If Peter David is....etc
Blaster
>> of time and then gets cancelled? Is there something about his
style
>> that doesn't resonate with the fans?<
Actually, this is a good question, one that shows a misunderstanding
of the medium, and if everyone could calm down and not worry about
frumpled egos or spitting in church, it calls for an answer. Since
David himself is not up for it, I'll take a stab...
David works in a genre that is very serial in nature. His fiction in
both science fiction and comics are all based on characters that in
most cases he didn't create, but whom have a long history that has
been augmented by hundreds, if not thousands, of writers.
It's basic story-telling, or myth-making. And like all basic stories
or myths, once enjoyed, they get passed over for the next one. Out of
the jillions of Hulk adventures, or Captain Kirk voyages, how many do
we really remember? How many do we WANT to remember? You don't eat the
same cookie over and over again.
As far as resonating with the fans, David has shown through his own
huge output and longetivity that he resonates more with the fans than
just about any other serial writer. And as far as staying in print,
the only books in this genre that stay in print are the founding ones,
like rewrites of scripts or origin stories.
If you measure a writer's worth by how long his or her book stays on
the market, then go read Faulkner. If you want a great time and a good
read with characters you've come to love, and maybe even want to see
them developed in surprising new ways, read David.
Padguy
>>> of time and then gets cancelled? Is there something about his
>style
>>> that doesn't resonate with the fans?<
God, I am sick of this. I am so goddamned sick of this.
A certain amount of time? A certain AMOUNT OF TIME? And what time would that
be, exactly? Five years? Six years? Eight years?
"What is it about a Joss Whedon TV series that it only lasts a certain amount
of time and then gets cancelled?" If one applies the reasoning of comic book
fans to television, then every drama, every sitcom, every cable show apparently
doesn't resonate with the TV audience because they don't all last as long as
daytime soap operas that have been airing for forty years.
Or would the fans prefer if, like other writers, I simply left after a year,
two years, three years. Because I'm really starting to think so. Oh, fans
claim they hate it when writers move around from title to title, but look at
the alternative. I wrote X-Factor for all of a year and people still speak
fondly of it. If I'd stayed on the book for eight years and it was canceled,
fans would say, "Oh yeah, X-Factor, it was a Peter David title, so naturally it
got canceled."
It's infuriating. This attitude is absolutely infuriating. Practically every
title in the top 100 comics is one that was only begun within the last few
years because the previous incarnations were canceled and rebooted for any
number of reasons, but my books get canceled--even though oftentimes they're
outselling other books still being published--and it's "Gee, what's wrong with
Peter David?"
What's wrong is he's bloody fed up with that attitude, is what's wrong.
PAD
This post written specifically for alt.fan.peter-david. Any crosspostings
appear against the wishes of the author.
Schfooge
"Padguy" <pad...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040407155753...@mb-m20.aol.com...
This is mainly because you do tend to stick around on titles and make them
your own. You stay with the title long enough to make it yours. Thus, the
fans don't think (for example) that Young Justice got cancelled, they tend
to think Peter David's Young Justice got cancelled.
For most other titles, where the writers change anywhere from every few
months to every couple years, fans tend to think of the title as an entity
separate from whoever's writing it. There are actually very few writers
that stick out in the minds of the fans, and you happen to be one of them.
Many times I find myself reading a Superman or Batman book with no clue as
to who wrote it without having to flip to the credits page. However, I
always know when I'm reading a Peter David book - which often is my reason
for having bought the book.
Also, very few books last long enough for a dedicated writer to bring it to
a definite conclusion. For every series like Sandman that has the freedom
to go on until the writer finishes all he wants to do, there are dozens like
Supergirl where the writer gets told he has x number of issues to wrap
things up, or titles that just disappear and leave the readers hanging.
And frankly, when your titles get cancelled, the faithful readers are always
left wanting more and feeling that you weren't allowed to complete the job.
