Is Paul Levitz a cunt?
macbeth
For all those who have intimated that I have been a tad paranoid in
criticising DC's current wave of censorship (Stuart Moore, come on
down...) - I mean W Ellis, I mean K Baker et al - perhaps a comment or
two would be in order on the news that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
no.5 has been delayed *this* time because - wait for it, wait for it -
DC boss Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina' appearing in one of
Alan Moore's fake 'Victorian' ads which appears in the comic.
Now, assuming this story is true...
Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina'. Let me repeat that: he OBJECTS
to the word VAGINA. Is that even credible? What a wanker. What a
pusilanimous, flat-headed, fuck-witted, chickenshit soppy-bollocksed
toerag this man Levitz is! What a fucking asshole. He 'objects' to the
word vagina. How fucking precious is that?
Does he 'object' to vaginas in general? Does he insist his 'wife'
(assuming he has one, assuming he associates with women) uses a douche
each time before sex? Assuming he has ever HAD sex... he reminds me of W
Ruskin, the Victorian art critic, who was reportedly so disgusted at
seeing his new wife's pubic hair on their honeymoon (the only nude women
he'd ever seen were statues - he assumed women didn't have pubes) that
he refused to consumate the marriage.
Paul Levitz... Now we know who's probably responsible for Warren Ellis
quitting Hellblazer, for the Kyle Baker Superboy story being banned from
American eyes... Paul Levitz, one of America's brave new puritans, so
scared of female sexuality, so worried even the notion of it might
infect the American comic buying public, he's willing to pulp a
several-month-late popular comicbook because it contains the word
'vagina'. Jesus fucking Christ.
Paul, vaginas are wonderous things. They can bring their owners, and
their temporary - ahem - 'users' hours of pleasure. Vaginas are
beautiful; the word 'vagina' is beautiful . You however are a cunt.
Meanwhile... also reportedly (from this fortnight's CI) a second series
of League... is planned, James 'Starman' Robinson will be doing the
screenplay of the current series (if we ever see it); Tom Strong is
indeed going bi-monthly (I still predict it will fold); Top Ten is
indeed ending with no.12, with two spin-off minis from the two artists;
(as, ahem, suggested here by yours truly) two new antholgy titles are
planned, one featuring Brit Vertigo regular artists, and changes will be
made in the existing one, Tomorrow Stories, with Rick Veitch's Greyshirt
ending (I just hope Cobweb, the other best story, won't go too).
Big question is, assuming this Paul Levitz Vagina story is true, is Alan
Moore going to be an honest man and tell DC to fuck themselves? He's
made it clear from the beginning he doesn't trust them - now (if this is
true) is the perfect opportunity for him to disasocciate ABC from
Wildstorm at the earliest possible opportunity. For him to continue his
relationship with DC would represent the height of hypocracy and would
in effect be condoning DC's censorship. Time to quit, Al...
SLWalsh
mention is under the brand-name "Marvel."
In article <39149D7E...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk>, macbeth
--
Sean's Comic Library: http://www.mponte.com/sean/
New Gods Library: http://members.tripod.com/fastbak
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Masked Man
<mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
|Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina'. Let me repeat that: he OBJECTS
|to the word VAGINA. Is that even credible? What a wanker. What a
|pusilanimous, flat-headed, fuck-witted, chickenshit soppy-bollocksed
|toerag this man Levitz is! What a fucking asshole. He 'objects' to the
|word vagina. How fucking precious is that?
Masked Man------->Whether Paul Levitz objects to the word vagina is
irrelevant. Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
ever responsible for someone else's money....
--
Who was that masked man?
Cynic
macbeth <mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Oh boy, do I love being vindicated...
>For all those who have intimated that I have been a tad paranoid in
>criticising DC's current wave of censorship (Stuart Moore, come on
>down...) - I mean W Ellis, I mean K Baker et al - perhaps a comment or
>two would be in order on the news that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
>no.5 has been delayed *this* time because - wait for it, wait for it -
>DC boss Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina' appearing in one of
>Alan Moore's fake 'Victorian' ads which appears in the comic.
>Now, assuming this story is true...
>Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina'. Let me repeat that: he OBJECTS
>to the word VAGINA. Is that even credible? What a wanker. What a
>pusilanimous, flat-headed, fuck-witted, chickenshit soppy-bollocksed
>toerag this man Levitz is! What a fucking asshole. He 'objects' to the
>word vagina. How fucking precious is that?
>Does he 'object' to vaginas in general? Does he insist his 'wife'
Michael Alan Chary
association with it.
In article <39149D7E...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk>,
macbeth <mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Does he 'object' to vaginas in general? Does he insist his 'wife'
>(assuming he has one, assuming he associates with women) uses a douche
>each time before sex? Assuming he has ever HAD sex... he reminds me of W
>Ruskin, the Victorian art critic, who was reportedly so disgusted at
>seeing his new wife's pubic hair on their honeymoon (the only nude women
>he'd ever seen were statues - he assumed women didn't have pubes) that
>he refused to consumate the marriage.
>
I thought that was Rabelais?
>Paul, vaginas are wonderous things. They can bring their owners, and
>their temporary - ahem - 'users' hours of pleasure. Vaginas are
>beautiful; the word 'vagina' is beautiful . You however are a cunt.
There's nothing wrong witht he word "cunt" either. It's quite possibly
been an English word longer than "vagina."
--
In memoriam Walter Payton, 1954-1999, the greatest Bear of all time.
"Being the fastest? I wasn't. Being the strongest? I wasn't. Being the biggest?
I wasn't. I had something that nobody else had. I think I was the smartest."
-- Sweetness
Nat Gertler
>
> Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
> will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
> by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
> hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
> as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
> understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
> ever responsible for someone else's money....
Excuse me, but this position you state for Mr. Levitz: is it
actually a position that he's stated, or is it just something
that you made up for him? Because there have been a number of
people inventing motivations for his actions, and those
inventions are not even consistant with each other. To state
such an invention in the form of a fact when it is just a
supposition is improper, irresponsible, and does not add to
the discussion.
Masked Man
|Excuse me, but this position you state for Mr. Levitz: is it
|actually a position that he's stated, or is it just something
|that you made up for him? Because there have been a number of
|people inventing motivations for his actions, and those
|inventions are not even consistant with each other. To state
|such an invention in the form of a fact when it is just a
|supposition is improper, irresponsible, and does not add to
|the discussion.
