider this a real, real problem. I'm sorry, I do. I hate like hell
>to drag out the old chestnut, "It's only a comic book," but geez, Drew,
>it IS, you know? I'm sorry you feel bad about Hal, but it's out of your
>hands. And no amount of whining to Kevin Dooley will bring him back the
>way you want him.
Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
pretty soon.
Stephen J. De Young
> >I consider this a real, real problem. I'm sorry, I do. I hate like hell
> >to drag out the old chestnut, "It's only a comic book," but geez, Drew,
> >it IS, you know? I'm sorry you feel bad about Hal, but it's out of your
> >hands. And no amount of whining to Kevin Dooley will bring him back the
> >way you want him.
>
> Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
> pretty soon.
>
They're not getting him back cause they whined, Peter Parker's coming
back because the clone story caused sales to drop....stop buying the book
if you don't like it, but be warned about one other thing. At the same
time that we say drop it if you don't like it, we all worry about the
state of the industry because sales are so low...so if you drop a book
because you don't like a storyline, don't come back and gripe if its
cancelled....If you really think Kyle may be worse than no GL at all,
don't buy the book.
Mike Chary
In article <LRgOygen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>This post contains niggling and no comics content. Sorry.
So use the "PEDANTRY" key word. :) (The one keyword in more select files
than kill files on usenet for your niggling pleasure :))
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>
>>Or sports fans: I know people who still complain about the Dodgers moving
>>to Brooklyn.
>
>My brother.
Spike Lee too :)
>>The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
>>emotional attachment sometimes :)
>
>Actually "fan" comes from "fancier", but your etymology is more
>dramatic and thus more believable. Look it up.
Just did. American Heritage New College edition. "[short for "Fanatic"]"
Now, normally we would just argue this back and forth and elmo and
Cowling and Rick Jones and the usual crowd would get into it. And maybe
Robert Kelly or Jim Drew or Dani Zweig or Paul Estin or Tara O'Shea would
delurk or something, but instead, I propose the following:
You're in my weight class, yes? I suggest we go down to the gym, put on
the 16 oz gloves, go 15 rounds and settle this like men (or, if you
prefer, like testosterone crazed idiots. :)) What do you say? :)
Yojimbo
Elayne,
I know that I am new to the circles that compose this newsgroup, and I
respect the opinions that you hold on the subject of Mr. Dooley. But I
gotta let you in on something:
Dooley ASKED for this. He gutted one of the most loved characters in
comics just because the creative team on it prior to entry onto the book
SUCKED HOT GAS. I can just see it now,"what? The sales suck on GL right
now? OK, let's drive him insane just to pave the way for a younger,
*kewler* (ugh, can't believe I typed that) GL named Kyle Rayner."
Worse than that, he doesn't even have the convictions of those beliefs
that led him to that decision to admit that the only reason he's killing
the poor schlub-off is to prevent further criticism of his crappy domain.
And even worse than that, he seems like he actually enjoys the publicity
that he is getting from all of this. I think that is kinda demented...
But GL is not the only book under his purview that I have a problem with.
There are others. But I will save THAT commentary for another post...
Yojimbo
Johanna Draper
In article <51cv35$l...@star.epix.net>, Jack Grimes <LBM...@epix.net> wrote:
>The thing is, Elayne, if *we* shut up, then *they* get the impression that
>they've won.
They have "won". They control the book. Nothing you can do about that.
So the fan's choice is A) keep harping and look like an obsessed AR idiot,
or B) move on.
>As long as we keep the heat on Dooley, he'll know that their are some
>dissenting voices out there.
Oh, like he's going to forget two years of the same comments.
>Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
>pretty soon.
By doing more than just griping, as someone else pointed out.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
In article <51dqtm$r...@mentor.telis.org>, Yojimbo <shm...@telis.org> wrote:
>Dooley ASKED for this.
"Please, keep berating me about my editorial decisions." Nah, can't see it.
>OK, let's drive him insane just to pave the way for a younger,
>*kewler* (ugh, can't believe I typed that) GL named Kyle Rayner."
More like "we want a new GL, but people won't accept him as permanent if
Hal's still around, so we're going to have to do something to remove Hal as
a choice". But that's just my impression.