You stay on books long enough to give the readers the feeling that you could
go on writing good stories for years. So when the title gets cancelled for
some executive decision based on sales, or because DC wants to introduce a
new Supergirl or Teen Titans concept, the readers tend to feel cheated of
those years of good stories. Regardless of how good a job you do of
wrapping things up, we can sense that you're not quite finished telling all
the stories you want to with the characters. There's just a lingering
feeling of incompleteness/.
So if a Superman, Batman, or X-Men title gets cancelled, it's "Oh well
there's another 5 or 6 indistinguishable titles anyway". If some new
experimental title gets cancelled, it's "I didn't think it would last
anyway - it was too different", but when a Peter David book gets cancelled,
it's "Peter David's ________ got cancelled, What is it with Peter David that
his books always get cancelled? Is DC/Marvel targeting him? Is there
something about his books that the fans don't like?"
What it boils down to is that with writing as good as yours, the question is
never simply "why did this book get cancelled?", but instead "why did such a
well written book get cancelled?". The good writing is inseperable from the
question, and has to be addressed in any proper answer to the question. You
can't just say that it was due to poor sales, without addressing why such a
well written book wasn't selling. You can't say DC/Marvel wanted to go a
different direction with the characters without addressing why the new
direction couldn't have been done in the book that was already handling the
characters so well. The bottom line is why does it seem that DC and Marvel
aren't treating your writing with the respect we feel it deserves - which
begs the question as to whether or not fandom at large recognizes the
quality of your writing. With other writers, the question never arises for
one of two reasons. For a very few number of writers, fandom at large
recognizes their quality and buys tons of anything they write. Thus, Neil
Gaiman (for example) gets to quit Sandman when he feels he's finished. For
the rest, there is no expectation that their writing is especially
deserving, so there is no uproar when the titles they write are cancelled.
It's especially frustrating for your fans who feel you clearly should be in
the first group, but continually see you being treated the same as all the
writers in the second group. This singles you out from almost all other
writers in the minds of the fans as the writer who keeps getting a raw deal
from Marvel, DC and fandom at large.
Ken from Chicago
"Blaster" <bla...@lica.k12.il.us> wrote in message
news:b183400f.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >What is it about a Peter David book that only lasts a certain amount
> >> of time and then gets cancelled? Is there something about his
> style
> >> that doesn't resonate with the fans?<
Yeah, that HULK book was gone in a flash.
> Actually, this is a good question, one that shows a misunderstanding
> of the medium, and if everyone could calm down and not worry about
> frumpled egos or spitting in church, it calls for an answer. Since
> David himself is not up for it, I'll take a stab...
>
> David works in a genre that is very serial in nature. His fiction in
> both science fiction and comics are all based on characters that in
> most cases he didn't create, but whom have a long history that has
> been augmented by hundreds, if not thousands, of writers.
>
> It's basic story-telling, or myth-making. And like all basic stories
> or myths, once enjoyed, they get passed over for the next one. Out of
> the jillions of Hulk adventures, or Captain Kirk voyages, how many do
> we really remember? How many do we WANT to remember? You don't eat the
> same cookie over and over again.
>
> As far as resonating with the fans, David has shown through his own
> huge output and longetivity that he resonates more with the fans than
> just about any other serial writer. And as far as staying in print,
> the only books in this genre that stay in print are the founding ones,
> like rewrites of scripts or origin stories.
>
> If you measure a writer's worth by how long his or her book stays on
> the market, then go read Faulkner. If you want a great time and a good
> read with characters you've come to love, and maybe even want to see
> them developed in surprising new ways, read David.
Peter doesn't make the comic book characters. He makes em better.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Okay, he actually makes comic book characters, too.
P.P.S. Peter doesn't make media tie-in book charact-er, wait, he does that
also, in fact STAR TREK: NEW FRONTIER got delayed while working on his
wholely original SIR APPROPOS trilogy.
P.P.P.S. Peter makes characters AND he makes characters better.