Masked Man----->I dont know whether he has stated it. And, I never
stated it as a fact. Nevertheless, it is no less outrageous than the
indignation of the previous poster, presented - it would appear as
well - without any reference to Paul Levitz's statements.
I suppose, ultimately, this is "just something
that [I] made up for him", but it is reasonable, based on my
understandings of business, ethics, and responsibility. Certainly, it
is what I would do in his place.
I'll be interested to hear whether Levitz issues a public statement
about his reasons. Each of us might make a mental note to compare
what he says with what is said here, and then talk again.
Cynic
>Masked Man------->Whether Paul Levitz objects to the word vagina is
>irrelevant. Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
>will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
>by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
>hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
>as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
>understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
>ever responsible for someone else's money....
Well said!!
johnny
not a pretty one. Imagine 5 or 10 more years of EC masterpieces. What a
pity!
Gérard Morvan
> >Ruskin, the Victorian art critic, who was reportedly so disgusted at
> >seeing his new wife's pubic hair on their honeymoon (the only nude women
> >he'd ever seen were statues - he assumed women didn't have pubes) that
> >he refused to consumate the marriage.
> >
>
> I thought that was Rabelais?
>
bawdy, so I think he knew what women were like before his wedding. If he
was married, because he was also monk and a priest.
Gérard Morvan
http
Loz Pycock
writing:
,SNIP>
>
>Now, assuming this story is true...
>
The reports I've read all state it was due to an advert for some piece
of sanitary technology that used the word 'vagina' in close connection
with 'Marvel'.
Loz.
"One can't be angry when looking at a penguin." -John Ruskin.
"But I'm too tired to care about it, Can't you see it in my face,
my face? The emphasis is on coping, Can't you see it in my face,
my face?" Blur 'Coping'
Life is a Mobius Strip- Which Side Are You On?
checks@ukgateway.net Steve Block
Loz Pycock <l.p...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:391549e5...@news.virgin.net...
> On Sat, 06 May 2000 22:32:32 +0000, macbeth
> <mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> fell into a symptomless coma after
> writing:
> ,SNIP>
> >
> >Now, assuming this story is true...
> >
> Says it all really doesn't it? Do you have any proof to back this up?
> The reports I've read all state it was due to an advert for some piece
> of sanitary technology that used the word 'vagina' in close connection
> with 'Marvel'.
Ah, you miss the point, Loz. He's ignored that point each time it comes
up. He just wants to call Levitz a cunt. Because then his point will
really get taken seriously by DC, but more to the point, he'll get so many
brownie points from dudes who dig putting the word cunt in subject line.
I get the points for posting to a thread which invokes a fucking good super
hero team book writer and a fucking good body part.
No Levitz is not a cunt. When he kills people because of race colour creed
or ennui, he's a cunt.
And yes, I do fuck myself with a broom stick on a cold day in a larder with
a chimpanzee and a doll watching....
--
<something awe inspiring>
Steve Block
John McMahon
> Says it all really doesn't it? Do you have any proof to back this up?
MacBeth posts once every couple of weeks, usually with slightly out
of date news, phrased in such a way as to attract attention. I
wouldn't be overly arsed about anything he/she has to say about
anything.
J.
--
"From my current vantage point; atop the roof of this towering
monstrosity from which I ply my trade as Dublin's last resident
howling lunatic; it would appear as if I have been overly
cautious....."
http://www.insanerantings.com
Andrew Johnston
@news.mindspring.com>:
>On Sat, 06 May 2000 22:32:32 +0000, macbeth
><mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>|Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina'. Let me repeat that: he OBJECTS
>|to the word VAGINA. Is that even credible? What a wanker. What a
>|pusilanimous, flat-headed, fuck-witted, chickenshit soppy-bollocksed
>|toerag this man Levitz is! What a fucking asshole. He 'objects' to the
>|word vagina. How fucking precious is that?
>
>Masked Man------->Whether Paul Levitz objects to the word vagina is
>irrelevant. Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
>will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
>by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
>hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
>as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
>understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
>ever responsible for someone else's money....
>
Yeah, but TLOEG is a mature readers book, isn't it? Many Vertigo books
feature much harsher/more explicit language than "vagina", which, after
all, is a proper medical term. I'm sorry, but your logic just doesn't hold.
TulgeyWood
to maintain a balanced perspective between commercial and artistic interests,
especially within a difficult corporate environment. You are lucky to have him
there.
Antony J. Shepherd
"Masked Man" <kemo...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:391ca128...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 06 May 2000 22:32:32 +0000, macbeth
> <mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> |Paul Levitz objects to the word 'vagina'. Let me repeat that: he OBJECTS
> |to the word VAGINA. Is that even credible? What a wanker. What a
> |pusilanimous, flat-headed, fuck-witted, chickenshit soppy-bollocksed
> |toerag this man Levitz is! What a fucking asshole. He 'objects' to the
> |word vagina. How fucking precious is that?
>
> Masked Man------->Whether Paul Levitz objects to the word vagina is
> irrelevant. Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
> will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
> by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
> hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
> as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
> understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
> ever responsible for someone else's money....
>
they shouldn't be reading the fucking comic anyway. Sell them fucking Barney
the Dinosaur* comics instead or something equally as childish.
Dop
*I was going to say Teletubbies, but remembered Jerry Falwell..
Marc Charron
ad at all. We're an intelligent bunch, we are. Speaking only for myself, I
find the entire idea of a Victorian vagina washer funny, just like most of
the other old ads which have appeared in the book. Nearly all of the
products 'advertised' in the book are there for a laugh or two - "oh, how
backwards they were, ha ha ha". The Marvel Vagina Cure-All fits in (ahem)
rather nicely with them all. I'm not a prudish idiot, after all, and I know
social commentary when I see it.
On the other hand, I'm Catholic, so thank you, Mr. Levitz! That's another
sin you've protected me from!
macbe...@my-deja.com
Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
> Masked Man wrote:
> >
> > Levitz is afraid some of the people who buy DC Comics
> > will object to the word vagina, and express their collective objection
> > by not buying DC's books. The potential lost income could be in the
> > hundreds of thousands of dollars. Paul Levitz, no doubt, regards this
> > as serious money, and is proceeding cautiously. Those of us who
> > understand his position understand. You may someday, too, if you're
> > ever responsible for someone else's money....
>
> actually a position that he's stated, or is it just something
> that you made up for him? Because there have been a number of
> people inventing motivations for his actions, and those
> inventions are not even consistant with each other. To state
> such an invention in the form of a fact when it is just a
> supposition is improper, irresponsible, and does not add to
> the discussion.
