- Bendis on Wanda summoning Simon under Busiek...
Jon J. Yeager
Some readers of "House of M" #1 might have been puzzled at the quiet
reactions of characters like Wonder Man and the Beast when The Avengers and
X-Men were discussing whether The Scarlet Witch should be killed or could be
treated. "Basically, here's Simon, who if you really look at it, may be a
total construction of Wanda's from a couple years ago," Bendis explained.
"That was one of the deciding factors when we were putting together
'Disassembled.' She literally birthed an entire human being out of energy
and everybody goes, 'Yay!' Well wait a second. Where did he come from? I'm
not dissing Kurt or Perez because it's a great scene, but it did make me
cement the idea of there's been a lot of iffy behavior on Wanda's part."
-J
badth...@yahoo.com
Simon comes back when blown up (Count Nefaria, Atlas), meaning it's not
dependent on Wanda? He could have regathered by either force of will
or another outside source? Must he try to drag every storyline into
his "Wanda Did It" concept?
Billy Bevaqua
iffy behavior on Wanda's part."
>
Maytag.
Dwayne MacKinnon
Sheesh.
I read that myself, and hated it. WM is MADE OF ENERGY. Energy, like matter,
can't be destroyed. It's not that a crazy woman used her insane power
levels to bring him back... it's like Busiek wrote in the book. He was
holding on to life.
If Bendis kills off Simon to "prove his point" I shall be very irritated.
Cheers,
DMK
Paul O'Brien
<d...@SPA.ncf.MBLO.ca.K> writes
>
>I read that myself, and hated it. WM is MADE OF ENERGY. Energy, like
>matter, can't be destroyed.
Yeah, but that doesn't prove that he's immortal. You might as well
argue that I'm immortal because I'm made of matter, and matter can't be
destroyed.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
scott34494
But Wanda did do it. Onscreen. And wasn't she lonely and troubled at
the time too? Talk about imaginary boyfriend.
As far as I know, she didn't resurrect Count Nefaria or Atlas onscreen,
but there's a pretty good reason to question the Wonder Man thing.
Steven R. Stahl
Given Bendis's problems in adhering to cut-and-dried continuity in
"Avengers Disassembled" and other stories, the idea of him questioning
other writers' plotting is side-splittingly funny (I'll spare people
the virtual laughter)--even though I thought the way Wonder Man was
brought back (AVENGERS #10-#11) was poorly done.
SRS
Kurt Busiek
Of course, she got Simon's brother, too, if it was all her and Simon's
account isn't accurate.
Got Erik over her own objections, too...
kdb
Shawn H
: From CBR.cc :
It's also not what happened. The "Ifs" he keeps seeing are like the gaps in
continuity Byrne keeps finding and trying to fill; illusions no one else
can see.
According to Kurt, Simon was alive (ionic beings may not be able to die)
and was simply called back to consciousness by Wanda in her hour of need.
She didn't create him out of nothing.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
Thanks to Wanda, there's now a "good" reason to question everything. She's
a one-woman Crisis machine according to Bendis. Not a character, mind you,
just a plot device.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> According to Kurt, Simon was alive (ionic beings may not be able to die)
> and was simply called back to consciousness by Wanda in her hour of need.
> She didn't create him out of nothing.
>
> Shawn H.
What do you mean, according to Kurt? Did he materialize on panel and
explain this to the reader? Seems to me its according to Simon, the
being Wanda "resurrected."
It's kinda funny, Shawn, how you're all into reading against the text
when it suits YOUR needs. But when you don't like it, it's "wrong."
Hypocrite.
Furthermore, I seem to recall you claiming that the retcon always takes
precedence over the original story, to such a degree that the original
story cannot even be discussed without the context of the retcon.
Sure, it was a moronic statement, but you said it, in regards to
Phoenix. Hypocrite.
Will you be retracting your statement that Bendis, the individual, is a
misogynist yet, since you claim that you're above personal insults, or
does your hypocrisy run too deeply for you to do otherwise?
Jon J. Yeager
news:1121048956....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will you be retracting your statement that Bendis, the individual, is a
> misogynist yet, since you claim that you're above personal insults, or
> does your hypocrisy run too deeply for you to do otherwise?
Are you actually going out of your way to try to be me? No wonder Shawn's
turning psychotic on us.
I mean I knew you were in love with me, but come on... what's next? You
gonna call for Tony Stark to shave his mustache?
Find your own damn reasons to rag on Shawn! That one didn't even have
anything to do with the thread.
Yes, yes. I know. You wish for me to get AIDS and die.
Jon
scott34494
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121048956....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Will you be retracting your statement that Bendis, the individual, is a
> > misogynist yet, since you claim that you're above personal insults, or
> > does your hypocrisy run too deeply for you to do otherwise?
>
> Are you actually going out of your way to try to be me?
One day, when you mature, you'll find out that the whole world doesn't
revolve around. It's part of the growing up process. Honest.
[Yeager, if true to par, will add something I didn't say as a quote
here.]
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121048956....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Will you be retracting your statement that Bendis, the individual, is a
>> > misogynist yet, since you claim that you're above personal insults, or
>> > does your hypocrisy run too deeply for you to do otherwise?
>>
>> Are you actually going out of your way to try to be me?
>
> One day, when you mature, you'll find out that the whole
> world doesn't revolve around.
The whole world doesn't revolve around? LOL - are you under the impression
that only parts of it revolve around, and other parts remain perfectly
immobile in space or something?
Too funny. Everytime you reply to me, you come across like a nervous little
geekoid trying to stand up to the school bully in an NBC afterschool
special, and making a complete ass of himself. Newsflash, Scottykins :
You're coming across like an ass because you simply are one.
> It's part of the growing up process. Honest.
Condescending sarcasm coming from a guy who spells liar LYER and routinely
makes a complete idiot of himself through sentences like the one quoted
above? Heh. Okay.
> [Yeager, if true to par, will add something I didn't say as a quote
> here.]
Wrong again. Don't you ever tire of that?
Jon
Shawn H
: Furthermore, I seem to recall you claiming that the retcon always takes
: precedence over the original story, to such a degree that the original
: story cannot even be discussed without the context of the retcon.
: Sure, it was a moronic statement, but you said it, in regards to
: Phoenix. Hypocrite.
There you go with "always" again, one of your favorite words. It makes
everyone else sound so extreme when you apply it to them, and yet rides
roughshod over the particular troubling details of the actual story in
question.
Some retcons stick and make sense. Others are bad ideas and get shot
down. Bendis's inability to understand or represent powers according to
their accepted understandings and abilities is a huge problem with his
entire body of work on Avengers. He changes abilities to fit plot needs.
That's not retconning, that's sloppy hack writing.
In the Phoenix story, TPTB wanted Jean back and alive for X-factor. So
they paid some writers to come up with a plausible story to get us to
that point, one that stuck and became canon. It undid some of the
thematic meaning of the original story in the process, but it still
remained the case. At one point in her history, Jean was buried in the
Hudson in a cuccoon. Now that's how it always was, even if we didn't know
it at the time.
'There's something iffy about Wanda's powers if she can just call Simon
back to life because she's lonely," isn't a retcon. It isn't even a
well-considered solution to getting Wanda to do what he wants her to for
his current stories. It's a misunderstanding, and an attempt to gloss
over the facts to get from point A to point Q.
If you want your characters to do something they haven't done before, you
have to do the legwork to acknowledge that change. That's one thing good
retcons do: they justify something new that didn't seem possible with
what we previously knew about the character or situation. They explain
what might have been a mystery.
Bad ones, however, simply trash the past for no good reason. That's all
Bendis has achieved thus far in his take on Avengers, aside from a few
funny jokes.
Shawn H.
Jon J. Yeager
news:dau3rl$p6s$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Furthermore, I seem to recall you claiming that the retcon always takes
> : precedence over the original story, to such a degree that the original
> : story cannot even be discussed without the context of the retcon.
> : Sure, it was a moronic statement, but you said it, in regards to
> : Phoenix. Hypocrite.
>
> There you go with "always" again, one of your favorite words. It makes
> everyone else sound so extreme when you apply it to them, and yet rides
> roughshod over the particular troubling details of the actual story in
> question.
Which is a pretty ironic complaint for you to be making, considering what
comes next :
> Some retcons stick and make sense. Others are bad ideas and get shot
> down. Bendis's inability to understand or represent powers according to
> their accepted understandings and abilities ...
...accepted by whom? Is that "Everyone" you're speaking on behalf of again
to win an argument?
Quoted from you July 7th :
"I believe [subjectivity] is the ultimate truth. I just find it hard
to believe that *YOU* do, with your consistent appeals to
consensus and what you see as the natural order. "
Which one of us cannot go 24h without speaking on behalf of this "natural
order" to make his arguments seem more bullet-proof?
You keep doing it over and over again, then point the finger at people who
not only never claimed to speak on behalf of anyone but themselves, but
actually have been 100% consistant in shooting down people like you who
claim to possess the single absolute truth as accepted by all.
And yet no one but SRS has ever agreed with anything you've had to say,
ever, in the history of your entire misbegotten life.
Explain to me how that works.
Jon
Kurt Busiek
> In the Phoenix story, TPTB wanted Jean back and alive for X-factor. So
> they paid some writers to come up with a plausible story to get us to
> that point, one that stuck and became canon.
>
Speaking as the writer who came up with the "plausible story" -- no,
that's not true. It wasn't an assignment from the Powers That Be, and
it wasn't done because Marvel had decided they wanted Jean back for
X-FACTOR. They were going ahead with X-FACTOR with the surviving four
original X-Men. In fact, at the time Marvel was operating under a
general decree that Jean _couldn't_ be brought back, not unless it was
done in such a way as to render her guiltless of the crime of genocide,
which the PTB at Marvel didn't think could be done.
However, years ago I'd come up with a way around that decree -- not as
an assignment, and before I was ever a professional writer -- and had
told Roger Stern about it in conversation, not expecting it ever to
amount to more than ide conversation. Roger had passed it on to John
Byrne, because he liked it and thought John would like it. John did.
When John heard that X-FACTOR was being done, he called Bob Layton and
told him he knew of a way Bob could use Jean in the book. Bob liked
the idea, and he and John pitched it.
So it wasn't a case of the Powers That Be deciding they wanted
something and assigning anything -- it was a fan-created story that
floated around among a few freelancers until someone pitched it and it
was accepted.
kdb
Jon J. Yeager
news:2005071109281816807%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
So what you're essentially saying is that Jean's resurrection in the pages
of FF - which opened the door to her being a part of X-Factor's debut - was
an idea Roger Stern and John Byrne basically *stole* from then-reader and
future-superstar-writer Kurt Busiek!
Suddenly, the seething rage towards Byrne that forever boils within your
soul is starting to make sense.
;-)
Jon
Kurt Busiek
> So what you're essentially saying is that Jean's resurrection in the
> pages of FF - which opened the door to her being a part of X-Factor's
> debut - was an idea Roger Stern and John Byrne basically *stole* from
> then-reader and future-superstar-writer Kurt Busiek!
That's an interesting interpretation, but no -- I got credited and paid for it.
Paid well, too -- the equivalent of two issues' worth of plot at John's
page rate -- at a time I wasn't sure how to make the rent, so it was
VERY helpful.
Plus, I was a "then-reader" when I came up with the idea, but was a
working pro by the time it was used. I was the assistant editor on
MARVEL AGE MAGAZINE at the time, so I was involved in promoting the
X-FACTOR launch.
There were editors up at Marvel who felt it was John's idea --
apparently, on the grounds that he'd been the one to bring it in to the
company -- and that there was no need to credit that kid in the
Bullpen, but Roger, John and Bob all made it very clear that the idea
had stemmed from me.
kdb
Jon J. Yeager
Dammit- you're not working with me here, Kurt.
(My interpretation was a LOT more fun.)
Jon
scott34494
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>?Everytime you reply to me, you come across like a nervous little
> geekoid trying to stand up to the school bully in an NBC afterschool
> special,
So I'm the hero, then?
Shawn H
: > Some retcons stick and make sense. Others are bad ideas and get shot
: > down. Bendis's inability to understand or represent powers according to
: > their accepted understandings and abilities ...
: ...accepted by whom? Is that "Everyone" you're speaking on behalf of again
: to win an argument?
I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone. I'm pointing out what retcons have
been accepted and that others have not and have been abandoned. That's
just observation of events that occured, not my subjective reaction to
what should have happened. I don't even claim to be in agreement with
this consensus, or to represent it; I don't have to be a member in order
to describe what it is.
: Quoted from you July 7th :
: "I believe [subjectivity] is the ultimate truth. I just find it hard
: to believe that *YOU* do, with your consistent appeals to
: consensus and what you see as the natural order. "
: Which one of us cannot go 24h without speaking on behalf of this "natural
: order" to make his arguments seem more bullet-proof?
You. I don't believe in a natural order.
: And yet no one but SRS has ever agreed with anything you've had to say,
: ever, in the history of your entire misbegotten life.
: Explain to me how that works.
It doesn't. You're making it up.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: So it wasn't a case of the Powers That Be deciding they wanted
: something and assigning anything -- it was a fan-created story that
: floated around among a few freelancers until someone pitched it and it
: was accepted.
I wasn't aware it had anything to do with you at all. I thought it was
John Byrne's idea, and the timing did seem to be fortuitous for X-factor.
I guess I see some things as set in stone as decrees from above that are
actually more fluid and creator-based than I thought.
So now I guess I know who to blame for messing up the Phoenix story!