Johanna
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Roland X (rol...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <51cbjb$a...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > : The thing is that fans (which does, after all, mean fanatics) develop an
: > : emotional attachment sometimes :)
: >
: > Which is fine, and I don't mean to belittle that in my responses to
: > Drew. Just to say you have to have a *little* perspective to go along
: > with it. You've said your piece, you've expressed your outrage, move
: > on. Or, if you're really keen on changing it, work on your talent and
: > your connections and break into the business and get a freelance gig at
: > DC and write or draw it the way you want it to be done. <g>
: 1) I am. <g>
: 2) Not everyone _can._ We're not all made out to be writers,
: Elayne.
The above remark was kind of meant half in jest, dear.
: And frankly, this isn't even remotely like what happened
: to the Dodgers, or even Barry. What happened with Hal, for a lot
: of GL fans (and to a lesser extent, the rest of us children of the
: Silver Age) was a BETRAYAL. A deep one. This is how I felt about
: 'The Return of Barry Allen,' and I understand how Drew feels.
BELIEVE me, I understand. Steve feels the same way. I have to live with
this, okay? :)
: If Hal had died the way Kara or Barry had, it wouldn't be as bad.
Well, let's wait until the end of FINAL NIGHT to pass judgement on how
Hal dies...
: And the final thing to note is that all this fury may well have
: had an effect; Emerald Night, as poor a redemption as it probably
: will be, is at LEAST a redemption, and those of us who raged
: against the dying of Hal's light may have had something to do
: with that.
: And that is why we don't let go; because there is always the
: hope that we can make a difference.
I'm of two minds on this. I cannot discount that the "redemption" may
have come about in part because of fan input, but I have also seen this
sort of constant harping as very destructive.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jack Grimes (lbm...@epix.net) wrote:
: In article <51cbag$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
: >Okay, maybe I misspoke. I don't have a summer home in Kevin's head. But
: >I do know he's bothered more by the incessant harping on him than by his
: >original decision. He's a professional, and as such he stands by his
: >decision and has moved on; why can't the readers?
: >
: >This is not to say I don't believe you should tell creators when you think
: >they've done something that you don't like. I'm just suggesting you say
: >it once (maybe twice) then MOVE ON. GIVE IT UP.
: The thing is, Elayne, if *we* shut up, then *they* get the impression that
: they've won.
It's NOT a contest, Jack. :)
: That we've, as you said, given up and Hal and accepted Kyle.
: Then Hal is *really* gone.
: As long as we keep the heat on Dooley, he'll know that their are some
: dissenting voices out there.
Listen to yourself. "Keep the heat on Dooley"? What kind of fan-creator
communication do you really want to keep open here? You don't. You want
to be on his case, constantly. Personally, I think reasoned and friendly
debate gets a lot more accomplished than this sort of warlike mentality.
You know, these creators are doing fans a favor by being so accessible to
them. They don't have to be on AOL. Nobody's paying them to do this.
And when fans turn it around to think in these terms ("we have to keep the
heat on him, or else he's won") I begin to wonder why some creators even
bother.
: >I'm sorry you feel bad about Hal, but it's out of your
: >hands. And no amount of whining to Kevin Dooley will bring him back the
: >way you want him.
: Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
: pretty soon.
According to whom?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: At the risk of being seen as flaming the beloved Elayne...
That's all right, dear. I can take it. :)
Although I'd prefer you'd have just posted this rather than posting AND
e-mailing it to me. I've asked people before to please *not* post *and*
e-mail me the same response, as I *will* see the post in the newsgroup
and do not wish duplication of effort.
: In article <51cbag$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote a bunch of stuff, which included the following:
: > Okay, maybe I misspoke.
: Well, if not before, I think you have this time.
I meant in assuming I knew what was going on in Kevin's head, not in
expressing my opinions about fans who won't let something go. :)
: > You've made your feelings known ABUNDANTLY, Drew. Please, for your own
: > sanity, move on!
: Hey Elayne, I think you're a little confused. "ABUNDANTLY"? I've made 2
: posts about this. Two, that's all, count 'em (or let Deja News count em
: for you). Anyway, trust me, I don't sit around and stew over this.
: Whereas, you've made 13 posts to this or the related threads.
I make an abundance of posts to MANY threads, darlin'. I'm a posting
fool. :)
: My main reaction here though is: What did I say or do to deserve a reply
: with so many all capped words and exclamation marks? Besides address you
: personally. I think you're somehow confusing me with the thread. I'm not
: the thread. I'm one person who made 2 posts out of over a hundred.
I should have clarified, I wasn't just speaking to you, Drew. I was using
the general "you," not the "specific." My bad. Anyway, I do tend to use
capped words for emphasis on many of my posts. That and words set off
with asterisks. (Did I really use a lot of exclamation points? Hmm,
that's not usually my style.)