You're not replying to me, I know, but I'll take the liberty of
answering: the rant of mine that started this thread was in reaction to
an article in this week's issue of Comics International in which it
specifically said it was the word 'vagina' which Levitz objects to, not
'Marvel' (if it had been the latter the issue would be changed - I'd
still say he was wrong but I for one wouldn't feel so disgusted by his
actions - it would presumably have been a matter for DC & Marvel's
lawyers).
My insulting of Levitz stands - I was way too kind, in fact. To the guy
who doesn't believe in free speech who wants to get me sued, I suggest
you read up on two recent court cases, one in the UK, one in the US,
concerning free speech on usenet - Americans enjoy a privilege denied to
others, don't abuse it.
My 'position' ascribed to Levitz is simply my opinion, based on (I'm
happy to admit) pseudo psychoanalysis, meant to provoke discussion and
hopefully (although judging by past attempts I think it's a folorn hope),
agreement. Levitz is simply, obviously wrong - IMO. He's intefering in
other people's creative work and the readers' enjoyment of same. The
point about protecting DC's profits is valid but superseded by the
importance of his role as protector of the artists on his payroll. If he
can't do his job he should go. I don't mean to say that he is literally
and factually a pudenda.
There is a further point here: this is at least the third time this has,
or appears to have, happened at DC. Why?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
macbe...@my-deja.com
mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> Actually I think he probably objected more to the notion of "Marvel" in
> association with it.
>
> In article <39149D7E...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk>,
> macbeth <mac...@glenmist.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Does he 'object' to vaginas in general? Does he insist his 'wife'
> >(assuming he has one, assuming he associates with women) uses a douche
> >Ruskin, the Victorian art critic, who was reportedly so disgusted at
> >seeing his new wife's pubic hair on their honeymoon (the only nude women
> >he'd ever seen were statues - he assumed women didn't have pubes) that
> >he refused to consumate the marriage.
> >
>
> I thought that was Rabelais?
No, definitely Ruskin - at least, thjat's the story. Possibly invented by
his enemies. 'course could also be true of Rabelais (bit ironic
considering what he wrote).
>
> >Paul, vaginas are wonderous things. They can bring their owners, and
> >their temporary - ahem - 'users' hours of pleasure. Vaginas are
> >beautiful; the word 'vagina' is beautiful . You however are a cunt.
>
> There's nothing wrong witht he word "cunt" either. It's quite possibly
> been an English word longer than "vagina."
>
> --
This is true. Cunt is also a beautiful word - and wasn't a swear word til
recently. Also, it's meaning is different in the UK vis-a-vis the US.
Appiclable to men not women for one thing and not as 'strong'...
macbe...@my-deja.com
> writing:
> ,SNIP>
> >
> >Now, assuming this story is true...
> >
er... yes. I wouldn't post without that caveat now, would I?
> Do you have any proof to back this up?
No. I read a report, presumably like you. Presumably like you I don't
assume it's 'true'. Hence the caveat.
> The reports I've read all state it was due to an advert for some piece
> of sanitary technology that used the word 'vagina' in close connection
> with 'Marvel'.
Fair enough. Perhaps that's nearer the mark/. How much difference do you
think it makes? I'm making two points: first, Levitz (presumably never
having created anything in his life. Presumably...(?)) should be VERY
careful in intefering with other peoples' creations (he pulped this thing
remember) - in this case, in either case, he should've left well alone -
IMO. Second, objection to the word vagina - from anyone - is so
incredible, so laughably prurient, so pathetic - IMO - that it could only
warrent the kind of insulting rant I let off the other night. Whether
Levitz is 'protecting' his readers, himself, Marvel or whoever else you
think he might be 'protecting' doesn't really matter.
As usual, the number of people here who agree seems to be outweighed by
the number who would like me to drop dead. Cheers. There was a time -
very recently - when publishers went to prison in the UK (and the US?)
for the right to publish the, er... vaginal equivalent. As ever it comes
down to a straight debate. Who's side are you on?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> the rant of mine that started this thread was in reaction to
> an article in this week's issue of Comics International in which it
> specifically said it was the word 'vagina' which Levitz objects to, not
> 'Marvel'
I'd be very interested in knowing a source on that; my opinion is that it is
more likely that Mr. Levitz was upholding a certain level of professionalism
(don't insult your competitor needlessly, especially when in another dispute
with them) than that he was concerned about a lawsuit or inappropriate
language. Did someone talk to Mr. Levitz?
> Levitz is simply, obviously wrong - IMO. He's intefering in
> other people's creative work and the readers' enjoyment of same.
He's protecting his company and doing what he thinks is right. I don't think
it's as simple or obvious as you do. ("Interfering in other people's
creative work" is part of editing and working for one of the Big Two.) Do
you really think that the readers are going to enjoy the book less with a
different old ad?
> There is a further point here: this is at least the third time this has,
> or appears to have, happened at DC. Why?
Fifth, at least, although not all were because of creative content; some
were because of inappropriate advertising (real, not archival).
My guess would be that it happens because those involved in approving
material along the way may not share their boss' sensibilities exactly
(which is understandable).
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
indy Magazine Contributing Writer -- http://www.indymagazine.com
Comicology Contributing Editor and Writer of Ask Answer Lass!
Marc Singer
>
>Fair enough. Perhaps that's nearer the mark/. How much difference do you
>think it makes? I'm making two points: first, Levitz (presumably never
>having created anything in his life. Presumably...(?))
If you're going to keep making these "hard-hitting" critiques about the
industry, you need to do your homework. Paul Levitz was a creator long,
long before he was in management. He wrote several DC comics in the 70s
and he did a long run on LSH in the 80s that most fans still consider its
peak. Not exactly daring stuff, but he has created quite a bit.
I'm not a big fan of his job as publisher (Dick Giordano--another former
creator--was sooooo much cooler as Executive VP) and I'm definitely not a
fan of his tendencies towards censorship (which goes back a lot further
than this past year). But if you're going to make these sweeping claims
about him without bothering to check up on them, it only makes you look
like a jackass.
>As usual, the number of people here who agree seems to be outweighed by
>the number who would like me to drop dead. Cheers. There was a time -
>very recently - when publishers went to prison in the UK (and the US?)
>for the right to publish the, er... vaginal equivalent. As ever it comes
>down to a straight debate. Who's side are you on?