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
Shawn H wrote:
[snip]
> Bad ones, however, simply trash the past for no good reason. That's all
> Bendis has achieved thus far in his take on Avengers, aside from a few
> funny jokes.
While a person can laugh at Bendis's apparent attempt to reinterpret
Kurt B.'s AVENGERS, there's also the intellectual reaction.
Kurt B. and Bendis have had the same editor (Brevoort) on AVENGERS and
NEW AVENGERS. The editor should be the person who deems plot concepts
acceptable and unacceptable. Marvel's had its "Land of the Dead," under
different labels, for decades. Characters exist there intact, and can
pass back and forth (Thanos is the foremost example). While supposing
that Simon was halfway-in, halfway-out was something I disliked, the
concept actually meshed with Simon's dispersed state. Bringing him back
to life was just a matter of ending the dispersion, by whatever method.
Brevoort accepted Simon's return, and would be foolish to change his
mind years later.
There's also the question of Bendis's ability to read and reason. It's
hard to believe that he read any of the AWC stories featuring Harkness
before or after labeling her a reanimation, or he'd know just how
ridiculous the reanimation concept is, given Harkness being in astral
form, etc., in AWC #62. However much in love he is with the notion of
Wanda being "insane" for years, looking at other writers' stories and
reinterpreting them, as he's doing with Simon's return, is on a par
with combing Wanda's dialogue for (n>1) issues of AVENGERS, AWC, etc.,
and declaring "Aha! See that?! She *was* insane back then, and
(Englehart, Thomas, Abnett & Lanning, Busiek, Johns, Austen) didn't
even know it!" If Bendis thinks his retcon can change the content of
those stories, in which she was incontrovertibly *not* insane, then
*he* is losing his grip on reality.
SRS
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : > Some retcons stick and make sense. Others are bad ideas and get shot
> : > down. Bendis's inability to understand or represent powers according
> to
> : > their accepted understandings and abilities ...
>
> : ...accepted by whom? Is that "Everyone" you're speaking on behalf of
> again
> : to win an argument?
>
> I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone. I'm pointing out what retcons have
> been accepted and that others have not and have been abandoned. That's
> just observation of events that occured, not my subjective reaction to
> what should have happened. I don't even claim to be in agreement with
> this consensus, or to represent it; I don't have to be a member in order
> to describe what it is.
Retcons happen every month in any number of issues. All of those retcons
will eventually be retconned themselves.
Why are you talking about "accepted" understandings and abilities with
regards to powers? Again I ask... accepted by whom?
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>>
>> Everytime you reply to me, you come across like a nervous little
>> geekoid trying to stand up to the school bully in an NBC afterschool
>> special,
>
> So I'm the hero, then?
Sure, why not.
Jon
Shawn H
: > what should have happened. I don't even claim to be in agreement with
: > this consensus, or to represent it; I don't have to be a member in order
: > to describe what it is.
: Retcons happen every month in any number of issues. All of those retcons
: will eventually be retconned themselves.
No they don't, and no they won't. Retcons are rare, and necessarily so,
and some persist while others are abandoned.
: Why are you talking about "accepted" understandings and abilities with
: regards to powers? Again I ask... accepted by whom?
By the fans and readers who buy the books. I've never argued that there
isn't a consensus or a canon when it comes to the subject of the Marvel
universe and continuity.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: That's an interesting interpretation, but no -- I got credited and paid
: for it.
: Paid well, too -- the equivalent of two issues' worth of plot at John's
: page rate -- at a time I wasn't sure how to make the rent, so it was
: VERY helpful.
: There were editors up at Marvel who felt it was John's idea --
: apparently, on the grounds that he'd been the one to bring it in to the
: company -- and that there was no need to credit that kid in the
: Bullpen, but Roger, John and Bob all made it very clear that the idea
: had stemmed from me.
And look, there you are, mis-spelled but given a credit on the first
page. I never noticed that at the time.
http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=page1&issue=
30929984076%20286
Shawn H.
Kurt Busiek
My name was actually spelled correctly by the letterer, but one of the
people at the office who didn't think it was necessary to credit or pay
me had it "corrected" before publishing; just his way of being petty.
kdb
Jon J. Yeager
news:1121101967.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Shawn H wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Bad ones, however, simply trash the past for no good reason. That's all
>> Bendis has achieved thus far in his take on Avengers, aside from a few
>> funny jokes.
>
> While a person can laugh at Bendis's apparent attempt to reinterpret
> Kurt B.'s AVENGERS, there's also the intellectual reaction.
>
> Kurt B. and Bendis have had the same editor (Brevoort) on
> AVENGERS and NEW AVENGERS. The editor should be
> the person who deems plot concepts acceptable and unacceptable.
> his mind years later.
I think there have been sufficient examples since last year to support the
theory that - for better or worse - Tom Brevoort completely sold out to the
Quesada/Bendis clique during Avengers Disassembled.
Originally resisting Disassembled, he eventually abandoned fan boards like
RACMU, and gave(sold?) his heart and soul to the Q/B clique, of which Steve
McNiven seems to be the latest recruit (how else do you explain that Ellis -
not Bendis - is the one stuck with the creative team change in the middle of
a mini, with Joey Q announcing that McNiven will be getting MORE
high-profile work, not less?).
Hell, you can almost pinpoint the exact moment Tom went Borg, if you've got
the time to do a bit of net-searching. It was last November, right around
Avengers #502 (perhaps not coincidentally, the ridiculous way Hawkeye died
that, as Editor, he green-lighted).
In a few years, when Bendis - like Liefeld before him - will be tossed aside
(along with everyone associated with him, including Tom), you can expect Tom
to start giving interviews about how he was the only guy at Marvel
originally resisting the "Bendis era" and how he really shouldn't be thrown
out with the bath water. Kind of like how NHL players are slowly beginning
to turn on Bob Goodenow now that he's obviously lost the way, and
apologizing to fans for being brainwashed by him, believing that they
deserve credit for speaking their minds about him honestly now that he's
done with.
The sad truth is that it means nothing now. Just like it won't mean anything
in a few years when Brevoort tells us how he really wasn't part of the
clique, and only appeared to join in with them to better protect the
integrity of the company from within. Ultimately, he went along with it BIG
TIME, and as the Editor of these books, should be given every ounce of
credit - and blame - that Bendis and Joey Q are receiving.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : > what should have happened. I don't even claim to be in agreement with
> : > this consensus, or to represent it; I don't have to be a member in
> order
> : > to describe what it is.
>
> : Retcons happen every month in any number of issues. All of those retcons
> : will eventually be retconned themselves.
>
> No they don't, and no they won't. Retcons are rare, and necessarily so,
> and some persist while others are abandoned.
You don't even see yourself doing it, do you? Now you're claiming to know
what the future holds, and know for absolute certain that none of today's
retcons will be retconned themselves.
See? There is nothing subjective about your posts. You continuously claim to
possess truths -- or to know what "everyone" considers the "definitive
version" of.
And then you complain that others use this tactic so you can be the only one
to.
> : Why are you talking about "accepted" understandings and abilities with
> : regards to powers? Again I ask... accepted by whom?
>
> By the fans and readers who buy the books.
So when you said...
"Bendis's inability to understand or represent
powers according to their accepted
understandings and abilities"
...were you not claiming to KNOW what "fans and readers who buy the books"
accept and do not? I mean you sure seem to know enough to know that Bendis
is contradicting that "consensus".
Just like you claimed to know what the fan consensus on what the definitive
version of the Vision was.
Time and time again, you are caught making exactly what you whined about a
couple of days ago : "consistent appeals to consensus and what you see as
the natural order."
You see no hypocrisy there?
By all means, do carry on with your non-conceding, projecting, and claims of
speaking for a majority that has done nothing but disagree with everything
you've ever posted on this newsgroup (outside of SRS).
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> Kurt Busiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>
> : So it wasn't a case of the Powers That Be deciding they wanted
> : something and assigning anything -- it was a fan-created story that
> : floated around among a few freelancers until someone pitched it and it
> : was accepted.
>
> I wasn't aware it had anything to do with you at all. I thought it was
> John Byrne's idea, and the timing did seem to be fortuitous for X-factor.
>
> I guess I see some things as set in stone as decrees from above that are
> actually more fluid and creator-based than I thought.
Ya think?
Now if only this rare spark of humility and open-mindedness (which you seem
to reserve exclusively for replying to Kurt) could translate to the other
threads.
Jon
--
Jon: "Oh, I now see where the problem is. You
changed the subject in mid-thread into what you
needed for it to be to be right.
Fallen: "*laugh* If by 'changed the subject' you
mean 'answered a question you asked' then yes,
I 'changed the subject'"
Jon: "So you admit it!"
Shawn H
: even know it!" If Bendis thinks his retcon can change the content of
: those stories, in which she was incontrovertibly *not* insane, then
: *he* is losing his grip on reality.
Or at least disrespecting that there is one, already in place.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > No they don't, and no they won't. Retcons are rare, and necessarily so,
: > and some persist while others are abandoned.
: You don't even see yourself doing it, do you? Now you're claiming to know
: what the future holds, and know for absolute certain that none of today's
: retcons will be retconned themselves.
Never said anything about certainty or none. I was talking about the
past, what has already happened, and drawing conclusions from that.
Pretty standard deductive reasoning. Sure some retcons will be
overturned. But not all of them, not inevitably, and not without reason
in many cases. Mistakes will be made, too, but those will be in specific
instances, as they have been in the past, not just in some blanket
"everything will be one-day reversed" belief system of yours.
My version of subjectivity doesn't render all changes equal, or equally
invalid.
: See? There is nothing subjective about your posts. You continuously claim to
: possess truths -- or to know what "everyone" considers the "definitive
: version" of.
Because I express my beliefs as if I believe them in no way undoes their
subjectivity. We're far beyond prefacing every statement made on Usenet
with IMHO.
: Just like you claimed to know what the fan consensus on what the definitive
: version of the Vision was.
I did. It was. That's not been contradicted, and Vizh does have a
definitive version. That you don't share it doesn't/didn't render that
conclusion invalid.
: Time and time again, you are caught making exactly what you whined about a
: couple of days ago : "consistent appeals to consensus and what you see as
: the natural order."
Indeed, I am not. The consensus I'm discussing is about what factually
happened in the Marvel Universe. All I have to do to prove one of my
points is find the issue in question and turn your attention to the page
where it happened.
The consensus and natural order I accused you of presuming had to do with
your claims of universal societal positions on gender, genetics, race and
homosexuals. That's a far grander umbrella than my little subset of what
constitutes Marvel continuity.
: By all means, do carry on with your non-conceding, projecting, and claims of
: speaking for a majority that has done nothing but disagree with everything
: you've ever posted on this newsgroup (outside of SRS).
"Nothing," "majority," "everything" and "ever" are the only tools in your
arsenal, and they are sadly misapplied.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: On 2005-07-11 10:01:28 -0700, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
: > And look, there you are, mis-spelled but given a credit on the first
: > page. I never noticed that at the time.
: My name was actually spelled correctly by the letterer, but one of the
: people at the office who didn't think it was necessary to credit or pay
: me had it "corrected" before publishing; just his way of being petty.
These little stories of Marvel office politics are getting disturbing.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Now if only this rare spark of humility and open-mindedness (which you seem
: to reserve exclusively for replying to Kurt) could translate to the other
: threads.
Kurt actually shares facts. You might try that.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: I think there have been sufficient examples since last year to support the
: theory that - for better or worse - Tom Brevoort completely sold out to the
: Quesada/Bendis clique during Avengers Disassembled.
I agree with you ....
: In a few years, when Bendis - like Liefeld before him - will be tossed aside
: (along with everyone associated with him, including Tom), you can expect Tom
: to start giving interviews about how he was the only guy at Marvel
: originally resisting the "Bendis era" and how he really shouldn't be thrown
: out with the bath water. Kind of like how NHL players are slowly beginning
... until the conspiracy theory takes over.
Shawn H.
Jon J. Yeager
That's strange, because the "conspiracy theory" was in that part you agreed
with, where Brevoort completely sells out to the Q/B clique during
Disassembled, and hasn't looked back at the fans since.
Of course, you HAD to voice an objection of somekind, no matter how
senseless, because doing otherwise would have meant conceding something to
someone other than SRS. So you chose the part where I mock-predicted
Brevoort would be tossed with the bath water once the Q/B era is over, which
really has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracies of anykind.
If we're talking about conspiracies, let's go back to that one where
everyone you don't like is one big monster hiding under various identities.
Jon
Shawn H
: That's strange, because the "conspiracy theory" was in that part you agreed
: with, where Brevoort completely sells out to the Q/B clique during
: Disassembled, and hasn't looked back at the fans since.
That's not a conspiracy. That's getting paid to do a job. No clique, just
crass business.
: If we're talking about conspiracies, let's go back to that one where
: everyone you don't like is one big monster hiding under various identities.
Not everyone, just you and your masks.
Shawn H.
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : > No they don't, and no they won't. Retcons are rare, and necessarily
> so,
> : > and some persist while others are abandoned.
>
> : You don't even see yourself doing it, do you? Now you're claiming to
> know
> : what the future holds, and know for absolute certain that none of
> today's
> : retcons will be retconned themselves.
>
> Never said anything about certainty or none. I was talking about the
> past, what has already happened, and drawing conclusions from that.
You mean making them up based on that. Who are you to say what the
"accepted" abilities of heroes Bendis is playing with are, and whether he is
out of line by going with one interpretation of them over another?
This is where you go back to appealing to somekind of consensus... you
know... that thing I haven't done once since stepping foot on this
newsgroup, but that you keep complaining I do.
> Pretty standard deductive reasoning.