: Let me clarify. I actually did stop buying the book after the initial
: debacle. I started buying it again when Paul Pelletier started drawing
: it. I like his pencils.
He's the one who pencils SUPERBOY & THE RAVERS, yes? Don't know too much
about him.
: Anyway, I certainly don't plan to make a career out of bashing Dooley (or
: whining about it, as someone put it).
I appreciate you saying this, because really, this was my only point.
Not to belittle what was done to Hal, but to say that there's only so
much one can dwell on it, and I don't think anything substantive is
accomplished by bashing creators as a rule.
: Lastly, I read your post and respect your opinions, Elayne. This despite
: the fact that I quite frequently disagree with you. Next time, please try
: being a little less strident with me, 'kay? I don't wanna be on no
: NetGoddesses bad side...
My apologies; I didn't mean to sound strident. I guess I'm just tired of
all the bashing that too often seems to take the place of reasoned
communication, especially where Dooley is concerned.
Mike Chary
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <51cv35$l...@star.epix.net>, Jack Grimes <LBM...@epix.net> wrote:
>>they've won.
>
Well, two choices come to mind:
Become really wealthy, buy Time/Warner, and fire Dooley. Maybe out of a
cannon. :)
Jump into the comic book and throw CFG out of a moving vehicle from a
high altitude.
A Planet for Elmos
dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> Elmo from the Black Lagoon <mor...@riph5.rice.edu> wrote:
>>cpspa...@aol.com (CpSpalding) writes:
>>> Anyway, its always a good idea for DC to take private little
>>> squabbles and throw gasoline on them.
>>
>>No point to taking it wrong; DC just doesn't get it.
>
> I'm sorry, Elmo, I must be fuzzed or something, but could you say whatever
> it is you're trying to say again, cause I didn't understand.
DC doesn't understand how and why "people on the Internet" hate Kevin
Dooley, so there's no point in getting irritated by them, as Capt Spaulding
appears to be doing with his remark about throwing gasoline on the
controversy.
--
"We treat this world of ours as though we had a spare in the trunk."
--Al Bernstein
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov)
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Yojimbo (shm...@telis.org) wrote:
: Elayne,
: I know that I am new to the circles that compose this newsgroup, and I
: respect the opinions that you hold on the subject of Mr. Dooley.
Thanks, and I've been meaning to welcome you to Usenet. Welcome!
: But I gotta let you in on something:
: Dooley ASKED for this. He gutted one of the most loved characters in
: comics just because the creative team on it prior to entry onto the book
: SUCKED HOT GAS.
Oh, very mature, Yojimbo.
No, I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.
Look, *I* don't agree with this particular creative decision either. But
to say that someone "asked for" abuse because they made a decision with
which readers don't agree? That's skirting awfully close to "Misery"
territory there. <g>
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >In article <51cv35$l...@star.epix.net>, Jack Grimes <LBM...@epix.net> wrote:
: >>The thing is, Elayne, if *we* shut up, then *they* get the impression that
: >>they've won.
: >
: >They have "won". They control the book. Nothing you can do about that.
: Well, two choices come to mind:
: Become really wealthy, buy Time/Warner, and fire Dooley. Maybe out of a
: cannon. :)
: Jump into the comic book and throw CFG out of a moving vehicle from a
: high altitude.
Hee! So, as I understand it, you "chose" the latter but are working toward
the former? <g>
Mark Luebker
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote to Yojimbo RE: Hal/Kyle/Kevin Dooley:
> ....AND that this discussion has been near ENDLESS and he
> and others are probably long since talked out over it...
> ...So fine, you've had this discussion, you disagree, that's that. Why
> keep carrying on, then?
> I never asked you to (like the fact that Hal was made into
> : the Anakin Skywalker of the DC Universe). I'm merely questioning the seeming futility of throwing it in Dooley's face over and over. You mention above that you've debated this with him. Fine. You've said your piece, he's stated his position, MOVE ON...
> ...(I)t really becomes your cross to bear too. Your inability to deal
> with what you consider Dooley's Folly seems to bother you more than
> him.
No, this is the wrong answer.
If any of you don't like the way a particular creator is handling your
favorite character, let the PTB at DC (or wherever) know AGAIN AND
AGAIN. Keep the pressure on. Start threads to discuss the issue from a
variety of viewpoints. Get others to write or e-mail the creators
expressing your disagreement. Agitate. Build consensus. Argue for what
YOU believe, and never, NEVER let anyone tell you to shut up, let it
drop and move on.