Sorry, you don't get to paraphrase The Invisibles just to justify typing a
post with "cunt" in the subject line. Which, as far as I can tell, seems
to be the main attraction for you. Thanks for turning an important
freedom of speech issue into a juvenile exercise in profanity.
Marc
anders.g...@c2i.net
checks@ukgateway.net Steve Block
<macbe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f6608$p7p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You're not replying to me, I know, but I'll take the liberty of
> an article in this week's issue of Comics International in which it
> specifically said it was the word 'vagina' which Levitz objects to, not
> 'Marvel'
Ermmm...
Article says...
DC publisher Paul Levitz has ordered the issue to be pulped. This action
follows objections to the issue's reproduction of a Victorian advertisement
for the Marvel Douche Company that contains the word "vagina".
So, it never states who objected, your first misrepresentation. You don't
know if it was Paul Levitz. Second, nowhere does it state specifically
that it was the word vagina that was objected too. All this is your own
inferrance. And it's all wrong. You sir, are a cunt.
> My 'position' ascribed to Levitz is simply my opinion, based on (I'm
> happy to admit) pseudo psychoanalysis, meant to provoke discussion and
> hopefully (although judging by past attempts I think it's a folorn hope),
> agreement.
It's also misrepresentation and wrong, in the loosest sense of the idea of
truth.
>Levitz is simply, obviously wrong - IMO.
Whereas you are plain wrong.
>He's intefering in
> other people's creative work and the readers' enjoyment of same.
You're besmirching a man's name based on the loosest of evidence.
> The
> point about protecting DC's profits is valid but superseded by the
> importance of his role as protector of the artists on his payroll.
Says who? Surely Paul Levitz is the only one qualified to decide what
supersedes what. He's the one who carries the can if he's wrong. You
stick to living your own life and let Paul Levitz live his own life.
> If he
> can't do his job he should go. I don't mean to say that he is literally
> and factually a pudenda.
BACKTRACK!
> There is a further point here: this is at least the third time this has,
> or appears to have, happened at DC. Why?
Erm, because artists like to push boundaries, but unfortunately large
corporations don't? Until artists can produce their own work without
relying on large corporations, this sort of thing will continue to happen.
Let's get an expert witness in here...
Grant Morrison talking about the changes DC made to his Invisibles
storyline...
"And I'm not happy about the changes made to the Marquis de Sade story, but
I chose to publish THE INVISIBLES through Vertigo because I like the
editorial staff, I like being paid for my work and I like reaching a much
wider audience than I would if this were a small press or self-published
venture. The trade-off against that is that I'm bound by the rules and
regulations that govern what is and what is not acceptable to a mainstream
comics publisher. I knew that when I went into the deal, and, in the case
of INVISIBLES #7, I decided that a little compromise was worth it to get
the story out to a mainstream audience. Those of us who have elected to
work with big companies as opposed to the small press can only push at the
barriers. I don't think we can be expected to represent the cutting edge
of comics. Let's face it, even the best of the mainstream "mature" books
are simply glorified super-hero comics. That's okay - I'm very fond of
super-heroes and I like to see them with a little wit and intelligence.
Having said that, you can now read the word "fuck" in a mainstream comic,
and who knows what walls may yet come tumbling down in the future?"
Nat Gertler
>
> You're not replying to me, I know, but I'll take the liberty of
> answering: the rant of mine that started this thread was in reaction to
> an article in this week's issue of Comics International in which it
> specifically said it was the word 'vagina' which Levitz objects to, not
> 'Marvel'
And their source was...?
> Levitz is simply, obviously wrong - IMO. He's intefering in
> other people's creative work and the readers' enjoyment of same.
So a publisher is supposed to publish anything that anyone
wants him to? Or is he supposed to make decisions about what
he publishes?
> The
> point about protecting DC's profits is valid but superseded by the
> importance of his role as protector of the artists on his payroll.
Who? Neither Moore nor O'Neill are on DC's payroll for this project.
> There is a further point here: this is at least the third time this has,
> or appears to have, happened at DC. Why?
It is more than the third time that this has happened at DC. The issue
of Mad got pulped because it did not properly attribute the mag's
founder... sure doesn't sound like an anti-creator action to me. An
issue of a Helix book got pulped *twice*, once because it was missing
an appropriate text page, once because the pages were printed out
of order.
colin irving
<anders.g...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:3916ca7d...@news.online.no...
> I don't know why, but the word "cunt" is somewhat intriguing... ;)
Gradeschoolers shouldn't be on usenet.
Qusoor
have objected to the advertisement and have it cleanly and, more
inmportantly cheaply, replaced before the comic was printed. But
instead, he had the run pulped. According to newsnet gossip,
that's about $30,000 down the drain, because of a lack of
foresight.
Perhaps Mr. Levitz should put in writing that the word "vagina"
(LOEG) and "cunt" (Hellblazer) are banned, as is putting children
in microwaves. Instead, he continues to cost the company money
in a business that really can't afford that kind of loss. But
I'm sure that he's a busy man, and that his salary is actually
significantly more than a piddling $30K a year. . .
eternally
Qusoor wrote:
> Actually, I worry about this trend. After all, Mr. Levitz could
> have objected to the advertisement and have it cleanly and, more
> inmportantly cheaply, replaced before the comic was printed. But
> instead, he had the run pulped. According to newsnet gossip,
> that's about $30,000 down the drain, because of a lack of
> foresight.
> Perhaps Mr. Levitz should put in writing that the word "vagina"
> (LOEG) and "cunt" (Hellblazer) are banned, as is putting children
> in microwaves. Instead, he continues to cost the company money
> in a business that really can't afford that kind of loss. But
> I'm sure that he's a busy man, and that his salary is actually
> significantly more than a piddling $30K a year. . .
you are correct, this is the real issue, regardless of how one
feels about Levitz's "censorship".
-= e.
Loz Pycock
symptomless coma after writing:
<SNIP>
>Fair enough. Perhaps that's nearer the mark/. How much difference do you
>think it makes? I'm making two points: first, Levitz (presumably never
>having created anything in his life. Presumably...(?))
What, those who can do, those who can't edit?
>should be VERY
>careful in intefering with other peoples' creations (he pulped this thing
>remember) - in this case, in either case, he should've left well alone -
>IMO. Second, objection to the word vagina - from anyone - is so
>incredible, so laughably prurient, so pathetic - IMO - that it could only
>warrent the kind of insulting rant I let off the other night. Whether
>Levitz is 'protecting' his readers, himself, Marvel or whoever else you
>think he might be 'protecting' doesn't really matter.