I wasn't arguing the reasoning. I was arguing the hypocricy of you
complaining about others appealing to consensus when you do nothing but.
> Sure some retcons will be overturned.
Thanks for finally acknowledging it.
> But not all of them, not inevitably, and not without reason
> in many cases.
Irrelevant to the current discussion, as I never made any claim to the
contrary. I simply stated that whatever retcons anyone does today are likely
to get retconned themselves.
Essentially, that there is no "accepted" origin or set of powers for anyone
when it comes to thousands of characters written by hundreds of writers over
50 years of history. Anymore than there can be a "definitive" version of
anything.
Which is the definitive version of Hobgoblin's origin? The one Marvel
officially went with, or the one his creator would have preferred had he not
been fired before the big reveal? Does Stern's eventual return and retcon of
Hobgoblin's identity make his version more official than what Marvel went
with at the time? Why? Because he's the creator of the character? Or because
his was the last retcon? What if I preferred Ned Leeds as the Hobgoblin?
What if Bendis decides to make it Leeds again, retconning Stern's retcon?
There is no absolute truth when it comes to these fictional characters, and
you SERIOUSLY NEED TO STOP TREATING THEM LIKE REAL PEOPLE. You are
psychotic. You need help. They are fictional, and as such, there are simply
versions, and retcons, and retcons will continue to happen regardless of
what Bendis does or does not do.
In other words, Bendis isn't guilty of anything retcon-wise that some of
your favorite writers haven't been guilty of themselves at one time or
another.
You just hate the big white hetero alpha male in charge at Marvel, as it is
your right to as a militant gay man with a persecution complex.
Just own up to it once and for all.
> Mistakes will be made, too, but those will be in specific
> instances, as they have been in the past, not just in some blanket
> "everything will be one-day reversed" belief system of yours.
Let's not compare our respective systems -- you've lost that war before it's
even begun, militant.
> My version of subjectivity doesn't render all changes
> equal, or equally invalid.
Your version of subjectivity is to :
1) Consistantly appeal to somekind of consensus that could not be proven
even with the best of tools at your disposal, and...
2) Continuously referring to what you believe is somekind of natural hero
when it comes to thousands of characters written by hundreds of writers over
50 years of history, which is completely proposterous.
> Because I express my beliefs as if I believe them in no way undoes their
> subjectivity. We're far beyond prefacing every statement made on Usenet
> with IMHO.
This coming from the man who insisted I do just that because without doing
so, he assumed that I was as totalitarian as he is (ie, speaking on behalf
of everyone).
That's pretty rich. Watching you spin this is quite the lesson in advanced
hypocrisy.
> : Just like you claimed to know what the fan consensus on
> : what the definitive version of the Vision was.
>
> I did. It was.
I know you did, and I know it was. I don't BS.
> That's not been contradicted
Maybe not in the House of S.
> and Vizh does have a definitive version.
Based on what? Remind us again. Then tell me which one of us keeps appealing
to somekind of mass consensus that cannot be proven but sure looks good when
thrown into an argument.
> That you don't share it doesn't/didn't render that
> conclusion invalid.
That you live in a fantasy world where every flame you ever received was the
result of some gigantic online conspiracy doesn't make you any less whacko.
> : Time and time again, you are caught making exactly what you whined about
> a
> : couple of days ago : "consistent appeals to consensus and what you see
> as
> : the natural order."
>
> Indeed
Thought so.
> The consensus I'm discussing is about what factually
> happened in the Marvel Universe.
The consensus you're discussing is about what is or isn't accepted as any
given superhero's set of powers. There is nothing objective about that. It's
completely subjective and Bendis has every right to interpret them any way
he wants, just like every writer before him.
That you have a proven and undisputable hate-on for the man changes nothing
to that.
> All I have to do to prove one of my points is find
> the issue in question and turn your attention to the page
> where it happened.
And all I have to do to prove mine is turn your attention to any of the
hundreds of insane rantings you post here a month. What's your point?
> The consensus and natural order I accused you of presuming
> had to do with...
As the Rock says : IT DOESN'T MATTER what they had to do with in the House
of S. What matters is that you accused me of something you do here
routinely, almost systematically in each one of the hundreds of
hate-mongering posts you publish here every month against Bendis.
> "Nothing," "majority," "everything" and "ever" are the only
> tools in your arsenal, and they are sadly misapplied.
Again, maybe in the House of S.
In reality, SRS remains the only person in this newsgroup to ever have
agreed with any of your militant heterophobic rantings against Bendis.
Jon J. Yeager
I have, time and time again. Just not in the House of S.
By the way, have you seen my latest post, written as Scott Dubin? And the
one before it, as Fallen? Check'em both out. They rock.
-J
Jon J. Yeager
Really? I thought you thought that all these conspiracy theories were
nonsense. Of course, if they're coming from Kurt, you can't buy into them
fast enough.
From you previous post :
> Kurt actually shares facts. You might try that.
So tell me, what proof has Kurt shared of this conspiracy theory of his that
others you routinely get involved in flamefests with here every day have
failed to share? Scott Dubin actually spends hours a day providing facts and
references to you, and you have yet to concede a single argument to him...
while all Kurt has to do is throw a theory in the air and you can't suck his
dick fast enough.
Maybe, just maybe, you being so reasonable and open-minded with Kurt has
more to do with starstruck-ery than anyone providing -- or not providing --
facts or proof?
Jon J. Yeager
>
> That's not a conspiracy. That's getting paid to do a job.
> No clique, just crass business.
Funny, isn't it, that while you're trying to prove to me that my theory has
nothing to do with conspiracies, you completely skip the part where I ask
where the conspiracy is in what YOU called a conspiracy theory.
Are you this weak when your students challenge your teachings?
> : If we're talking about conspiracies, let's go back to that one where
> : everyone you don't like is one big monster hiding under various
> identities.
>
> Not everyone, just you and your masks.
Name them. I dare you to.
Yeah, I didn't think so. We wouldn't want to rattle the House of S /too/
much in one day.
You are a joke, Shawn. Keep hiding under that bed.
scott34494
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
> "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:daunh9$k4$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> >
> > That's not a conspiracy. That's getting paid to do a job.
> > No clique, just crass business.
>
> Funny, isn't it, that while you're trying to prove to me that my theory has
> nothing to do with conspiracies, you completely skip the part where I ask
> where the conspiracy is in what YOU called a conspiracy theory.
>
> Are you this weak when your students challenge your teachings?
>
Dude, Shawn allegedly teaches "art history." He has an edu Harvard
address, but in turns out he's an assistant librarian, not a faculty
member there. Shawn considers himself a "writer" because he writes
amateur reviews for a web page, who knows what makes him consider
himself a "teacher."
He calls himself a "feminist" but he supports what he considers
"misogyny." His feminist mask is used, not to support any cause, but
to make inconsistent statements to slander a writer just because he
destroyed his favorite character, in between low brow comments such as
"where's the fight scene?".
He's actually criticised Bendis for having violance in a superhero
comic. I'm not kidding.
I wouldn't assume Shawn H he has any students at all.
Kurt Busiek
Getting?
Doesn't matter -- it was almost twenty years ago and the guy's not in
the business any more, as far as I know.
kdb
Shawn H
: > Funny, isn't it, that while you're trying to prove to me that my theory has
: > nothing to do with conspiracies, you completely skip the part where I ask
: > where the conspiracy is in what YOU called a conspiracy theory.
: Dude, Shawn allegedly teaches "art history." He has an edu Harvard
: address, but in turns out he's an assistant librarian, not a faculty
: member there. Shawn considers himself a "writer" because he writes
: amateur reviews for a web page, who knows what makes him consider
: himself a "teacher."
I knew my honesty would be used against me at some point. I decided to
respond, anyway, as you asked a simple, seemingly fair question. I've never
represented myself as Harvard faculty member, to anyone. I have noticed
that merely having the e-mail address triggers a lot of people's issues,
but that's not my problem.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > Never said anything about certainty or none. I was talking about the
: > past, what has already happened, and drawing conclusions from that.
: You mean making them up based on that. Who are you to say what the
: "accepted" abilities of heroes Bendis is playing with are, and whether he is
: out of line by going with one interpretation of them over another?
I'm someone who's familiar with the past appearances of the characters
involved, and can make note when they suddenly do something new with no
explanation.
: This is where you go back to appealing to somekind of consensus... you
: know... that thing I haven't done once since stepping foot on this
: newsgroup, but that you keep complaining I do.
I'm not appealing to consensus at all. I'm telling you what I myself know
from reading the old stories.
: > Pretty standard deductive reasoning.
: I wasn't arguing the reasoning. I was arguing the hypocricy of you
: complaining about others appealing to consensus when you do nothing but.
And you were way off base.
: > Sure some retcons will be overturned.
: Thanks for finally acknowledging it.
I never denied it. But that's not the same thing as your standard line of
"everything will always be changed eventually."
: > But not all of them, not inevitably, and not without reason
: > in many cases.
: Irrelevant to the current discussion, as I never made any claim to the
: contrary. I simply stated that whatever retcons anyone does today are likely
: to get retconned themselves.
Yes, that's so broad a statement as to be meaningless.
: Essentially, that there is no "accepted" origin or set of powers for anyone
: when it comes to thousands of characters written by hundreds of writers over
: 50 years of history. Anymore than there can be a "definitive" version of
: anything.
Yes, you're wrong. All the characters are not interchangeable, all the best
ones have definitive versions that make them unique.
: with at the time? Why? Because he's the creator of the character? Or because
: his was the last retcon? What if I preferred Ned Leeds as the Hobgoblin?
: What if Bendis decides to make it Leeds again, retconning Stern's retcon?
Not a good example for me, I know nothing about Hobgoblin, I only know
about Norman and Harry. And I think the 70s version is definitive.
: There is no absolute truth when it comes to these fictional characters, and
: you SERIOUSLY NEED TO STOP TREATING THEM LIKE REAL PEOPLE. You are
: psychotic. You need help. They are fictional, and as such, there are simply
: versions, and retcons, and retcons will continue to happen regardless of
: what Bendis does or does not do.
And good ones will be repeated ad infinitum, and bad ones will be ignored
or forgotten. I do view the characters as having essential cores, and I do
know what those cores are and when someone misses the boat.
: In other words, Bendis isn't guilty of anything retcon-wise that some of
: your favorite writers haven't been guilty of themselves at one time or
: another.
It's just that my favorite writers do it better, and that's what counts the
most. Not every retcon is created equal, and all of them do have specific
thematic meanings.
: > Because I express my beliefs as if I believe them in no way undoes their
: > subjectivity. We're far beyond prefacing every statement made on Usenet
: > with IMHO.
: This coming from the man who insisted I do just that because without doing
: so, he assumed that I was as totalitarian as he is (ie, speaking on behalf
: of everyone).
I didn't have to make that assumption; your continued homophobic targetting
of me and assertion of what you see as a natural consensus that everyone
saw as well as you did that for you.
: That's pretty rich. Watching you spin this is quite the lesson in advanced
: hypocrisy.
I know it's frustrating for you when someone can explain what you're doing,
but it's really for the best.
: > The consensus I'm discussing is about what factually
: > happened in the Marvel Universe.
: The consensus you're discussing is about what is or isn't accepted as any
: given superhero's set of powers. There is nothing objective about that. It's
: completely subjective and Bendis has every right to interpret them any way
: he wants, just like every writer before him.
No, he doesn't. If he wants the powers to do something different, he has to
explain where that new ability comes from. That's what the writers before
him did whenever they made a change, and its a huge gap in his inadequate
process of taking on a major team book.
: > All I have to do to prove one of my points is find
: > the issue in question and turn your attention to the page
: > where it happened.
: And all I have to do to prove mine is turn your attention to any of the
: hundreds of insane rantings you post here a month. What's your point?
That I have evidence, and that you have only hyperbole and insults.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: On 2005-07-11 13:30:58 -0700, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
: > : My name was actually spelled correctly by the letterer, but one of
: > the : people at the office who didn't think it was necessary to credit
: > or pay : me had it "corrected" before publishing; just his way of being
: > petty.
: >
: > These little stories of Marvel office politics are getting disturbing.
: Getting?
Well, I've read some of the books about the company's business policies,
but it's rare to hear it from a direct source.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > These little stories of Marvel office politics are getting disturbing.
: Really? I thought you thought that all these conspiracy theories were
: nonsense. Of course, if they're coming from Kurt, you can't buy into them
: fast enough.
What might be the difference? Oh, yeah, Kurt actually works there.
: failed to share? Scott Dubin actually spends hours a day providing facts and
: references to you, and you have yet to concede a single argument to him...
: while all Kurt has to do is throw a theory in the air and you can't suck his
: dick fast enough.
Like you, Scott makes things up and has often been factually wrong. I've
corrected him on several occasions, pointing out actual details of the
stories he had conveniently ignored.
: Maybe, just maybe, you being so reasonable and open-minded with Kurt has
: more to do with starstruck-ery than anyone providing -- or not providing --
: facts or proof?
And what's my reason for sucking SRS's dick, too? Do you realize you'll
actually say anything to continue a personal attack, whether it contradicts
earlier points or not?
Shawn H.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:42d2e...@x-privat.org...
> "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:daukrn$v1d$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
> > Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure some retcons will be overturned.
>
> Thanks for finally acknowledging it.
>
> > But not all of them, not inevitably, and not without
> > reason
> > in many cases.
>
> Irrelevant to the current discussion, as I never made any > claim to the
contrary. I simply stated that whatever
> retcons anyone does today are likely to get retconned
> themselves.