Maybe eventually you'll be heard, maybe not. But if you let it drop, you
can be SURE that noone will respond to your concerns.
Just because someone else person doesn't share your view or may be
trying to protect the delicate sensibilities of thin-skinned creators
who may or may not care what you think, you nevertheless need to be
heard, particularly when these creators place themslves in a public or
sei-public forum to discuss the very work you're questioning.
Let them know when you don't like something or don't agree with a
direction or trend. There are already enough butt-kissers out there
trying to curry favor (and possibly advance their own career hopes by
doing so, I don't know)--we don't need any more.
Stay after 'em, Yojimbo!
Mark Luebker
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) wrote:
: Jack Grimes (lbm...@epix.net) wrote:
: : The thing is, Elayne, if *we* shut up, then *they* get the impression that
: : they've won.
: It's NOT a contest, Jack. :)
I'll place $5 on that.
: According to whom?
"THE RETURN OF THE ONE TRUE SPIDER-MAN" says house adverts in this week's
MARVEL books, where Peter Parker is holding a very battered and bleeding
Spider-Ben.
And the fact that Ralph Macchio said so. B-)
It was a rather nice case of using fan-pressure to get what the fans
wanted.
--
\\ \\ |_/ The lemmings are back, and there's no place for me to hide \_|
\\-\\ |_\ "Quip _IS_ a valid word in newswriting!" - Me /_|
( X-X) |_/ *Mugger of Troy McNemar* *Mocker of Chris Bird* \_|
{_^_} -|_\ Liberator of Wheeler's Couches! E-Mail:ho...@syr.edu /_|
Bob Heer
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote
> >just a bit obsessed, and you play into negative stereotypes of comic fans.
>
> to Brooklyn.
From Brooklyn, isn't it? Unless they were from somewhere else, then
moved to Brooklyn, and then moved out west. But I think the classic
baseball complaint is the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn.
Bob
Johanna Draper
In article <323B35...@pop.nlci.com>,
Mark Luebker <mlue...@pop.nlci.com> wrote:
>never, NEVER let anyone tell you to shut up, let it drop and move on.
>
>Maybe eventually you'll be heard, maybe not.
Maybe eventually you'll be arrested for stalking.
>Let them know when you don't like something or don't agree with a
>direction or trend.
No one is saying "fans shouldn't express their opinion". People are saying
"harping on a plot development that happened x number of years ago is
pointless".
>There are already enough butt-kissers out there trying to curry favor
>(and possibly advance their own career hopes by doing so, I don't
>know)--we don't need any more.
Oh, so people who disagree with you must have unpleasant ulterior motives?
What a mature attitude.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
In article <1996Sep1...@riph7.rice.edu>, Elmo wrote:
>DC doesn't understand how and why "people on the Internet" hate Kevin
>Dooley,
DC doesn't understand anything. DC is a corporation. People at DC, however,
do know why some fans dislike Mr. Dooley.
Johanna
Drew Zeigler
In article <51ech0$h...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Drew Zeigler (dzei...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : At the risk of being seen as flaming the beloved Elayne...
>
> That's all right, dear. I can take it. :)
>
> Although I'd prefer you'd have just posted this rather than posting AND
> e-mailing it to me. I've asked people before to please *not* post *and*
> e-mail me the same response, as I *will* see the post in the newsgroup
> and do not wish duplication of effort.
Dear heart, I don't have enough spare time in my life to read all of your
posts. But, now I know.
>
> : In article <51cbag$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> : Wechsler-Chaput) wrote a bunch of stuff, which included the following:
>
> : > Okay, maybe I misspoke.
>
> : Well, if not before, I think you have this time.
>
> I meant in assuming I knew what was going on in Kevin's head, not in
> expressing my opinions about fans who won't let something go. :)
>
> : > You've made your feelings known ABUNDANTLY, Drew. Please, for your own
> : > sanity, move on!
>
> : Hey Elayne, I think you're a little confused. "ABUNDANTLY"? I've made 2
> : posts about this. Two, that's all, count 'em (or let Deja News count em
> : for you). Anyway, trust me, I don't sit around and stew over this.
> : Whereas, you've made 13 posts to this or the related threads.