>
>As usual, the number of people here who agree seems to be outweighed by
>the number who would like me to drop dead. Cheers. There was a time -
>very recently - when publishers went to prison in the UK (and the US?)
>for the right to publish the, er... vaginal equivalent. As ever it comes
>down to a straight debate. Who's side are you on?
>
Oh I get it, so I'd be some horrible Nazi if I objected to your
repeated description of Levitz as a 'cunt'?
John McMahon
> symptomless coma after writing:
> Who's side are you on?
Hmmm....the mad pulping editor or the drama queen. Tough choice this
one.
Nat Gertler
>
> Oh boy, do I love being vindicated...
And, of course, you haven't been. Your whole tirade based
around Levitz's editing the word "vagina" out of League Of
Extraordinary Gentlemen is based on a falsehood. "Vaginal"
(the word that was always in the ad) is still there in
the copies sold at comic stores today.
Are we going to see an apology to Mr. Levitz from you?
The Man with No Serotonin
>
> macbeth wrote:
> >
> > Oh boy, do I love being vindicated...
>
> And, of course, you haven't been. Your whole tirade based
> around Levitz's editing the word "vagina" out of League Of
> Extraordinary Gentlemen is based on a falsehood. "Vaginal"
> (the word that was always in the ad) is still there in
> the copies sold at comic stores today.
But not the word Marvel. Anyway, how dare you clutter up this discussion
with facts?
John Hogan
Biddle Law Library/AFSCME Local 590
Loz Pycock
<jho...@law.upenn.edu> fell into a symptomless coma after writing:
"You can prove anything with facts."
TMWR(NJ)
Echo Mute
>macbeth wrote:
>>
>> Oh boy, do I love being vindicated...
>And, of course, you haven't been. Your whole tirade based
>around Levitz's editing the word "vagina" out of League Of
>Extraordinary Gentlemen is based on a falsehood. "Vaginal"
>(the word that was always in the ad) is still there in
>the copies sold at comic stores today.
Yeah, but the confusion over which word was the problem came from
Alan Moore's original statement. It's not like Dunky just made it up
here...
>Are we going to see an apology to Mr. Levitz from you?
You just want him to concede that copyright argument from last year!
;)
-Mute.
______________________
Not going to Newcastle tonight either, but I never was...
macbe...@my-deja.com
John McMahon <jmcm...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 May 2000 11:50:28 GMT, macbe...@my-deja.com fell into
a
> > symptomless coma after writing:
>
>
> Hmmm....the mad pulping editor or the drama queen. Tough choice this
> one.
>
me then - yeah, that'd do it. Among other things...
So League... is out and Alan Moore's vagina can be seen by a grateful
comic-buying public after all. My story was wrong, sort of - at least,
it seems it was the connection of Marvel and vagina that wasn't to
someone somewhere's taste, and no reason to think Paul Levitz was
exclusively, or even mainly - maybe not even partly - to blame (he just
put his name to the press release announcing the pulping of the comic,
and so, in my book, has to be prepared to take a share of the abuse - or
the acclaim. About which more later...), that which shifts instead to -
where? Fuck knows. That's the trouble... Instead of some hirtheto
nameless suit in the DC offices set up to be given a right old kicking
for (apparantly) taking the American public at the estimation of its
(very, very small) 'moral' minority, it turns out, not for the first
time, that a flock of lawyers hovering somewhere between the Marvel and
DC buildings is the real culprit, anticipating (rightly as I didn't
believe would be so, but as at least two replies to my original post
proved) that yeah, somewhere out there some people really *do* object to
the word for female genitilia appearing in a comicbook, that there
really *are* people whose first reaction on seeing something that upsets
their sense of propriety - and not themselves having anything as
grown-up as an opinion - call for teacher when the big boys start
shouting at them. Or rather, call for the lawyers.
To the first of these: it wasn't DC this time, so this is moot, but if
it *had* been, the logical endpoint, once certain normal, everyday words
- once a certain sense of humour (one involving, say, babies in a
microwave); once a certain kind of social commentary-within-a-story
(involving, say, guns) - have been proscribed, then what we *really*
have in operation is a new Comics Code. And we know what that means,
don't we? Or what it meant - and what DC's record was *that* time
around. (A certain Spain Rodriguez sketch of some flesh-dripping zombie,
fresh from the Crypt, throttling the good Dr Wertham while screaming at
him, "You rotten fleck of PUKE" was what I had in mind when I started
this thing.)
[Anyway, what I *did* get wrong was my guess at Mr Levitz's sex life. In
fact, so I've been led to believe, the guy is a fucking rhinoceros.
Turns out, he's one of those guys, you're standing next to him in a
urinal, trying not to, y'know, *look*... Until you've finished, and now
you look and he's still unrolling a fucking baby elephant's trunk out of
his flies! Tennessee Williams had nothing on Paul Levitz - we're talking
a chimp's arm with a fucking banana here. And with almost pretanatural
stamina. As for his missus... Turns out she's one of those ladies, you
only need to pass her in the street and you're immediately jack-knifed
over the nearest car nursing three normal guys' hard-ons.... No, these
two are lucky, lucky beautiful people. And I said everything I said out
of sheer envy.]
There are 48 posts in this thread - never let it be said I don't give
you guys something to do.
One last thing, about the comic: Is Captain Nemo is Sherlock Holmes, or
what?
Andrew Ducker
>One last thing, about the comic: Is Captain Nemo is Sherlock Holmes, or
>what?
Is that Is grammatically incorrect, or what?
Andy D
macbe...@my-deja.com
Andrew Ducker
>In article <8F32A454EAndr...@192.168.0.10>,
> And...@ducker.org.uk (Andrew Ducker) wrote:
>> macbe...@my-deja.com wrote in <8fh6an$2hn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>> >One last thing, about the comic: Is Captain Nemo is Sherlock Holmes,
>or
>> >what?
>>
>> Is that Is grammatically incorrect, or what?
>>
>Is what you is suggesting, is exactly or what is
Is Wondering is if you are using a new language are, or are just making
mistake are in typing.
Andy D
Sk8Maven
> This is true. Cunt is also a beautiful word - and wasn't a swear word til
> recently.
Not true. Shakespeare tweaked the censors of his own time with sly
allusions to it ("country matters", Hamlet; "These be her very C's, her
U's, and(N) her T's", Twelfth Night). He also knew the French equivalent
(as he did of the F-word) and worked them into Henry V (the "English
lesson").