I have to call you on this Jon. What Shawn has done here is interpert your
statement a bit too literally, but here it is quoted below:
> : Retcons happen every month in any number of issues. > All of those
retcons
> : will eventually be retconned themselves.
So you said exactly what he said you said. Sure, it wasn't what you meant,
but you've been interpreting a lot of Shawn's statements outside of their
intent lately as well.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney
Nathan P. Mahney
news:2005071109281816807%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
> On 2005-07-11 08:39:33 -0700, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
>
> > In the Phoenix story, TPTB wanted Jean back and alive for X-factor. So
> > they paid some writers to come up with a plausible story to get us to
> > that point, one that stuck and became canon.
> >
> Speaking as the writer who came up with the "plausible story" -- no,
> that's not true. It wasn't an assignment from the Powers That Be, and
> it wasn't done because Marvel had decided they wanted Jean back for
> X-FACTOR. They were going ahead with X-FACTOR with the surviving four
> original X-Men. In fact, at the time Marvel was operating under a
> general decree that Jean _couldn't_ be brought back, not unless it was
> done in such a way as to render her guiltless of the crime of genocide,
> which the PTB at Marvel didn't think could be done.
>
> However, years ago I'd come up with a way around that decree -- not as
> an assignment, and before I was ever a professional writer -- and had
> told Roger Stern about it in conversation, not expecting it ever to
> amount to more than ide conversation. Roger had passed it on to John
> Byrne, because he liked it and thought John would like it. John did.
>
> When John heard that X-FACTOR was being done, he called Bob Layton and
> told him he knew of a way Bob could use Jean in the book. Bob liked
> the idea, and he and John pitched it.
>
> So it wasn't a case of the Powers That Be deciding they wanted
> something and assigning anything -- it was a fan-created story that
> floated around among a few freelancers until someone pitched it and it
> was accepted.
You know, if I had superpowers I'd now be your arch-nemesis. Thanks for
ruining the X-Men, Kurt!
(P.S. Conan rocks.)
Nathan P. Mahney
Hmm, perhaps I shall look him up, as a new recruit to my
Anti-Busiek-for-Ruining-X-Men League...
lh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
kurtb...@aol.comics (Kurt Busiek) wrote:
> My name was actually spelled correctly by the letterer, but one of the
> people at the office who didn't think it was necessary to credit or pay
> me had it "corrected" before publishing; just his way of being petty.
Really? That's the one bit of this story I'd not heard before. I don't
expect you to reveal who this is but wow, how pathetic is that?!
*leigh*
Jon J. Yeager
news:42d358cb$0$5927$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> your
> statement a bit too literally, but here it is quoted below:
>
>> : Retcons happen every month in any number of issues.
>> : All of those retcons will eventually be retconned themselves.
>
> So you said exactly what he said you said. Sure, it wasn't what you
> meant,
> but you've been interpreting a lot of Shawn's statements outside of their
> intent lately as well.
Shawn is the first person to complain when he's taken literally. Apparently,
when he said "decompression is when nothing AT ALL happens in an issue" he
didn't literally mean "at all". It took several people to correct him and he
still blamed everyone else for not understanding him -- not himself for
being too extreme to navigate the shades of grey necessary to have normal,
sane discussions.
Would be a smidge hypocritical of him to be taking me literally right now
for the sole sake of not losing an argument, wouldn't you say? I mean if
most sane people understood what I meant and felt no need to mount a
militant objection to it...
But I'll give you that I could have phrased that better (something that
seems to be beneath Shawn to do in the same situation).
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
>
> You know, if I had superpowers I'd now be your arch-nemesis.
> Thanks for ruining the X-Men, Kurt!
>
> (P.S. Conan rocks.)
I really have nothing to add, I just thought it would make a cool subject
line.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
news:1121118871....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dude, Shawn allegedly teaches "art history." He has an edu Harvard
> address, but in turns out he's an assistant librarian, not a faculty
> member there. Shawn considers himself a "writer" because he writes
> amateur reviews for a web page, who knows what makes him consider
> himself a "teacher."
Wait... Shawn's not actually a teacher? He just pretends to be one because
he's got access to a Harvard email account by virtue of being an assistant
librarian, and likes it when we call him Professor Shawn Hill?
If I had more time on my hands, I'd look up what Mr Shawn Hill actually does
at Harvard. Then I'd go back and re-read all those posts where we've brought
up his supposed teaching and see how much of that was just him playing
make-believe again.
Man, I was really onto something with that House of S stuff, wasn't I?
Jon
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : > Funny, isn't it, that while you're trying to prove to me that my theory has
> : > nothing to do with conspiracies, you completely skip the part where I ask
> : > where the conspiracy is in what YOU called a conspiracy theory.
>
> : Dude, Shawn allegedly teaches "art history." He has an edu Harvard
> : address, but in turns out he's an assistant librarian, not a faculty
> : member there. Shawn considers himself a "writer" because he writes
> : amateur reviews for a web page, who knows what makes him consider
> : himself a "teacher."
>
> I knew my honesty would be used against me at some point.
Actually, when I asked the question, I already knew the answer, as I
had already checked the Harvard web site. I was baiting you. Your
dishonesty is used again you far more than your honesty.
Harvard staff directory:
http://hcl.harvard.edu/technicalservices/about/staff.directory.html
I decided to
> respond, anyway, as you asked a simple, seemingly fair question.
You didn't really have a choice, as anyone could have checked the
public record in two seconds.
I notice you're applauding yourself for your honesty, and playing the
martr, when you frequently distort the truth, and a rare display of
objective truth in an instance when its easily verifiable is hardly
praise worthy.
I've never
> represented myself as Harvard faculty member, to anyone.
It's certainly implied in the subtext of a "teacher" using an edu
address. You claimed to be a history teacher, and thus, you claimed,
feminism falls under your historical expertise. Now suddenly you're an
"art history" teacher. Lot's of feminist statues and paintings, eh?
And I know how little you claiming to be a "writer" means. I have a
web site too. Sure, you're a writer. Aren't we all?
I have noticed
> that merely having the e-mail address triggers a lot of people's issues,
> but that's not my problem.
>
You implying that as a "teacher" you're an expert on something you know
very little about is the problematic part, if you had actually
discussed something you were knowledgable about, as opposed to the
radical slandering, I would have applauded your presence.
I certainly hadn't even noticed your email address until after you kept
implying that you had expertise on feminism, which you don't.
It's not the education, Shawn, it's just_you. (Well, you may have
triggered an issue or two from Yeager, but he has so many, it's hard to
notice.)
Incidently, you've basically been poorly representing acadamia at
Harvard, coming un Usenet, slandering writers, lying about the facts
regarding comic books, displaying radical double standards, buying
comics you hate, not understanding the basic difference between a
liberal and conservative, making paranoid declarations about your
opposition, inconsistently applying your poorly thought out critique
just to give a pass to stories you like, holding a personal grudge
against Bendis, asking moronically low brow things like "where's the
plot?" and "where's the fight scene?" etc. etc.
It's a good thing you aren't faculty, because if you were, you'd sure
be making Harvard look bad.
And once more, of course, you're playing the martr. You poor, noble,
occasional truth telling person.
Why haven't you retracted your lies about Bendis's personal life yet,
Shawn? This is getting silly.
Shawn H
: Shawn is the first person to complain when he's taken literally. Apparently,
: when he said "decompression is when nothing AT ALL happens in an issue" he
: didn't literally mean "at all". It took several people to correct him and he
: still blamed everyone else for not understanding him -- not himself for
: being too extreme to navigate the shades of grey necessary to have normal,
: sane discussions.
"Several people?" You're the only one who mistook my meaning in that
thread, though you did post about it several times, as usual. The only
other participant was Kurt B., correcting *YOU* as to whether his story
was decompressed (it wasn't).
I don't think I'm the one who's imagining hordes of posters all
represented by you. I suppose it helps the consensus you long for if
you've made up all the participants yourself.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > I knew my honesty would be used against me at some point.
: Actually, when I asked the question, I already knew the answer, as I
: had already checked the Harvard web site. I was baiting you. Your
: dishonesty is used again you far more than your honesty.
You reveal a lot by this tactic. Though it was already patently clear.
: > I decided to
: > respond, anyway, as you asked a simple, seemingly fair question.
: You didn't really have a choice, as anyone could have checked the
: public record in two seconds.
Of course I did. I could have simply ignored your question. Obviously the
wiser approach, but sometimes I'm weak.
: I notice you're applauding yourself for your honesty, and playing the
: martr, when you frequently distort the truth, and a rare display of
: objective truth in an instance when its easily verifiable is hardly
: praise worthy.
I notice you set a trap, based on your usual vitriol and suspicion, and I
didn't fall for it. Sorry to disappoint.
: I've never
: > represented myself as Harvard faculty member, to anyone.
: It's certainly implied in the subtext of a "teacher" using an edu
: address. You claimed to be a history teacher, and thus, you claimed,
: feminism falls under your historical expertise. Now suddenly you're an
: "art history" teacher. Lot's of feminist statues and paintings, eh?
Yes, in fact, there are. Your adept web skills should lead you to them,
if you possess a real interest. Feminist theory is one of the most vital
components of the field, and has actually rewritten most of the major
texts over the last 30 years.
: Incidently, you've basically been poorly representing acadamia at
: Harvard, coming un Usenet, slandering writers, lying about the facts
: regarding comic books, displaying radical double standards, buying
: comics you hate, not understanding the basic difference between a
: liberal and conservative, making paranoid declarations about your
: opposition, inconsistently applying your poorly thought out critique
: just to give a pass to stories you like, holding a personal grudge
: against Bendis, asking moronically low brow things like "where's the
: plot?" and "where's the fight scene?" etc. etc.
: It's a good thing you aren't faculty, because if you were, you'd sure
: be making Harvard look bad.
I thought I already was, according to your first paragraph. Your
assumptions about what .edu means are, again, not my problem.
: And once more, of course, you're playing the martr. You poor, noble,
: occasional truth telling person.
Martyr. It's a simple word.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>You reveal a lot by this tactic. Though it was already patently clear
>
> : I notice you're applauding yourself for your honesty, and playing the
> : martr, when you frequently distort the truth, and a rare display of
> : objective truth in an instance when its easily verifiable is hardly
> : praise worthy.
>
> I notice you set a trap, based on your usual
So now you're admitting that you knew you had to respond honestly,
because I would have nailed you if you didn't.
A second ago you were pretending to be honest for its own sake, and a
victim for telling the truth. How odd.
You really do like distorting things from one minute to the next.
>Of course I did. I could have simply ignored your question. Obviously the
>wiser approach, but sometimes I'm weak.
Nonesense, you very well know how badly I could have nailed you if you
hadn't replied. You're lying and distorting again, from one minute to
the next.
You first pretend to be replying for its own sake as an honest nice
guy, when I point out you had no choice, you admit it, then pretend
that replying honestly makes you the victim, when its obvious I would
have presented your distortions and lies to the group if you hadn't.
And you're still trying to play the victim, even though you just
admited that you only responded honestly because you had to. You're
quite the piece of work, Shawn.
>Yes, in fact, there are. Your adept web skills should lead you to them,
>if you possess a real interest. Feminist theory is one of the most vital
>components of the field, and has actually rewritten most of the major
>texts over the last 30 years.
"Art" tends to be a seperate field of study from literature,
academically speaking. You're all over the place, its not clear what
what you mean by "texts" and don't seem to have any specific concept of
what the hell you're even talking about. Are you a history teacher an
art teacher a literature teacher or what?
But either way, why would I accept any such information from someone
who can't even grasp the distinction between a liberal and a
conservative?
Why do you keep refusing to take back your personal slandering of
Bendis, even though you later claimed you were above personal attacks?
Oh, right, you're story changes one second to the next.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:42d3d...@x-privat.org...
Hey, my name's in a subject line!!! As racm* old-schooler's will recall,
that means I get a pastry!
But don't think this lets you off the hook Busiek! Vengeance will be
mine!!!!!
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: > I notice you set a trap, based on your usual
: So now you're admitting that you knew you had to respond honestly,
: because I would have nailed you if you didn't.
: A second ago you were pretending to be honest for its own sake, and a
: victim for telling the truth. How odd.
: You really do like distorting things from one minute to the next.
Your ability to track causality continues to fail you. You're the one who
admitted he set a trap, and now you're blaming me for not falling into
it. If I hadn't have answered, you'd have jumped to a conclusion about
that. Since I did answer, you jumped to a different, equally wrong
conclusion. But I didn't answer because of you at all. I answered because
your public question seemed reasonably agenda-free, and a public answer
seemed fair enough.
It turns out, though, that you were the dishonest one, as you already
knew the answer. Which, too bad for you, was the one I innocently gave.
I have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of you; and yet, as an honest
person, I still think the best policy involves truth. I'm not the one
hiding or misrepesenting myself.
: >Of course I did. I could have simply ignored your question. Obviously the
: >wiser approach, but sometimes I'm weak.
: Nonesense, you very well know how badly I could have nailed you if you
: hadn't replied. You're lying and distorting again, from one minute to
: the next.
You're ranting.
: You first pretend to be replying for its own sake as an honest nice
: guy, when I point out you had no choice, you admit it, then pretend
: that replying honestly makes you the victim, when its obvious I would
: have presented your distortions and lies to the group if you hadn't.
And what would you have done had I stayed silent? Probably another
attack, in whatever form you could muster. As all your responses are
attacks, I'm not to worried about causing or preventing them.
: And you're still trying to play the victim, even though you just
: admited that you only responded honestly because you had to. You're
: quite the piece of work, Shawn.