>
> I make an abundance of posts to MANY threads, darlin'. I'm a posting
> fool. :)
My point wasn't that you had made an abundance of posts. My point was
that you accused me of constantly harping on this subject when in
actuality, I had made 2 posts. That hardly seems like an abundance. I
also didn't appreciate being told to move on for the sake of my sanity
(with an exclamation mark for emphasis). I basically think your response
was pretty damned rude. And for someone who prides herself on her ability
to tell others to do a little research before they post, I think you were
quite capable of seeing exactly how many posts I had made.
>
> : My main reaction here though is: What did I say or do to deserve a reply
> : with so many all capped words and exclamation marks? Besides address you
> : personally. I think you're somehow confusing me with the thread. I'm not
> : the thread. I'm one person who made 2 posts out of over a hundred.
>
> I should have clarified, I wasn't just speaking to you, Drew. I was using
> the general "you," not the "specific." My bad. Anyway, I do tend to use
> capped words for emphasis on many of my posts. That and words set off
> with asterisks. (Did I really use a lot of exclamation points? Hmm,
> that's not usually my style.)
Nope. You can't say that you weren't addressing me. Read this: "You've
made your feelings known ABUNDANTLY, Drew. Please, for your own sanity,
move on!" Unless Drew has become a term that can generally be used to
describe the masses, I think you were addressing me directly. Perhaps you
didn't mean to do so, but you did.
Oh yeah, Bring me the head of Kevin Dooley! So there...
This being the point at which Elayne would add a smiley face or two, I
guess I'll do the same... :) :)
Carl Fink
In article <sjdy-13099...@ppp-47.ts-1.dfw.idt.net>,
sj...@mail.idt.net (Stephen J. De Young) wrote:
>...stop buying the book
>if you don't like it, but be warned about one other thing. At the same
>time that we say drop it if you don't like it, we all worry about the
>state of the industry because sales are so low...so if you drop a book
>because you don't like a storyline, don't come back and gripe if its
>cancelled....If you really think Kyle may be worse than no GL at all,
>don't buy the book.
The solution to the "state of the industry" problem is very simple, of
course.
When you drop a book because it's lousy (as I'm dropping CYBERELLA)
buy a different book because it's good (I recommend AKIKO, or if
you're a diehard superhero fan, ICON).
Carl Fink
In article <51d6nq$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>You're in my weight class, yes? I suggest we go down to the gym, put on
>the 16 oz gloves, go 15 rounds and settle this like men (or, if you
>prefer, like testosterone crazed idiots. :)) What do you say? :)
Come on, I'm going to take on a parademon in hand-to-hand combat?
I may be in your weight class, but about 40 kg of that is fat, Mike.
I don't do boxing. (15 rounds? I thought only pros did that, and
amateurs did like three?)
And in the real world you're a professional wrestler? Yeah, sure?
Tell you what: I'll take you on in the gym if Elayne writes the
script.
Roland X
> In article <51cv35$l...@star.epix.net>, LBM...@epix.net wrote:
>
>
> > >I consider this a real, real problem. I'm sorry, I do. I hate like hell
> > >to drag out the old chestnut, "It's only a comic book," but geez, Drew,
> > >it IS, you know? I'm sorry you feel bad about Hal, but it's out of your
> > >hands. And no amount of whining to Kevin Dooley will bring him back the
> > >way you want him.
> >
> > Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
> > pretty soon.
> >
> They're not getting him back cause they whined, Peter Parker's coming
> back because the clone story caused sales to drop....stop buying the book
> if you don't like it, but be warned about one other thing. At the same
> time that we say drop it if you don't like it, we all worry about the
> state of the industry because sales are so low...so if you drop a book
> because you don't like a storyline, don't come back and gripe if its
> cancelled....If you really think Kyle may be worse than no GL at all,
> don't buy the book.
>
> --
> Steve De Young
> sj...@mail.idt.net
> "Look upon my works, O mortals, and despair!"
Sounds good to me. ;^)
Seriously, dropping a book about a character _that iconic_ only means
that the character won't have their own book. A GL, in some form or
another, will be around in Showcase stories and team books. And for
some of us, it _would_ be worth it.
Haven't bought ONE issue of Crab-Face, no way no how...
Roland X
In article <51ebvb$g...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Roland X (rol...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : If Hal had died the way Kara or Barry had, it wouldn't be as bad.
>
> Well, let's wait until the end of FINAL NIGHT to pass judgement on how
> Hal dies...