> Also, it's meaning is different in the UK vis-a-vis the US.
> Appiclable to men not women for one thing and not as 'strong'...
That *is* recently.
Maven
king...@my-deja.com
Seventy odd postings on this subject and I still don't know if Paul
Levitz is a cunt or not!
Mike & Carole
My name is Mike Curtis, and I am the publisher of SHANDA FANTASY ARTS, with
14 titles.
Our circulation is nowhere near DC's, yet when I called Mr.. Levitz out of
the blue recently on a legal matter, he immediately came and answered my
question.
He is not a ####.
Mike
Pedro Dias
: My name is Mike Curtis, and I am the publisher of SHANDA FANTASY ARTS, with
: 14 titles.
Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
clearly trivial concern.
Carl Fink
>Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
>clearly trivial concern.
Marvel is historically litigious, and as an officer of a
publicly-traded company (or rather a subsidiary of such) Levitz is
*legally obligated* to watch over the shareholders' interest in this
kind of matter, you know. In my (corporate manager's) opinion his
decision was quite obviously correct.
Now, a strong case can be made that someone at DC should have caught
the problem long before the comic was printed, so it wouldn't have to
be pulped, but that's a separate matter and I'd be surprised if DC
wasn't even now conducting "How not to get sued" seminars for its
editors. The root cause of the problem is likely the absurdly low
pay for comics editors these days, making it hard to retain good
people.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Omarichu
>clearly trivial concern.
Defending the calling of him as a cunt is indefensible and exposes your own
inequities as a human being. Fuck off.
Loz Pycock
symptomless coma after writing:
>>Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
Play nicely now or I'll bang three times on the floor and summon the
'Floating Head of Death' (TM)
CHRSBRCH
>Mike & Carole (shan...@cyberback.com) wrote:
>: My name is Mike Curtis, and I am the publisher of SHANDA FANTASY ARTS, with
>: 14 titles.
>: Our circulation is nowhere near DC's, yet when I called Mr.. Levitz out of
>: the blue recently on a legal matter, he immediately came and answered my
>: question.
>: He is not a ####.
>Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
>clearly trivial concern.
And an even more fucked up decision on the Elseworlds giant, over an
even more ridiculously trivial concern.
-Mute.
______________________
really putting something useful here soon
Doc Vacation
l.p...@virgin.net (Loz Pycock) wrote:
> On 29 May 2000 03:38:41 GMT, omar...@aol.com (Omarichu) fell into a
> symptomless coma after writing:
>
over a
> >>clearly trivial concern.
> >
your own
> >inequities as a human being. Fuck off.
>
> Play nicely now or I'll bang three times on the floor and summon the
> 'Floating Head of Death' (TM)
>
Ah, boys will be boys. Foul language will be foul language. And totally
obvious and useless comments will be.....
--
docva...@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/a_brief_life
"He's riding the Synchronicity Freeway, and so everything just
falls in place; Time, Movement, even Distance just sit up and
beg for him. You're having an adventure, kiddo. If you
survive it, it'll be fun."
Pedro Dias
: On 29 May 2000 02:29:50 GMT Pedro Dias <pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
: >clearly trivial concern.
: Marvel is historically litigious, and as an officer of a
: publicly-traded company (or rather a subsidiary of such) Levitz is
: *legally obligated* to watch over the shareholders' interest in this
: kind of matter, you know. In my (corporate manager's) opinion his
: decision was quite obviously correct.
: Now, a strong case can be made that someone at DC should have caught
: the problem long before the comic was printed, so it wouldn't have to
: be pulped, but that's a separate matter and I'd be surprised if DC
: wasn't even now conducting "How not to get sued" seminars for its
: editors. The root cause of the problem is likely the absurdly low
: pay for comics editors these days, making it hard to retain good
: people.
: --
No. I have enough law under my belt to know this would be a non-issue in
any court of law. The suit would not go beyond the first motion to
dismiss. How the heck would Marvel establish harm? It's a *real*
pre-existing ad, for Pete's sake.
Pedro Dias
: >Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
: >clearly trivial concern.
: Defending the calling of him as a cunt is indefensible and exposes your own
: inequities as a human being. Fuck off.
No, you small little pond bacterium. I agreed with the poster who defended
Levitz, but then pointed out that that still left us with the problem of
addressing his actions. Maybe trying a remedial reading class, you think?
Might help.
Also: "inequities"? Did you perhaps mean inadequacies? E-mail me if you
need writing help. Wouldn't want you to continue looking the fool in a
public forum. Together we can do better.
Pedro Dias
: pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Pedro Dias) hammered on a keyboard thus:
: >Mike & Carole (shan...@cyberback.com) wrote:
: >: My name is Mike Curtis, and I am the publisher of SHANDA FANTASY ARTS, with
: >: 14 titles.
: >: Our circulation is nowhere near DC's, yet when I called Mr.. Levitz out of
: >: the blue recently on a legal matter, he immediately came and answered my
: >: question.
: >: He is not a ####.
: >Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
: >clearly trivial concern.
: And an even more fucked up decision on the Elseworlds giant, over an
: even more ridiculously trivial concern.
To be fair, the concern was less trivial. Although finally the decision
was far more... questionable, I agree.
: -Mute.
Carl Fink
>
>No. I have enough law under my belt to know this would be a non-issue in
>any court of law. The suit would not go beyond the first motion to
>dismiss. How the heck would Marvel establish harm? It's a *real*
>pre-existing ad, for Pete's sake.
You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
still be a useless expense.
Pedro Dias
: On 29 May 2000 13:22:30 GMT Pedro Dias <pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >
: >No. I have enough law under my belt to know this would be a non-issue in
: >any court of law. The suit would not go beyond the first motion to
: >dismiss. How the heck would Marvel establish harm? It's a *real*
: >pre-existing ad, for Pete's sake.
: You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
: infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
: still be a useless expense.
You're right. I did not even for the remotest moment consider copyright
infringement. Since there is no attempt to sell anything by using and
exploiting the Marvel name, since there is no infringement on Marvel's
ability to retain sole usage of "Marvel" in the sale or marketing of comic
books, since the material printed was an actual, pre-existing use of the
word "Marvel", since...
It's *possible* to make a case for either. In both instances they are so
weak that an attorney carved out of a chunk of hickory should be easily
able to scuttle the suit. Levitz is not reacting to a reasonable fear, and
I cannot believe he's acting on advice of counsel. If he is, the lawyer
involved needs to take some Prozac. After he/she's been fired, that is.