I'm the sort of work that doesn't actually understand what you're talking
about. It's impossible to follow this sort of circular reasoning.
: >Yes, in fact, there are. Your adept web skills should lead you to them,
: >if you possess a real interest. Feminist theory is one of the most vital
: >components of the field, and has actually rewritten most of the major
: >texts over the last 30 years.
: "Art" tends to be a seperate field of study from literature,
: academically speaking. You're all over the place, its not clear what
: what you mean by "texts" and don't seem to have any specific concept of
: what the hell you're even talking about. Are you a history teacher an
: art teacher a literature teacher or what?
Art history is a subset of history. There's quite a lot of overlap when
studying the same time period and place even while focusing on a
particular aspect. Aesthetic critiques apply to literature (an art form)
as well as visual art, and many of the same theories can be applied
across the board. Cultural studies looks at a variety of texts (which in
postmodern theory certainly aren't literally limited to words on pages)
as a means to explore the issues of a time and place. You seem to have
never heard the word "interdisciplenary," but I suppose that's just part
of your attempt to discredit for reasons of your own.
: But either way, why would I accept any such information from someone
: who can't even grasp the distinction between a liberal and a
: conservative?
But if I'm such an unreliable source, why are you still questioning me at
all? I know it's upsetting when you're not getting the answers you
expect, but, then, your expectations are so far off base I couldn't help
you if I tried.
: Why do you keep refusing to take back your personal slandering of
: Bendis, even though you later claimed you were above personal attacks?
: Oh, right, you're story changes one second to the next.
I've never made any personal attacks on Bendis. But it is clear that this
is the fundemental sub-strata of your problem with me; you don't like
seeing your favorite writer criticized.
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> It turns out, though, that you were the dishonest one, as you already
> knew the answer. Which, too bad for you, was the one I innocently gave.
Nonsense, asking a question I already know the answer too is not
dishonest. You have an odd definition of honesty. I guess reporters
asking politicians tough questions must all be liars.
You'll recall that in the phrasing question itself I implied that I
knew the answer, you just admitted to knowing I was baiting you.
>
> I have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of you; and yet, as an honest
> person, I still think the best policy involves truth.
If you're such an honest person, why do you keep claiming that everyone
who disagrees with you is the same person, that you don't make personal
slanders when you do, or that "there's only one explanation for Wanda's
crazyness in Avengers Disassembled, that she want crazy cause she was a
woman" when there's clearly more than one, at the very least. Why do
you have to lie about the contents for the comics? If your claims were
legitimate, couldn't you make them by sticking to the facts? If you
were an honest individual, wouldn't you tell the truth?
I'm not the one
> hiding or misrepesenting myself.
Sure you are.
> : You first pretend to be replying for its own sake as an honest nice
> : guy, when I point out you had no choice, you admit it, then pretend
> : that replying honestly makes you the victim, when its obvious I would
> : have presented your distortions and lies to the group if you hadn't.
>
> And what would you have done had I stayed silent? Probably another
> attack,
I would have reported the actual facts, that you are a librarian at
Harvard. I then would have interpreted the reason that you didn't
respond.
>
> : >Yes, in fact, there are. Your adept web skills should lead you to them,
> : >if you possess a real interest. Feminist theory is one of the most vital
> : >components of the field, and has actually rewritten most of the major
> : >texts over the last 30 years.
>
> : "Art" tends to be a seperate field of study from literature,
> : academically speaking. You're all over the place, its not clear what
> : what you mean by "texts" and don't seem to have any specific concept of
> : what the hell you're even talking about. Are you a history teacher an
> : art teacher a literature teacher or what?
>
> Art history is a subset of history. There's quite a lot of overlap when
> studying the same time period and place even while focusing on a
> particular aspect. Aesthetic critiques apply to literature (an art form)
> as well as visual art, and many of the same theories can be applied
> across the board. Cultural studies looks at a variety of texts (which in
> postmodern theory certainly aren't literally limited to words on pages)
> as a means to explore the issues of a time and place. You seem to have
> never heard the word "interdisciplenary," but I suppose that's just part
> of your attempt to discredit for reasons of your own.
I'm curious then. How is say, interpretation of a nude greek painting
influenced by feminism theory? How can a statue be feminist? Will you
give an example?
>
> : But either way, why would I accept any such information from someone
> : who can't even grasp the distinction between a liberal and a
> : conservative?
>
> But if I'm such an unreliable source, why are you still questioning me at
> all?
I'd love to see the press secratery use that one.
>
> : Why do you keep refusing to take back your personal slandering of
> : Bendis, even though you later claimed you were above personal attacks?
> : Oh, right, you're story changes one second to the next.
>
> I've never made any personal attacks on Bendis.
Sure you did. You said "Bendis is Misogynist." You know you did.
That isn't a comment on his work, its a comment on him. But you know
this, it's been pointed out a gazillion times. You're lying again.
But it is clear that this
> is the fundemental sub-strata of your problem with me; you don't like
> seeing your favorite writer criticized.
And you'll say anything, ANYTHING, from one moment to the next, no
matter how dumb, sexist, inconsistent, ignorant, or radical, because
you're sad that he destroyed the Scarlet Witch.
Steven R. Stahl
Jon J. Yeager wrote:
[snip]
> By all means, do carry on with your non-conceding, projecting, and claims of
> speaking for a majority that has done nothing but disagree with everything
> you've ever posted on this newsgroup (outside of SRS).
>
> Jon
All Shawn is doing is arguing, strongly, that the writing of comics
should be taken seriously, and done as a form of literature, in which
things happen for stated reasons, stories have definite themes and
plots, and preceding stories are used as the foundations for
ever-rising structures--not blown up, with the resulting debris thrown
around as if the bombing was the source of entertainment.
I'm old enough to remember when, back in the '70s, some comics writers
were angry about traditional publishers not taking their work seriously
when they were submitting novels. "What the hell does writing comics
have to do with writing novels?" the publishers asked. Back then, the
writers could point to storylines they'd done (Englehart's "Celestial
Madonna" storyline in AVENGERS was SF done in a superhero setting;
Gerber did various forms of satire); now, in Marvel comics, there's
little chance comics writers will use their work to support novels.
Doing screenplays or scripts for soap operas and cartoons, maybe.
Finding misogyny in stories requires, beyond acknowledging that
misogyny can exist, being able to perceive the stories as abstractions
in which character traits and plots represent authorial intent and
themes can be intentional or unintentional. There's little chance of
performing that type of analysis properly if one hasn't been schooled
in literature--that's what college degrees in literature are for--and
little chance, as well, of finding receptive thinkers on r.a.c.m.u.
Being uninterested in or hostile to the techniques involved in the
analysis and the perception of misogyny in a given story does nothing
to refute or rebut the finding of misogyny; if anything, the hostility
only increases the likelihood that the misogyny exists, and that fans
are only desensitized.
SRS
Jon J. Yeager
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : > Funny, isn't it, that while you're trying to prove to me that my
> theory has
> : > nothing to do with conspiracies, you completely skip the part where I
> ask
> : > where the conspiracy is in what YOU called a conspiracy theory.
>
> : Dude, Shawn allegedly teaches "art history." He has an edu Harvard
> : address, but in turns out he's an assistant librarian, not a faculty
> : member there. Shawn considers himself a "writer" because he writes
> : amateur reviews for a web page, who knows what makes him consider
> : himself a "teacher."
>
> member, to anyone.
I hate agreeing with penis-breath on this one, but I think it's safe to say
it was clearly implied when, on Feb 15th, from your usual address of
sh...@fas.harvard.edu, you stated :
"I have a lot patience. I'm a teacher. [...] My
students don't always agree with me either,
even the young women. But at least I let them
know the theory is out there, and let them make
of it what they will."
Then, on Apr 16th -- a;ways from address sh...@fas.harvard.edu -- to the
question "What subject do you teach, Shawn?" you answered :
"Art History, focus on 19th and 20th century."
Additionally, you were referred to several times as a "college" teacher,
which you had to have read several times, never once bothering to correct.
(Because it served your purposes to look the other way?)
But when we look up
http://hcl.harvard.edu/technicalservices/about/staff.directory.html, we find
you officially listed as :
Shawn Hill - Library Assistant (Materials Management)
No offense, Shawn, but is teaching art history -- assuming you are actually
teaching it somewhere -- such a low-paying job that you have to make ends
meet by moonlighting as (of all things) a Library Assistant in some
college's materials management department?
Why is a Library Assistant telling stories about "his" students (as quoted
higher up)?
What's the deal here, Shawn? You have to admit, to the casual observer that
I and most of us are, it really does look like you're -- for lack of a
better term immediately coming to mind -- full of shit.
Though I've had my issues with you as a sensible, reasonable sane man versus
a militant paranoid psychotic with persecution issues, I never once thought
of you as deceptive or a bold-faced liar. At least not at THIS level.
So I ask again... what's the deal here, Shawn? If you're a teacher, why
aren't you listed as one? And if you're teaching elsewhere, is it fair to
assume you're doing so only part-time?
In that case, when people ask you what it is you do, why are you ashamed to
answer "Library Assistant"? That seems to be what is paying the bills for
you. That's your job, isn't it? Why be ashamed of it?
Have any of us made you feel like you had to lie about what pays the bills
for you? Dude, I'm in advertising, AND Canadian. There's nothing more
embarassing than that.
But ain't no one gonna make me ashamed of either.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:daunh9$k4$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
>>
>> : everyone you don't like is one big monster hiding under various
>> identities.
>>
>> Not everyone, just you and your masks.
>
> Name them. I dare you to.
I noticed Shawn chose not to touch this one.
He likes to bring up his conspiracy about the various identities I
supposedly use on this newsgroup to terrorize him -- but don't ask him to
identify them.
Pretty convenient, isn't it?
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : > Never said anything about certainty or none. I was talking about the
> : > past, what has already happened, and drawing conclusions from that.
>
> : You mean making them up based on that. Who are you to say what the
> : "accepted" abilities of heroes Bendis is playing with are, and whether
> he is
> : out of line by going with one interpretation of them over another?
>
> I'm someone who's familiar with the past appearances of the characters
> involved, and can make note when they suddenly do something new with no
> explanation.
>
> : This is where you go back to appealing to somekind of consensus...
> : you know... that thing I haven't done once since stepping foot on this
> : newsgroup, but that you keep complaining I do.
>
> I'm not appealing to consensus at all. I'm telling you what I
> myself know from reading the old stories.
What about the part you skipped, where you accused me of doing something
I've never done once, and which you've refused to show any evidence of?
As for you not appealing to consensus, let us press the rewind button, shall
we?
> Bendis's inability to understand or represent powers
> according to their accepted understandings and abilities [snip]
"Their ACCEPTED understandings and abilities".
"Accepted by whom?" I asked.
"I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone," you answered, completely avoiding
the question.
But what does the line "their ACCEPTED understandings and abilities" really
imply? That there is somekind of consensus and general agreement on what
those understandings and abilities are. A consensus you are appealing to to
strengthen your position, as you always do.
However, now you state that :
> I'm not appealing to consensus at all. I'm telling you what I
> myself know from reading the old stories.
So if I understand you correctly, by stating that Bendis *was* unable to
"understand or represent powers according to their accepted understandings
and abilities", you really meant that Bendis *seemed* unable to "understand
or represent powers according to their understandings and abilities... as
*I* have determined them to be."
Sure takes a lot of weight out of your side of that debate, doesn't it, once
you take all the BS out?
Time and time again, you are caught padding your side of debates with these
gratuitously extreme statements. You call people -- not their work --
misogynistic, because those words will have more impact that way. That
you've crossed the line into personal slander seems inconsequential to you,
just like it doesn't seem to matter to you that you are constantly appealing
to a consensus that cannot be proven to re-enforce arguments that -- on
their own -- are too weak to resist what the other side of the debate is
bringing forth.
Then, when too many people start calling you on one of your extreme
phrasings, you condemn the reader for taking you too literally. So you can't
even stand by them as written, even once they're on the record.
It's the kind of technique you'd expect from a library assistant who
pretends to be an art history teacher in the hopes of being taken more
seriously.
Fake padding. Always with the fake padding. Why is nothing ever good enough
on its own in the House of S, Shawn?
Why isn't it good enough to answer "Library Assistant" when someone asks you
what you do?
Why isn't it enough to refer to what YOU accept as powers' understandings
and abilities, and not some "accepted" consensus?
Why can't you just refer to Bendis' work as sometimes misogynistic in your
less-than-humble opinion, instead of personally slandering the man in public
and on record by referring to him as a clear-cut misogynist?
Remember how long it took me to tag you as a militant extremist? How close
to the bone did I cut, way back then?
> : And all I have to do to prove mine is turn your attention to any of the
> : hundreds of insane rantings you post here a month. What's your point?
>
> That I have evidence, and that you have only hyperbole and insults.
You have evidence of the crap you bring forth? Okay. Let's stop the presses
while I call you on that.
You've brought forth this conspiracy theory where I am using several
identities on this newsgroup to terrorize you. I won't even ask you for
proof -- I'll make it even easier for you -- all I'll ask you for are to
identify the identities.
Go ahead. Just a couple. Doesn't even have to be all of them.
Until you do, just shut the fuck up about evidence, proof, facts and stats.
Yesterday, we all witnessed how you couldn't drop to your knees fast enough
to unzip Kurt's pants the minute he mentioned his theory about that letterer
that misspelled his name. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but the point
is that you asked for no proof of him before showing open-mindedness towards
the possibility that he may be right about his theory.
You've shown no one in this newsgroup any similar open-mindedness, ever.