..Worlds Apart
>If you measure a writer's worth by how long his or her book stays on
>the market, then go read Faulkner. If you want a great time and a good
>read with characters you've come to love, and maybe even want to see
>them developed in surprising new ways, read David.
You know, for some of us reading Faulknew is a great time with
characters I grow to love. There's a reason that stuff is considered
to be classic.
..Worlds Apart
>>>What is it about a Peter David book that only lasts a certain amount
>>>> of time and then gets cancelled? Is there something about his
>>style
>>>> that doesn't resonate with the fans?<
>
>God, I am sick of this. I am so goddamned sick of this.
>
>
>It's infuriating. This attitude is absolutely infuriating. Practically every
>title in the top 100 comics is one that was only begun within the last few
>years because the previous incarnations were canceled and rebooted for any
>number of reasons, but my books get canceled--even though oftentimes they're
>outselling other books still being published--and it's "Gee, what's wrong with
>Peter David?"
Sounds like someone is upset about Captain Marvel getting the axe.
Kenne Estes
No...@Nowhere.Nothing (..Worlds Apart) wrote:
I know Peter David would get a kick to know he was being compared to
Faulkner.
I'm more of an Alexander Dumas fan myself.
Dreighton
> outselling other books still being published--and it's "Gee, what's wrong
> with Peter David?"
PAD meet Priest, Priest, meet PAD. It seems you two have a lot in
common.
Seriously, I don't see what the fuss is. A good writer gets to stay
on a comic a long time CAUSE he's good. If he stunk he would be fired
(Ok, this 2nd part may not hold up under too much examination). But
many comics like TV shows have a certain shelf life, before they are
eventually done and cancelled. It happens. (but after they bring in
the new cute kid as the other kids age into not so darling teens, or
have a little floating green alien friend to help them out)
Like a NFL coach.....comic book writers are hired to be
fired/cancelled. It comes as part of the job.
Dreighton
Padguy
>
Considering it's the readers who are shouting "Save Captain Marvel" and I'm the
one who's coolly responding, "Don't bother. It's simply not a title Marvel is
interested in publishing anymore," I'd say it's the fans who are the most
upset.
What upsets *me* is that my ability to sustain a B or even C list title for far
more years than most any other writer could manage is *so* taken for granted
that it seems a singular standard has been applied to me: If I stay on a title
and it doesn't run forever, something's wrong.
And what upsets me is that this completely unfair perception can spread, like a
cancer, rotting my ability to sustain *any* title. Unless, of course, it's an
"A" list title. That's the true irony, really. Fans howl that they want
something original, something different, and then don't support it in
substantive numbers while creating an environment wherein writers who prefers
to chronicle the adventures of characters that are more "marginal" (Captain
Marvel) or even completely original (Fallen Angel) is almost forced to focus on
getting "A" list gigs if he has any interest in remaining in the comics
industry.
Which is just yet another reminder to me of how fortunate it is I have plenty
of other options outside the comics industry.
Padguy
>never simply "why did this book get cancelled?", but instead "why did such a
>well written book get cancelled?".
Oh, that I can answer.
Buying habits of most fans and retailers run in the following order:
First priority: Publisher.
Second priority: Character.
Third priority: Artist
Fourth priority: Writer
Now yes, I know, there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. But I'm
speaking of general trends.
If a book is other than Marvel or DC, that's one strike against it. If the
star of the book is not a character who's been around for, say, thirty years
already, that's two strikes against it. If the book doesn't feature a hot
artist, or has round robin artists, that's three strikes right there...and
that's before "writer" enters the picture.
Different media have emphasis in different places when it comes to what draws
people in. The more visual the medium, the less priority a writer is in the
eye of the audience. In books, it's the writer. In plays, it's the writer +
the star(s). In movies, it's the star(s) + the director (the average listing
for a movie doesn't even mention the writer, unless it's also the director.)