My best guess, lacking any actual information, is that this is either a
layman's assessment of the law involved, or Levitz exercising his own
taste. Either is badly out of place. Of course, I could be wrong, but I
honestly don't think so.
Kevin J. Maroney
>You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
>infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
>still be a useless expense.
A trademark infringement suit would be frivilous on its face, and DC
could end the case by threatening a countersuit for frivilous
litigation. _League_ #5 didn't use the word "Marvel" in any way as a
trademark, and no lawyer could be convinced to the contrary.
--
Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Paul O'Brien
<ca...@panix.com> writes
>
>You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
>infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
>still be a useless expense.
I can't see how it would even be a stateable case, to be honest.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Flowers: the practical alternative to capitalism, apparently.
garj...@spamlessmadasafish.com
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9FDn8sA6...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In article <slrn8j4tsq...@home.nitpicking.com>, Carl Fink
> <ca...@panix.com> writes
> >
> >You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
> >infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
> >still be a useless expense.
>
> I can't see how it would even be a stateable case, to be honest.
Neither was the Marvelman/Miracleman case when Marvelman was invented long
before Marvel Comics started trading under that name, same with Captain
Marvel for that matter. The point being that these cases are so expensive
and time consuming that people are willing to avoid them at all costs. Pull
an advert or spend months in court and most would choose the former.
--
Cheers Drive!
Gareth
Paul O'Brien
ish.com writes
>
>Neither was the Marvelman/Miracleman case when Marvelman was invented long
>before Marvel Comics started trading under that name, same with Captain
>Marvel for that matter.
I can see those at least being stateable, to be honest, since the
previous user of the name had let it drift into disuse.
Nat Gertler
>
> Neither was the Marvelman/Miracleman case when Marvelman was invented long
> before Marvel Comics started trading under that name, same with Captain
> Marvel for that matter.
No, those are quite valid cases. We're dealing with trademark.
Marvel did not to my knowledge complain about there being a
character named "Marvelsomething"; they complained about there
being a *comic* going by that name, and thus trade was being
done using one of their trademarks in a market that the
trademark covered.
garj...@spamlessmadasafish.com
Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote in message
news:3932EE5F...@gertler.com...
Ok. I can't say that I'm a great expert on US trademark law, 'back of a
stamp' is the term I think. I suppose I just consider it natural justice
that someone who invented it years earlier should have the upper hand.
Anyway I still think the point stands that they'd much rather just cut the
advert than go through endless litigation regardless of who would win in the
end.
--
Cheers Drive!
Gareth
Pedro Dias
: Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote in message
: news:3932EE5F...@gertler.com...
: > garj...@spamlessmadasafish.com wrote:
: > >
:>> Neither was the Marvelman/Miracleman case when Marvelman was invented long
:>> before MarvelComics started trading under that name, same with Captain
:>> Marvel for that matter.
: >
: > No, those are quite valid cases. We're dealing with trademark.
: > Marvel did not to my knowledge complain about there being a
: > character named "Marvelsomething"; they complained about there
: > being a *comic* going by that name, and thus trade was being
: > done using one of their trademarks in a market that the
: > trademark covered.
: Ok. I can't say that I'm a great expert on US trademark law, 'back of a
: stamp' is the term I think. I suppose I just consider it natural justice
: that someone who invented it years earlier should have the upper hand.
: Anyway I still think the point stands that they'd much rather just cut the
: advert than go through endless litigation regardless of who would win in the
: end.
: --
See, that's the thing, there wouldn't have been much litigation. I know
the world thinks the US has an insane legal system, but a suit with no
demonstrable merit has a *very* short lifespan.
Andrew Ducker
<sj5sb1l...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Ok. I can't say that I'm a great expert on US trademark law, 'back of a
>stamp' is the term I think. I suppose I just consider it natural justice
>that someone who invented it years earlier should have the upper hand.
If you think that US law has anything to do with 'natural justice' then you
really don't know much about US trademark law.
Andy D
checks@ukgateway.net Steve Block
Pedro Dias <pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:8gu0on$qmk$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> My best guess, lacking any actual information, is that this is
either a
> layman's assessment of the law involved, or Levitz exercising his
own
> taste. Either is badly out of place. Of course, I could be wrong,
but I
> honestly don't think so.
Ummm, where on earth do you get the idea it was Levitz that objected?
Where on earth do you get the idea that it is *all* Levitz's fault?
Could we have some actual thinking here and not knee jerk reaction.
Talk me through the thought processes and what evidence you are basing
this idea that Levitz is the man who objected to the ad. I like the
idea that this is your best guess, you lack any information, and yet
you doubt you are wrong. My whole reading of the pulping thing is
that someone objected. At that point, Levitz would most likely take
advice, after all the guy knows his job better than you and is
probably smarter than you give him credit, and upon advisement decided
on the best course of action. That seems the most natural reading of
the evidence we have. We don't even know if this came from higher
than Levitz...
--
<something awe inspiring>
Steve Block
garj...@spamlessmadasafish.com
Andrew Ducker <And...@ducker.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8F445093BAndr...@192.168.0.10...
Maybe 'back of a stamp' was overstating the case a little:o)
--
Cheers Drive!
Gareth
Pedro Dias
: Pedro Dias <pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
: news:8gu0on$qmk$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Well. I thought we did drib and drab enough of the thinking to make it
self-evident, but on the outside chance you are not being disingenuous,
here goes:
We know the pulping did not revolve around anyone in the DC production
process (ie any editorial position or below) because those individuals
would have been involved *before* the actual printing;
Beyond this point, there are three categories of people: money, law and
executive. I know law, I can tell you that ain't it, barring grievous
incompetence. The pulping cost money, so unless there is an overriding
cost concern, it ain't the bean counters; that leaves the executives, and
that amounts to Levitz, give or take a yes man or two. I doubt there is
anyone above Levitz that would have any imput in that pickayune a
situation, but if you have knowledge indicating otherwise, let's have it.
In fact, if you have any knowledge of any kind about anything, please do
share it.
As for Levitz being smarter than the average geological formation, I'd say
we lack evidence on it. At this point, that is.
colin irving
> You're thinking of a defamation suit, I'm talking trademark
> infringement. Yeah, I think Marvel would lose, but the suit would
> still be a useless expense.
Which Marvel can't afford right now anyway...
Brandon Alspaugh
> >Point. He *still* made a tremendously f*****-up decision re: LOEG, over a
> >clearly trivial concern.