Your truths are absolute. Your favorite versions of characters are the only
definitive ones possible. Everyone else needs proof. You claim to show Kurt
more sanity because he supposedly has facts and evidence where no one else
does, when the truth is people have been quoting, citing, and pointing at
evidence and facts with you for over a year. And that's just what I've
witnessed. Who knows how long you've been intolerant towards everyone before
that.
The plain truth is... you just make up reasons not to have to acknowledge
anything to anyone who isn't a "star" in your eyes.
And yet it's heteros who are the intolerant pigeonholers, right?
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
>
> "Several people?" You're the only one who mistook my meaning in that
> thread, though you did post about it several times, as usual. The only
> other participant was Kurt B., correcting *YOU* as to whether his story
> was decompressed (it wasn't).
It's a lot easier to recognize when you're consciously distorting truth to
win an argument now that I know you only pretended to be a teacher to get
respect, Shawn.
What Kurt corrected me on was that whatever I might call what he did during
his JLA arc, he took exception to my implication that he was "experimenting"
with it. Unlike extremist militants like yourself, Kurt has a broader
interpretation of what is or isn't decompressed.
Essentially, he didn't argue semantics about what is or isn't
decompression -- he argued that it was what it was because it was supposed
to be a CSA mini, which explained a lot.
It made it no less decompressed in my eyes.
> I don't think I'm the one who's imagining hordes of posters all
> represented by you. I suppose it helps the consensus you long for if
> you've made up all the participants yourself.
This coming from the guy who accuses everyone he's ever disagreed with of
being me, and cannot name a single alternate identity I've allegedly used,
for fear of being exposed as the paranoid psychotic he truly is.
You've already made it clear by calling him Jon that you believe Scott and I
are a single person, which already makes you delusional. I just want more
names to make it more official.
You threw the theory out there, now let's see you back it up.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
news:1121188747.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Finding misogyny in stories requires, beyond acknowledging that
> misogyny can exist, being able to perceive the stories as abstractions
> in which character traits and plots represent authorial intent and
> themes can be intentional or unintentional. There's little chance of
> performing that type of analysis properly if one hasn't been schooled
> in literature--that's what college degrees in literature are for--and
> little chance, as well, of finding receptive thinkers on r.a.c.m.u.
So if I understand you correctly, you continue to spend coin on a book you
cannot stand for the joy of debating its weaknesses with a crowd made up
mostly of what you deem are non-receptive non-thinkers?
No offense dude, but what kind of fucked up, unhealthy lifestyle are you
living?
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : > These little stories of Marvel office politics are getting disturbing.
>
> : Really? I thought you thought that all these conspiracy theories were
> : nonsense. Of course, if they're coming from Kurt, you can't buy into
> them
> : fast enough.
>
> What might be the difference? Oh, yeah, Kurt actually works there.
So? What does Kurt's place of work have to do with his theory that he was
slighted for personal reasons by a co-worker? He wasn't even working there
at the time. It was a gratuitous conspiracy theory. That it may be right or
wrong is irrelevant -- had any of us come up with anything of the kind,
you'd be arrogantly demanding proof. And even when said proof would be
provided to you, you'd find some other reason to not have to concede
anything.
You've been doing it since the first day I got here over a year ago, Shawn.
It's all Googlable. You're a starfucker. Period.
> : failed to share? Scott Dubin actually spends hours a day providing facts
> and
> : references to you, and you have yet to concede a single argument to
> him...
> : while all Kurt has to do is throw a theory in the air and you can't suck
> his
> : dick fast enough.
>
> Like you, Scott makes things up and has often been factually wrong.
So I've mocked your psychotic delusions enough for you to drop the idea that
he and I are one and the same? Or are you not completely cured yet?
> : Maybe, just maybe, you being so reasonable and open-minded with Kurt has
> : more to do with starstruck-ery than anyone providing -- or not
> providing --
> : facts or proof?
>
> And what's my reason for sucking SRS's dick, too?
He won't contradict you anymore than you'll contradict him. It's not rocket
science, Shawn. I said it months ago and it remains true to this day.
Jon
Kurt Busiek
> You know, if I had superpowers I'd now be your arch-nemesis. Thanks for
> ruining the X-Men, Kurt!
Hey, I've never done a thing to the X-Men. Haven't written FANTASTIC
FOUR or X-FACTOR, neither.
Nor did I pitch that story, or accept it...
> (P.S. Conan rocks.)
Glad you like it!
kdb
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > By all means, do carry on with your non-conceding, projecting, and claims of
> > speaking for a majority that has done nothing but disagree with everything
> > you've ever posted on this newsgroup (outside of SRS).
> >
> > Jon
>
> All Shawn is doing is arguing, strongly, that the writing of comics
> should be taken seriously, and done as a form of literature, in which
> things happen for stated reasons, stories have definite themes and
> plots, and preceding stories are used as the foundations for
> ever-rising structures--not blown up, with the resulting debris thrown
> around as if the bombing was the source of entertainment.
No, he isn't. When faced with actual examples of comics taken
seriously and constructed as literature, his reaction is "where's the
plot?" or "where's the fight scene?" or "Where's that Watchmen
ongoing?"
Shawn doesn't take comics any more seriously than the most low brow
reader on rec.arts.comics.marvel-universe.
Oh sure, he throws the word "literature" around, but if you actually
read what he wants, it ain't literature, its low brow superhero stuff.
Hell, he says he reads comics primarily for the art! He flat out says
it! He's a fuckin philistine, stop taking him so seriously!
>
> I'm old enough to remember when, back in the '70s, some comics writers
> were angry about traditional publishers not taking their work seriously
> when they were submitting novels. "What the hell does writing comics
> have to do with writing novels?" the publishers asked. Back then, the
> writers could point to storylines they'd done (Englehart's "Celestial
> Madonna" storyline in AVENGERS was SF done in a superhero setting;
> Gerber did various forms of satire); now, in Marvel comics, there's
> little chance comics writers will use their work to support novels.
You gotta be kidding me. Peter David and J Michael Strazynski and
Warren Ellis and Orsen Scott Card and Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison
are six novel writers who have worked for Marvel comics these past few
years, and Bendis got started doing graphic novels. One of QUesada's
primary missions has been to bring good writers to Marvel. There's
probably more good writers working for Marvel than there's ever been.
You and Shawn wouldn't recognise a comic written as a "form of
literaure" if it bit you in the ass. David Mack is the most literate
writer published by Marvel:
>From davidmackguide.net
"David Mack is listed in Wizard Magazine's list of Top Ten Writers.
Articles about his work have appeared in The Washington Times, SPIN,
Carpe Noctem, Sketch Magazine, Hobby Japan, Tokyo Pop, Cincinnati
Magazine, Giant Robot, Urb, Soma, CMJ New Music Monthly and others
around the world. His books have been the subject of undergraduate and
graduate university courses in Art and Literature as well as listed as
required reading for classes. His work has been studied in graduate
seminars at USC and hung in the Los Angeles Museum of Art."
Alex Ross wrote that Mack's work is "One of the finest examples of
storytelling as fine art."
Wanna know what a literature analysis looks like thats the real deal?
Excerpt from a college paper on mack at
http://faculty.vassar.edu/mijoyce/VanessaChang/semiotics.htm
"Mack's use of origami as a prototypical text inverts narrative modes,
putting forward concepts of assembly, dimension and transformation
affecting the shape of the entire graphic novel. Mack's approach
constitutes aesthetic distance differently, alternately positing the
reader's culpability while relying on their positions as page turners
and semiotic interpreters. "
Shawn on David Mack "Where's the plot?"
Shawn on Bendis "Where's the fight scene?"
> Doing screenplays or scripts for soap operas and cartoons, maybe.
>
> Finding misogyny in stories requires, beyond acknowledging that
> misogyny can exist, being able to perceive the stories as abstractions
> in which character traits and plots represent authorial intent and
> themes can be intentional or unintentional. There's little chance of
> performing that type of analysis properly if one hasn't been schooled
> in literature--that's what college degrees in literature are for
Well, aside from providing a means to allow people with no techincal
skill to go through a gatekeeper before they enter the workforce, and
aside from providing a career for tenured professors.
I'd hazard that Shawn doesn't have a college degree in literature, by
your own standard, he's not qualified to talk.
Of course, it's a stupid standard.
(Looks like he tricked you into thinking he was expert too!)
Have you actually been to college? You seem to have a niave idea of
what it's about.
--and
> little chance, as well, of finding receptive thinkers on r.a.c.m.u.
By your own standards, nobody should take Shawn seriously.
> Being uninterested in or hostile to the techniques involved in the
> analysis and the perception of misogyny in a given story does nothing
> to refute or rebut the finding of misogyny;
if anything, the hostility
> only increases the likelihood that the misogyny exists,
That's just idiotic. You're making an offensive statement, then
claiming that anyone disagreeing with it only increases the likelihood
"that it's true." Circular thinking, and just plain rude.
And Shawn's made it very clear that he's biased, and has a radical
agenda: female characters are to be treated superiorly to male ones.
Shawn has a social agenda, he admits it, there's nothing accurate or
perceptive about what he says. He's a propaganda writer.
"Propaganda is lies"
- George Orwell
Kurt Busiek
Kurt Busiek
> "Shawn H" <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:davgiq$9kj$2...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu...
>> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>> : > These little stories of Marvel office politics are getting disturbing.
>>
>> : Really? I thought you thought that all these conspiracy theories were
>> : nonsense. Of course, if they're coming from Kurt, you can't buy into them
>> : fast enough.
>>
>> What might be the difference? Oh, yeah, Kurt actually works there.
>
> So? What does Kurt's place of work have to do with his theory that he
> was slighted for personal reasons by a co-worker? He wasn't even
> working there at the time.
Uh, yes, I was.
I was the assistant editor on MARVEL AGE at the time, as noted. I saw
the page lettered correctly, I saw it marked for correction, I talked
to the guy who marked it for correction, he blew me off.
You can believe me or not believe me, but I was reporting, not theorizing.
None of this, of course, should be contrued as taking sides in this
three-way argument you guys have going on. I cordially think you're
all demented as a bag of sparrows, but as long as you enjoy it, what
the hell.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
Whoops. To actually include the reply:
"Yeah, I thought so too."
kdb
Shawn H
: Additionally, you were referred to several times as a "college" teacher,
: which you had to have read several times, never once bothering to correct.
: (Because it served your purposes to look the other way?)
Harvard is a university. There are dozens of colleges in the Boston area.
Having an e-mail address at one institution, and being a teacher, does
not imply a relationship between the two facts.
: Have any of us made you feel like you had to lie about what pays the bills
: for you? Dude, I'm in advertising, AND Canadian. There's nothing more
: embarassing than that.
Scott asked me how I paid the bills. I told him. You can twist the facts
like a pretzel, but I gave them when asked.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
Shawn H
: So? What does Kurt's place of work have to do with his theory that he was
: slighted for personal reasons by a co-worker? He wasn't even working there
It's called first-hand knowledge. Something you don't traffic in.
: You've been doing it since the first day I got here over a year ago, Shawn.
: It's all Googlable. You're a starfucker. Period.
LOL!
: He won't contradict you anymore than you'll contradict him. It's not rocket
: science, Shawn. I said it months ago and it remains true to this day.
We have contradicted each other frequently. Another cliquish conspiracy
theory on your part. Has there never been a group that would have you? A
school that would accept you? A teacher who would pass you? The chips on
your shoulders sound heavy.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Then, when too many people start calling you on one of your extreme
: phrasings, you condemn the reader for taking you too literally. So you can't
: even stand by them as written, even once they're on the record.
The only person who did that calling was you, and you were already
corrected in this very thread as practising what you decried. According
to you, everyone needs to be telepathic to discern what I actually mean
when not being literal, but you speak out of some ill-defined group that
shares a consensus on the facts and reasonably "knows what you mean."
It's a double standard.
: Why isn't it good enough to answer "Library Assistant" when someone asks you
: what you do?
That is what I answered.
: Why can't you just refer to Bendis' work as sometimes misogynistic in your
: less-than-humble opinion, instead of personally slandering the man in public
: and on record by referring to him as a clear-cut misogynist?
Why do my comments matter if they lack any merit?
: Remember how long it took me to tag you as a militant extremist? How close
: to the bone did I cut, way back then?
It took from the posts where I was open about my sexuality to the posts
where I called Bendis for his misogynist story. IE, you made a leap based
on your own prejudices and sense of (insincere?) outrage.
: Until you do, just shut the fuck up about evidence, proof, facts and stats.
My evidence and proof is related to the sujbect in question, Marvel
continuity. And each time I've made a claim about that, I've backed it up
with an example from the comics. It's you who are making broad leaps to
off-topic generalizations.
: that misspelled his name. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but the point
: is that you asked for no proof of him before showing open-mindedness towards
: the possibility that he may be right about his theory.
I don't need "proof" from Kurt, because I have something else you lack:
trust. I accept that the person posting on this group under that name is
the man himself, and that what he's saying is based on his personal
experiences as he understands them.
He is an entirely more credible poster than you, and has done nothing to
dissauge this trust, unlike you and your aliases. Your empty
encouragements to check your IP, BTW, are foiled by the Italian server
you use which advertises its service of hidden identities.
: And yet it's heteros who are the intolerant pigeonholers, right?
Or whatever you are.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: > It turns out, though, that you were the dishonest one, as you already
: > knew the answer. Which, too bad for you, was the one I innocently gave.
: Nonsense, asking a question I already know the answer too is not
: dishonest. You have an odd definition of honesty. I guess reporters
: asking politicians tough questions must all be liars.