>
What I meant was, if he had died _without_ turning him into a psycho-
nutcase gone postal on the GLC. If he had died without desecrating the
character with 'Emerald Twilight.'
Frankly, if they don't _at least_ give him a proper hero's death in FN #4,
I am OFFICIALLY going to go ballistic...
Roland X
In article <51ec6s$g...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Jack Grimes (lbm...@epix.net) wrote:
> : Tell that to the Peter Parker fans, who are getting *their* hero back
> : pretty soon.
>
> According to whom?
>
According to the editors of the Spider-books. If they're lying, there's
going to be hell to pay.
Scott Hollifield
dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) wrote:
>In article <323B35...@pop.nlci.com>,
>Mark Luebker <mlue...@pop.nlci.com> wrote:
>>Let them know when you don't like something or don't agree with a
>>direction or trend.
>No one is saying "fans shouldn't express their opinion". People are saying
>"harping on a plot development that happened x number of years ago is
>pointless".
How many is x, in this equation? Emerald Twilight wasn't *that* long
ago.
Mike Chary
In article <deyOygen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>
>>You're in my weight class, yes? I suggest we go down to the gym, put on
>>the 16 oz gloves, go 15 rounds and settle this like men (or, if you
>>prefer, like testosterone crazed idiots. :)) What do you say? :)
>
>Come on, I'm going to take on a parademon in hand-to-hand combat?
It's like taking on the red shirts in Star Trek :)
>I may be in your weight class, but about 40 kg of that is fat, Mike.
>I don't do boxing. (15 rounds? I thought only pros did that, and
>amateurs did like three?)
THe IBF does fifteen, the wussies in the WBO and WBC cut back to 12 after
Ray Mancini killed Soo Duk Kim.
>And in the real world you're a professional wrestler? Yeah, sure?
Only for a few months between high school and college
Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <LRgOygen...@panix.com>, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
: >
: >Actually "fan" comes from "fancier", but your etymology is more
: >dramatic and thus more believable. Look it up.
: Just did. American Heritage New College edition. "[short for "Fanatic"]"
In a rather depressing turn of events, the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
agrees with Chary.
Sigh...now I have to get another one. ;-)
Yojimbo
>By doing more than just griping, as someone else pointed out.
>
>Johanna
And what do you think that we should do about this Johanna? I think that
a great disservice has been done to the *readers* (you know, the people
who make it possible for guys like Dooley to get paid for the fun they
have)..., should we start a letter-writing campaign? How about a
petition-drive? Better ye, we can all hold a car-wash in each of out
hometowns to raise money for the "Restore Hal Jordan to Being Green
Lantern"-Movement?
This is the place that we can *constantly* let folks like Mr. Dooley know
that there is a price for such behavior. In the past, they wouldn't have
planned such a bold move were it not for the fact that fan-anger
(fanger?) would cause sales to go through the roof. It was cold,
callous, calculated, and conceived only for that purpose. It is that
reason, as a man of conscience and lover of the artform, that I will
continue to protest until Kev says one little thing...
"I'm sorry"
or
"I was wrong"
or
..whatever.
I don't think that I have to say anymore. I still support DC as a whole,
but I do not buy Dooley-edited books. Even if it is a character that I
like, I will drop the book. Don't get me wrong, I respect any man that
can withstand the ardent fervor in which folks like myself have pursued
the issue when provided the opportunity (like here in this newsgroup), it
takes guts. But just like him, I have to have the courage to continue to
stand my ground in my DISRESPECT for the decision he made for the fate of
one of my favorite characters. If I do not, then given the history that
DC has had with Dooley at the reigns, then there is a good chance that
history would be able to repeat itself.
And if it did, we would all be guilty of complicity.
Yojimbo
Yojimbo
As a long-time Hal-fan, I have no prblem with the thought of him
perishing. Whether in the line of duty, or maybe by giving him a Captain
Mar-Vell and ixnaying him with a dealy disease of some kind. Not only do
I think that this would've been a better story than what they did in
Emerald Twilght, but it would've given the fans (you know, the folks who
pays DC's bills) the chance top mourn their fictional hero, and learn to
grow again with his successor.
But hey! That's just my impression,
Yojimbo
Yojimbo
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>Well, two choices come to mind:
>
>Become really wealthy, buy Time/Warner, and fire Dooley. Maybe out of a
>cannon. :)
>
>Jump into the comic book and throw CFG out of a moving vehicle from a
>high altitude.
>
now don't go giving any of us out here any ideas...
Yojimbo ;)