>
> Marvel is historically litigious, and as an officer of a
> publicly-traded company (or rather a subsidiary of such) Levitz is
> *legally obligated* to watch over the shareholders' interest in this
> kind of matter, you know. In my (corporate manager's) opinion his
> decision was quite obviously correct.
Or, he might have, perhaps, specifically asked Marvel if they had any problem
with the ad. I doubt Marvel would have particularly cared, especially since it
was an authentic advertisement at one point. I further doubt Marvel would want
to agitate Moore further...if they're lucky, he might write something for them
again before 2015.
I think there are several solutions that would have been wiser (and more
cost-effective) than pulping LOEG #5, not only delaying its release, but causing
a huge media stink and painting Levitz and DC Home Office in a very negative
light. He has a responsibility to his company's image as well, and as a manager
in that company, a responsibility to his own personal image. This episode
certainly did nothing to help either.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Or, he might have, perhaps, specifically asked Marvel if they had any problem
> with the ad. I doubt Marvel would have particularly cared, especially since it
> was an authentic advertisement at one point.
You might be surprised, given that there's existing legal trouble between
the companies.
> I think there are several solutions that would have been wiser (and more
> cost-effective) than pulping LOEG #5, not only delaying its release,
Please. The book was how many months late at that point? One week to reprint
was no big deal.
> causing a huge media stink
Only within comics, not among the general public.
> and painting Levitz and DC Home Office in a very negative light.
Not taking cheap shots at your main competitor showed that he's concerned
with professionalism, which is generally seen as a positive thing.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: Bearskin, Cultural Jet Lag, reviews of Avengers, Ben
Grimm & Logan, Marvel Knights, Boswash, Legion Lost.
Brandon Alspaugh
>
> > Or, he might have, perhaps, specifically asked Marvel if they had any problem
> > with the ad. I doubt Marvel would have particularly cared, especially since it
> > was an authentic advertisement at one point.
>
> You might be surprised, given that there's existing legal trouble between
> the companies.
I suppose it's a non-issue regardless, and anybody can "would have" themself to
death with it.
> > I think there are several solutions that would have been wiser (and more
> > cost-effective) than pulping LOEG #5, not only delaying its release,
>
> Please. The book was how many months late at that point? One week to reprint
> was no big deal.
That was rather the point...taking a book that's already late and then furthering
its lateness reflects badly on all involved: DC, Wildstorm, and Moore. Your logic
would seem to lend to the making a sundial from a donut and a pencil analogy: "Oh,
stop whining...one more bite out of the donut isn't going to hurt."
> > causing a huge media stink
>
> Only within comics, not among the general public.
Er, well...despite some subsidaries (Mad and the like) DC *is* in the comics
business, isn't it?
> > and painting Levitz and DC Home Office in a very negative light.
>
> Not taking cheap shots at your main competitor showed that he's concerned
> with professionalism, which is generally seen as a positive thing.
Perhaps, but, even if it's not the case, coming off as "Mad Pulper" Levitz damages
his public image, and indirectly then damages DCs. I think that Levitz lost more PR
points than he gained with this unfortunate episode, and that's the point I am
trying to make.
Kill All Muties
>> > I think there are several solutions that would have been wiser (and more
>> > cost-effective) than pulping LOEG #5, not only delaying its release,
>>
>> Please. The book was how many months late at that point? One week to reprint
>> was no big deal.
>That was rather the point...taking a book that's already late and then furthering
>its lateness reflects badly on all involved: DC, Wildstorm, and Moore.
How does it reflect badly on Moore?
-Mute.
______________________
"There are too many idiots walking abroad pretending to be real people."
-Eddie Campbell
Brandon Alspaugh
> >That was rather the point...taking a book that's already late and then furthering
> >its lateness reflects badly on all involved: DC, Wildstorm, and Moore.
>
> How does it reflect badly on Moore?
Er...because the majority of the reading public doesn't keep current on comic news,
all they're going to see is Alan Moore's name on the credits and a whole lot of empty
racks where his books are supposed to be. The greater the delay, not only is their
greater agitation, but a greater chance that many people will forget about the book
entirely, and take their business elsewhere.
john rieber
i'm going to be so happy when this goddamn thread goes away. or acquires
a title more reflective of its content.
it may be old-fashioned of me to say so, but--
we really don't have that many truly incendiary fighting words left in the
language.
so please--do your part to protect this irreplaceable part of our cultural
heritage.
save 'cunt' for those special moments when the person you're talking about
is *there*.
peace on earth and elsewhere,
john
Kill All Muties
>> >That was rather the point...taking a book that's already late and then furthering
>> >its lateness reflects badly on all involved: DC, Wildstorm, and Moore.
>>
>> How does it reflect badly on Moore?
>Er...because the majority of the reading public doesn't keep current on comic news,
>all they're going to see is Alan Moore's name on the credits
Why wouldn't they see Kevin O'Neill's?
> and a whole lot of empty
>racks where his books are supposed to be.
Why wouldn't the retailers put other comics on the racks?
> The greater the delay, not only is their
>greater agitation, but a greater chance that many people will forget about the book
>entirely, and take their business elsewhere.
If the comic isn't on the racks, how will they see Alan Moore's
name in the credits?
Kill All Muties
>Kill All Muties wrote:
>> Brandon Alspaugh <bgb...@bellsouth.net> tippy-tapped this text:
>>
>> >Kill All Muties wrote:
>>
>> >> Brandon Alspaugh <bgb...@bellsouth.com> tippy-tapped this text:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Er...because the majority of the reading public doesn't keep current on comic news,
>> >> >all they're going to see is Alan Moore's name on the credits
>> >>
>> >> Why wouldn't they see Kevin O'Neill's?
>>
>> >I'm going to assume you're being intentionally petulant and not bother to point out that
>> >Moore was used as a *generalization*, and of course, they'd see the entire creative team,
>> >right down to the guy who lettered it all.
>>
>> I was specifically mentioning O'Neill, actually, because it was him
>> who was responsible for the ad that got the comic pulped, as well as
>> being the one who took a very long time (for various reasons) to get
>> the thing drawn in the first place.
>...which those who don't keep current on comic book news would not know, which was the topic
>of this sub-thread. Very strange paralogia. Not that it in any way resembles the original
>premise: that Paul Levitz could have possibly found a less dramatic means of getting around
>the problem of the original LOEG 5, and avoiding the delay and bad PR that followed.
Yeah. What a cunt.