: You'll recall that in the phrasing question itself I implied that I
: knew the answer, you just admitted to knowing I was baiting you.
I didn't know until you told me, my paranoid friend. I didn't need to be
calculating to fend off your ruse. I tried something you might consider:
honesty. It's simple and effective.
: I would have reported the actual facts, that you are a librarian at
: Harvard. I then would have interpreted the reason that you didn't
: respond.
Which, I see, you've done anyway, despite being given the actual facts as
asked. Asking a trick question is a deception.
: > as a means to explore the issues of a time and place. You seem to have
: > never heard the word "interdisciplenary," but I suppose that's just part
: > of your attempt to discredit for reasons of your own.
: I'm curious then. How is say, interpretation of a nude greek painting
: influenced by feminism theory? How can a statue be feminist? Will you
: give an example?
Here's a list of courses, bibliographies and papers on the subject.
It's being taught all over the continent, sometimes even in Canadian
schools!
http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth200/politics/
sp_05_first_paper.html
http://www.fjkluth.com/women2.html
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/syllabus.html
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~sager/clas311.html
http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwregi/2005-2006/sec_340.htm
: > But it is clear that this
: > is the fundemental sub-strata of your problem with me; you don't like
: > seeing your favorite writer criticized.
: And you'll say anything, ANYTHING, from one moment to the next, no
: matter how dumb, sexist, inconsistent, ignorant, or radical, because
: you're sad that he destroyed the Scarlet Witch.
Still hurts, huh?
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: Shawn doesn't take comics any more seriously than the most low brow
: reader on rec.arts.comics.marvel-universe.
By which you mean the actual readers here who log on because they like
characters in the Marvel Universe, as if that were the topic at hand.
: Oh sure, he throws the word "literature" around, but if you actually
: read what he wants, it ain't literature, its low brow superhero stuff.
I don't make your elitist distinctions between high art and low. I don't
need the comic books I read to ape Proust or Pynchon to be literary. How
about operating within their own genre and giving a good, entertaining
and coherent super-hero action and adventure yarn? How about telling a
heroic and fanciful story?
: Hell, he says he reads comics primarily for the art! He flat out says
: it! He's a fuckin philistine, stop taking him so seriously!
Comics are an art form that weds pictures with words. I've always
lamented the number of readers who discount the illustrations in favor of
the word balloons.
: > have to do with writing novels?" the publishers asked. Back then, the
: > writers could point to storylines they'd done (Englehart's "Celestial
: > Madonna" storyline in AVENGERS was SF done in a superhero setting;
: > Gerber did various forms of satire); now, in Marvel comics, there's
: > little chance comics writers will use their work to support novels.
: You gotta be kidding me. Peter David and J Michael Strazynski and
: Warren Ellis and Orsen Scott Card and Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison
: are six novel writers who have worked for Marvel comics these past few
: years, and Bendis got started doing graphic novels. One of QUesada's
: primary missions has been to bring good writers to Marvel. There's
: probably more good writers working for Marvel than there's ever been.
Who were novelists and screenwriters before they became comic book
writers, which is the reverse of what SRS just said.
: You and Shawn wouldn't recognise a comic written as a "form of
: literaure" if it bit you in the ass. David Mack is the most literate
: writer published by Marvel:
Ah, here we go, another irrelevant ode to one of your faves.
: >From davidmackguide.net
: "David Mack is listed in Wizard Magazine's list of Top Ten Writers.
As is anyone else who has a hot month.
: around the world. His books have been the subject of undergraduate and
: graduate university courses in Art and Literature as well as listed as
: required reading for classes. His work has been studied in graduate
: seminars at USC and hung in the Los Angeles Museum of Art."
All of which you can say about Jack Kirby.
: Alex Ross wrote that Mack's work is "One of the finest examples of
: storytelling as fine art."
Alex Ross sucks.
: Excerpt from a college paper on mack at
: http://faculty.vassar.edu/mijoyce/VanessaChang/semiotics.htm
: "Mack's use of origami as a prototypical text inverts narrative modes,
: putting forward concepts of assembly, dimension and transformation
: affecting the shape of the entire graphic novel. Mack's approach
: constitutes aesthetic distance differently, alternately positing the
: reader's culpability while relying on their positions as page turners
: and semiotic interpreters. "
Them big words work on lots of artists, including better collagists than
Mack.
: Shawn on David Mack "Where's the plot?"
Where's the story to string together the pretty pictures? Where are the
strengths inherent to the comicbook artform? Mack has never interested me
much beyond his covers.
: Shawn on Bendis "Where's the fight scene?"
Where's the sense of excitement? Where's the rhythm and flow? When are
these idiots gonna stop squawking in the same voice and do something
rather than having it done to them?
: > Being uninterested in or hostile to the techniques involved in the
: > analysis and the perception of misogyny in a given story does nothing
: > to refute or rebut the finding of misogyny;
: > if anything, the hostility
: > only increases the likelihood that the misogyny exists,
: That's just idiotic. You're making an offensive statement, then
: claiming that anyone disagreeing with it only increases the likelihood
: "that it's true." Circular thinking, and just plain rude.
If misogyny offends you so, stop defending its practioners, not to
mention rejecting a feminism you don't understand.
: And Shawn's made it very clear that he's biased, and has a radical
: agenda: female characters are to be treated superiorly to male ones.
"Superiorly?" LOL!
Shawn H.
Jon J. Yeager
news:2005071213261643658%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
> You can believe me or not believe me, but I was reporting,
> not theorizing.
I don't care if the guy flat-out told you he hated your guts and did it on
purpose, that you were wired at the time, or that you have an official
certificate of authenticity signed by him regarding the quote. You're
missing the entire point of the debate, just as Shawn is.
The point, repeated numerous times, is that whatever proof you may or may
not have, you never mentioned it -- nor did Shawn ever asked you for it. He
took you at your word, a priviledge he doesn't reserve for anyone but you.
Now you might see the fact that you're the only one of us here who has
actually seen the inside of Marvel HQ as completely irrelevant to that fact,
but I don't. It's my opinion that Shawn's a starfucker. Plain and simple.
Just as it's my opinion that he wouldn't say a single Goddamn word against
Bendis if he were standing in front of him the way you are (virtually
speaking).
Of course, we're all entitled to disagree with one another on that. There
will never be a lack of opinions on the internet.
> None of this, of course, should be contrued as taking sides in this
> three-way argument you guys have going on. I cordially think you're all
> demented as a bag of sparrows, but as long as you enjoy it, what the hell.
Demented. I like that!
Jon the Demented
--
Jon: "Oh, I now see where the problem is. You
changed the subject in mid-thread into what you
needed for it to be to be right.
Fallen: "*laugh* If by 'changed the subject' you
mean 'answered a question you asked' then yes,
I 'changed the subject'"
Jon: "So you admit it!"
Jon J. Yeager
>
> Has there never been a group that would have you? A
> school that would accept you? A teacher who would
> pass you? The chips on your shoulders sound heavy.
No on all counts, but stop changing the subject!
(It was either that, or : "YOU'RE a chip!!!" -- I think I went with the
winning 1-liner.)
Jon J. Yeager
Okay, let's see if that's true. All jokes, taunts, and lack of seriousness
aside... I'm not Scott. I'm not Astrobiochemist. I'm not Robert. I'm not
Dario or Fallen, Mike, Dave, etc.
I'm not saying any number of them couldn't be a fake identity. In fact it's
almost a given that 2 or 3 of them are the same guy. I don't have the time
to look it up, but if you know anyone with anykind of internet knowledge
(like my buddy JF who usually helps me out in these situations), ask them to
look up all of these people's IP's, and target what city those IP's come
from. The IP info is theoretically on every single usenet posting. You can't
fake the originating IP info without a LOT of really hard work.
Two or more of them coming from a metro city like New York may not be a sign
that they're the same guy... but if nothing else, you'll see that none of
them are from Montreal.
(This was a rare moment of actual helpful advice, dammit. Use it! And live
in doubt no more.)
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : Shawn doesn't take comics any more seriously than the most low brow
> : reader on rec.arts.comics.marvel-universe.
>
> By which you mean the actual readers here who log on because they like
> characters in the Marvel Universe, as if that were the topic at hand.
>
> : Oh sure, he throws the word "literature" around, but if you actually
> : read what he wants, it ain't literature, its low brow superhero stuff.
>
> I don't make your elitist distinctions between high art and low.
The distinction between high and low is a matter of how the story is
made.
By your logic Bendis is on the same level as Shakespear is on the same
level as Chris Claremont is on the same level as Hemingway, it's
moronic, but that's appropriate, cause you're a moron.
>
> : around the world. His books have been the subject of undergraduate and
> : graduate university courses in Art and Literature as well as listed as
> : required reading for classes. His work has been studied in graduate
> : seminars at USC and hung in the Los Angeles Museum of Art."
>
> All of which you can say about Jack Kirby.
David Mack's on the level of Jack Kirby is the best you can do? Nuff
said.
>
>
> : Shawn on David Mack "Where's the plot?"
>
> Where's the story to string together the pretty pictures? Where are the
> strengths inherent to the comicbook artform? Mack has never interested me
> much beyond his covers.
>
> : Shawn on Bendis "Where's the fight scene?"
>
> Where's the sense of excitement? Where's the rhythm and flow?
Sorry, but you don't distinguish between high and low art, so rythm and
flow is just as good as no rythym and flow.
When are
> these idiots gonna stop squawking in the same voice and do something
> rather than having it done to them?
Sorry, but a story that is "squawking" is just as good as one that's
not, cause you don't distinguish between high and low art.
My point, in case you missed it, is that everyone distinguishes between
high and low art, based on their own criteria. And I'm saying yours
suck.
> If misogyny offends you so, stop defending its practioners,
I just made a logical statement about circular reasoning, but there's
really something wrong with your brain, and you can't comprehend it, oh
nutty propgandist, and replied with a non sequitor.
Jon J. Yeager
> Jon J. Yeager <nos...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> : Then, when too many people start calling you on one of your extreme
> : phrasings, you condemn the reader for taking you too literally. So you
> can't
> : even stand by them as written, even once they're on the record.
>
> The only person who did that calling was you, and you were already
> corrected in this very thread as practising what you decried. According
> to you, everyone needs to be telepathic to discern what I actually mean
> when not being literal, but you speak out of some ill-defined group that
> shares a consensus on the facts and reasonably "knows what you mean."
>
> It's a double standard.
You mean like complaining that people shouldn't take you literally, but
insisting to do just that with them?
Curses- This one's a standstill.
> : Why isn't it good enough to answer "Library Assistant" when
> : someone asks you what you do?
>
> That is what I answered.
"I'm a teacher." (Shawn Hill, Feb 15, 2005)
Point to me.
> : Why can't you just refer to Bendis' work as sometimes misogynistic in
> your
> : less-than-humble opinion, instead of personally slandering the man in
> public
> : and on record by referring to him as a clear-cut misogynist?
>
> Why do my comments matter if they lack any merit?
Why do mine?
Dammit, another standstill.
> : Remember how long it took me to tag you as a militant extremist?
> : How close to the bone did I cut, way back then?
>
> It took from the posts where I was open about my sexuality to the posts
> where I called Bendis for his misogynist story. IE, you made a leap based
> on your own prejudices and sense of (insincere?) outrage.
I saw then what I see now : you singling out a single incident of Bendis
portraying a woman as hysterical, and basing your slanderous accusation that
the man was a misogynist based on that and that alone.
I saw you completely ignore one example after another of Bendis portraying
women as dominant, intelligent, even physically superior to some of the
Marvel U's biggest male icons.
I saw you complain when Wanda was revealed as the mastermind controlling the
events. I saw you complain when she was portrayed more like a victim with no
control over anything.
Basically, I saw that you'd made up your mind no matter what anyone said or
did, no matter what rock-solid facts or examples were brought to you by one
poster after another after another after another.
And I said to myself -- that man is pushing a bit too hard for his cause,
there. hat man is a militant.
And in the entire year since that day, what have you done to disprove any of
it, besides claim that your preferred version of the Vision was "the"
definitive one, that a story is only decompressed if nothing at all happens
in an issue, and having yet to retract your slanderous statement (which is
likely to be etched on your gravestone the way this is going) that Bendis is
a misogynist.
Point to me!
> : Until you do, just shut the fuck up about evidence, proof, facts and
> stats.
>
> My evidence and proof is related to the sujbect in question, Marvel
> continuity. And each time I've made a claim about that, I've backed it up
> with an example from the comics. It's you who are making broad leaps to
> off-topic generalizations.
Because you'd never let anyone get away with anything without demanding
proof of somekind, unless their name is Kurt Busiek?
> : that misspelled his name. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but the
> point
> : is that you asked for no proof of him before showing open-mindedness
> towards
> : the possibility that he may be right about his theory.
>
> I don't need "proof" from Kurt, because I have something else you lack:
> trust. I accept that the person posting on this group under that name is
> the man himself, and that what he's saying is based on his personal
> experiences as he understands them.
Your paranoia that I might be Scott Dubin or anyone else on this newsgroup
is not my problem, Shawn. Nor should it be MY burden to bear. It's entirely
yours, and I don't see why I should put up with that paranoia and all that
comes with it peacefully and understandingly.
Your freakish paranoia means your trust level in anything I write to you is
at zero... and yet you can't let a single posting of mine go by without
reacting to it.
Explain this logic to me, and why I should be made to put up with that
annoyance with a smile on my face.
> He is an entirely more credible poster than you, and has done nothing to
> dissauge this trust, unlike you and your aliases. Your empty
> encouragements to check your IP, BTW, are foiled by the Italian server
> you use which advertises its service of hidden identities.
It does? Holy shit. That is so cool. But I digress -- if I were to email you
from Hotmail, which exposes IPs and every single hop between source and
destination... will you PLEASE stop imposing on me the burden of what all
those other idiots put you through here?
Or are ALL of their IP's similarly protected and I'd be wasting my time?
Kurt Busiek
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : > have to do with writing novels?" the publishers asked. Back then, the
> : > writers could point to storylines they'd done (Englehart's "Celestial
> : > Madonna" storyline in AVENGERS was SF done in a superhero setting;
> : > Gerber did various forms of satire); now, in Marvel comics, there's
> : > little chance comics writers will use their work to support novels.
>
> : You gotta be kidding me. Peter David and J Michael Strazynski and
> : Warren Ellis and Orsen Scott Card and Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison
> : are six novel writers who have worked for Marvel comics these past few
> : years, and Bendis got started doing graphic novels. One of QUesada's
> : primary missions has been to bring good writers to Marvel. There's
> : probably more good writers working for Marvel than there's ever been.
>
> Who were novelists and screenwriters before they became comic book
> writers, which is the reverse of what SRS just said.
As far as I know, Peter, Warren, Neil and Grant were not novelists or
screenwriters prior to working in comics. Card and Straczynski were.
And if you're thinking of Steve Englehart's experience with THE POINT
MAN, what he discovered is that pointing to the Celestial Madonna Saga
did no good at all. Nowadays, writing comics carries considerably more
respect -- I've been invited to write novels as a result of editors
liking my comics work on numerous occasions, and I doubt I'm the only
one.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> "Kurt Busiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
> news:2005071213261643658%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
>> You can believe me or not believe me, but I was reporting,
>> not theorizing.
>
> I don't care if the guy flat-out told you he hated your guts and did it
> on purpose, that you were wired at the time, or that you have an
> official certificate of authenticity signed by him regarding the quote.
> You're missing the entire point of the debate, just as Shawn is.
I'm not actually interested in the point of the debate -- I'm merely
correcting you on a couple of factual points. You said I wasn't
working there at the time, and I was theorizing.
Same as when I told Shawn (?) that Jean didn't come back because the
PTB assigned anyone to come up with a way to do it. I can't say I know
or care what his point was, either.
I'm not actually participating in the debate, or taking anyone's side,
as noted.
kdb
scott34494
Even sadder, he's just mirroring what Shawn says, and thinks only
someone who majored in literature can properly interpret a story.
What sadder is Shawn's "college words," so to speak, made SRS think
that he majored in literature, which Shawn almost certainly did not.
What's even sadder is that SRS has said misogynist stuff himself, is
himself somewhat sexist, and is really only parroting Shawn cause he
doesn't like Bendis.
But at least SRS and Shawn have the same motivation at heart.
Jon J. Yeager
> On 2005-07-12 15:05:25 -0700, "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@thanks.com> said:
>
>> "Kurt Busiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
>> news:2005071213261643658%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
>>>
>>> You can believe me or not believe me, but I was reporting,
>>> not theorizing.
>>
>> I don't care if the guy flat-out told you he hated your guts and did it
>> on purpose, that you were wired at the time, or that you have an official
>> certificate of authenticity signed by him regarding the quote. You're
>> missing the entire point of the debate, just as Shawn is.
>
> I'm not actually interested in the point of the debate -- I'm merely
> correcting you on a couple of factual points. You said I wasn't working
> there at the time, and I was theorizing.
You said a lot more than that, Kurt. Do you really need it pointed out to
you?
"Uh, yes, I was" -- which was your opening line -- can be considered
correcting a fact (although I could have done without the condescending
"Uh"). I made some throwaway line about you not working there back then, you
pointed out that you were, end of story.
But you going into detail about how you marked the error for correction and
how the guy blew you off is completely irrelevant. I acknowledged that it
might have happened, just like it might not have -- and repeated countless
times that whether it did or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
How you can read in them words anykind of invitation to expound on how you
really were victimized is something you should really save for your
therapist. ;-)
Hell, you even added how you didn't care if I believed you or not (should I
remind you how you reacted the LAST time I didn't believe you about
something? Who are we kidding here?) and added that your 1-sided account of
what happened somehow proves that you were "reporting", not theorizing. What
if the guy's mother died that day, Kurt? Maybe he wasn't in a good mood.
Maybe he forgot. Did he tell you himself that he didn't think you should be
credited and this was his way to get back at you? Or did you hear it from
someone else?
If you want to be anal about it (and clearly you do), what NBC News and CNN
do is called reporting. What you just did remains theorizing, any way you
slice it.
Yet, it remains completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that
Shawn never asked you for that explanation before trusting that there was
one. Just as he blindly believes that you are who you say you are, when
technically speaking, there is no actual proof of that either.
We choose to believe what is convenient for us to believe. This is usenet.
Let's keep things in perspective. I could log in tomorrow as Brian Bendis.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
> : And Shawn's made it very clear that he's biased, and has a radical
> : agenda: female characters are to be treated superiorly to male ones.
>
> "Superiorly?" LOL!
>
> Shawn H.
OMG! Shawn just made fun of me for using a word that exists, but he
thought I made up!
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Superiorly&x=9&y=17
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z23712B6B
Best Shawn H post ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, Professor Hill!
Kurt Busiek
> "Kurt Busiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
> news:2005071215513677923%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
>> I'm not actually interested in the point of the debate -- I'm merely
>> correcting you on a couple of factual points. You said I wasn't working
>> there at the time, and I was theorizing.
>
> You said a lot more than that, Kurt. Do you really need it pointed out to you?
>
> "Uh, yes, I was" -- which was your opening line -- can be considered
> correcting a fact (although I could have done without the condescending
> "Uh"). I made some throwaway line about you not working there back
> then, you pointed out that you were, end of story.
>
> But you going into detail about how you marked the error for correction
> and how the guy blew you off is completely irrelevant. I acknowledged
> that it might have happened, just like it might not have -- and
> repeated countless times that whether it did or not is completely
> irrelevant to the discussion.
I didn't mark the error for correction. Nor was I trying to contribute
to the argument you're having with Shawn.
My intent, at least, was to correct you on two points -- first, on the
statement that I wasn't working there, and second on the claim that I
was theorizing. That's why I pointed out both that I was working
there, and that I had direct knowledge of what I'd described.
> Hell, you even added how you didn't care if I believed you or not
> (should I remind you how you reacted the LAST time I didn't believe you
> about something? Who are we kidding here?) and added that your 1-sided
> account of what happened somehow proves that you were "reporting", not
> theorizing.
Actually, the last time we had a set-to, it was over you claiming that
I was lying. Had you just said you didn't believe me, I wouldn't have
cared. It's when you started explaining to people why I was lying that
I felt it was worth a correction.
And yes, an account of something directly witnessed is reporting, not
theorizing.
> Did he tell you himself that he didn't think you should be credited and
> this was his way to get back at you? Or did you hear it from someone
> else?
He told me flat-out, and invited me to go complain to the editor in
chief if I wanted to make a fuss over it. Since I'd been assuming that
he simply didn't know how to spell my name, once I realized it was
animosity on his part, I figured the hell with it.
> If you want to be anal about it (and clearly you do), what NBC News and
> CNN do is called reporting. What you just did remains theorizing, any
> way you slice it.
I think you're misusing both words, actually. Reporting isn't limited
to news reporting, and stating something you have direct knowledge of
isn't theorizing.
> Yet, it remains completely irrelevant to the subject at hand,
>
I'm not attempting to make it relevant to your argument. Had you made
a post that said that my middle name is Alva, I'd correct you on that,
regardless of whether it was relevant to any larger point you were
making.
There's no real need to make a big fuss about this. It was a fairly
simple factual correction.
kdb
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>As far as I know, Peter, Warren, Neil and Grant were not novelists or
>screenwriters prior to working in comics.
I'm pretty confident that Neil Gaiman had never written a novel prior to
working in comics, and Warren Ellis and Grant Morrison still haven't.
(Morrison has written a book of short stories and a play about the life
of Lewis Carroll which was staged at the Edinburgh Fringe a few years
back, but that's a different matter. And frankly, anyone can get staged
at the Fringe. That's the point.)
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Kurt Busiek
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> said:
> In message <2005071215475650878%kurtbusiek@aolcomics>, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>>
>> As far as I know, Peter, Warren, Neil and Grant were not novelists or
>> screenwriters prior to working in comics.
>
> I'm pretty confident that Neil Gaiman had never written a novel prior
> to working in comics, and Warren Ellis and Grant Morrison still
> haven't. (Morrison has written a book of short stories and a play about
> the life of Lewis Carroll which was staged at the Edinburgh Fringe a
> few years back, but that's a different matter. And frankly, anyone can
> get staged at the Fringe. That's the point.)
Neil had written at least one book -- about Duran Duran -- but his
first novel is the collaborative GOOD OMENS, which was written and
published after he had been writing comics for some years.
Warren is at least writing a novel that is contracted for by a major
publisher, so while he's not technically a published novelist, he's
well on the way, barring bus accidents and such.
kdb
scott34494
Paul O'Brien wrote:
> In message <2005071215475650878%kurtbusiek@aolcomics>, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
> >
> >As far as I know, Peter, Warren, Neil and Grant were not novelists or
> >screenwriters prior to working in comics.
>
> I'm pretty confident that Neil Gaiman had never written a novel prior to
> working in comics, and Warren Ellis and Grant Morrison still haven't.
> (Morrison has written a book of short stories and a play about the life
> of Lewis Carroll which was staged at the Edinburgh Fringe a few years
> back, but that's a different matter. And frankly, anyone can get staged
> at the Fringe. That's the point.)
Morrison and Ellis both have novel deals. From a recent Morrison
interview:
Daniel Robert Epstein: Hey Grant, are you taking a break from work
today?
Grant Morrison: I wish I could take a break! I'm wrapping up my novel
- the IF - right now because I'm kind of over the deadline. I'm also
doing this Shining Knight comic for DC so I don't have much time on my
hands.
DRE: Is the IF a full length novel?
GM: So far it's about 320 pages and I'm getting near to the editing
stage. It's been a long hard slog and I'm looking forward to relaxing.
DRE: What's the novel about?
GM: It's about an ex-special forces SAS soldier who gets kidnapped and
is forced to write the manifesto of a terrorist group. The terrorist
group is composed of teenagers who claim to come from outer space
[laughs]. It's a bit like 'Children of the Damned' meets 'A Clockwork
Orange' and the basic idea is what might happen if children decided to
go to war with adults. The hero has to write the account of what
happens and I have to write about him writing it.
Ellis has a novel deal with HarperCollins that he mentioned in 2003 and
said was supposed to come out in 2005, but its probably behind
schedule.
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>Neil had written at least one book -- about Duran Duran -- but his
>first novel is the collaborative GOOD OMENS, which was written and
>published after he had been writing comics for some years.
I think Neil's book DON'T PANIC, a biography of Douglas Adams and a
history of H2G2-related projects, also appeared before his comics work -
or at least before his comics career was established. But again, it's
not a novel.
Paul O'Brien
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Morrison and Ellis both have novel deals.
Great, but the issue was whether they had novel deals when they entered
the comics industry between 10 and 15 years ago. Hell, Morrison's been
writing comics since I was a child - I remember him doing ZOIDS comics
when I was about 12.
scott34494
Paul O'Brien wrote:
> In message <1121214064.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >Morrison and Ellis both have novel deals.
>
> Great, but the issue was whether they had novel deals when they entered
> the comics industry
No, actually, the issues's been all over the place, it started with SRS
claiming that comic creators used to be able to sell novels based on
their work in comics, but couldn't today. He was shot down.
Shawn H
: Shawn H wrote:
: >
: > I don't make your elitist distinctions between high art and low.
: The distinction between high and low is a matter of how the story is
: made.
No, it's not. High and low are specific critical concepts which refer to
fine art and commercial/popular art respectively.
: By your logic Bendis is on the same level as Shakespear is on the same
: level as Chris Claremont is on the same level as Hemingway, it's
: moronic, but that's appropriate, cause you're a moron.
Yes, they're all on the same level as creators of artistic texts.
: > Where's the sense of excitement? Where's the rhythm and flow?
: Sorry, but you don't distinguish between high and low art, so rythm and
: flow is just as good as no rythym and flow.
No, rhythm and flow is something that cultural products of all kinds can
possess or lack. I value them as signs of a master at work.
: When are
: > these idiots gonna stop squawking in the same voice and do something
: > rather than having it done to them?
: Sorry, but a story that is "squawking" is just as good as one that's
: not, cause you don't distinguish between high and low art.
You don't understand basic aesthetic terms, and yet you feel confident that
you're aware of my training and expertise. Why?
: My point, in case you missed it, is that everyone distinguishes between
: high and low art, based on their own criteria. And I'm saying yours
: suck.
That's not really a point; it's a misconception.
: > If misogyny offends you so, stop defending its practioners,
: I just made a logical statement about circular reasoning, but there's
: really something wrong with your brain, and you can't comprehend it, oh
: nutty propgandist, and replied with a non sequitor.
Your statement about circular reasoning was not logical.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: The point, repeated numerous times, is that whatever proof you may or may
: not have, you never mentioned it -- nor did Shawn ever asked you for it. He
: took you at your word, a priviledge he doesn't reserve for anyone but you.
Untrue. I post with a spirit of hope and respect for others. So far, it's
been just a few exceptions (even in all these years) who have made me wary.
Shawn H.