In comics, it's the brand name of the publisher + character + artist. If the
first three are pluses, the writer doesn't matter because most readers will
still buy it, or at least sample it. If the first three are negatives, the
writer doesn't matter because most readers don't sample it. If two of the
three are negatives, the writer has a hard row to hoe.
My run on "Hulk" is the classic proof. Most readers didn't know me from a hole
in the wall. A few did from my Spidey work, but not tons. But because it was
Marvel, the Hulk, with artwork that was getting a lot of buzz, people were
willing to sample the new storylines and liked what they saw.
So now there's "Fallen Angel" which, frankly, is better written than anything I
ever did on Hulk. It's DC, so that's a plus. But the character is original,
and nobody knows the artist, so that's two strikes against it right there. In
practical terms, that means that the majority of readers won't even sample it.
But put me on a Hulk one-shot with Dale Keown as penciller and bam, watch sales
skyrocket.
Dwight Williams
if I've said it before and forgotten doing so).
Yours,
--
Dwight Williams
http://web.ncf.ca/ad696/
Mike Hall
> Fans howl that they want
> something original, something different, and then don't support it in
> substantive numbers while creating an environment wherein writers who
> prefers to chronicle the adventures of characters that are more
> "marginal" (Captain Marvel) or even completely original (Fallen Angel) is
> almost forced to focus on getting "A" list gigs if he has any interest in
remaining
> in the comics industry.
Substantive numbers of fans don't howl. They buy mainstream comics and
allow the 'vocal minority' to howl for quality original stories. 'Vocal
minority' meaning us. The howling fanboy commandos.
AWWOOOO.... Bring back Captain Marvel and Fallen Angel!!!
Etc.
Mike Hall
Michael Pastor
>> Sounds like someone is upset about Captain Marvel getting the axe.
>>
>
> Considering it's the readers who are shouting "Save Captain Marvel"
> and I'm the one who's coolly responding, "Don't bother. It's simply
> not a title Marvel is interested in publishing anymore," I'd say it's
> the fans who are the most upset.
>
> What upsets *me* is that my ability to sustain a B or even C list
> title for far more years than most any other writer could manage is
> *so* taken for granted that it seems a singular standard has been
> applied to me: If I stay on a title and it doesn't run forever,
> something's wrong.
Don't you see that it is a compliment when they expect that? People don't
ask unless they're puzzled - if PAD's book are so good, why do they get the
ax? The first part of the question relies on the premise that you are a
good writer, not that you are cursed! Remember that they don't see the
numbers, the politics of the industry, or anything behind the scenes.
michael j pastor
Padguy
>> title for far more years than most any other writer could manage is
>> *so* taken for granted that it seems a singular standard has been
>> applied to me: If I stay on a title and it doesn't run forever,
>> something's wrong.
>
>Don't you see that it is a compliment when they expect that?
Would that it were so. All too often it's phrased as a slam,usually in the
following context:
Poster A: I really like Peter David's comics.
Poster B: Oh yeah? If Peter David is so good, how come all his comics get
canceled?
Will Frank
> Poster A: I really like Peter David's comics.
>
> Poster B: Oh yeah? If Peter David is so good, how come all his comics get
> canceled?
The real answer to which, of course, is "the same reason that Firefly,
Wonderfalls, Crusade[1], Farscape, et al got canceled."
[1] Well, I think it counts...sorta. It makes the argument better, if
nothing else.
--
Thinker, Fighter, Will "scifantasy" Frank
Reader, Writer, wmf...@stwing.upenn.edu
Artist, Gamer, http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wmfrank
Modern-Day Geek. AIM: scifanta42
Padguy
>>
>> Poster B: Oh yeah? If Peter David is so good, how come all his comics get
>> canceled?
>
>The real answer to which, of course, is "the same reason that Firefly,
>Wonderfalls, Crusade[1], Farscape, et al got canceled."
>
I used a variation of that on a nitwit over on Newsarama. I said something to
the effect of, "Tell you what: Why don't you write an anonymous letter to
Mutant Enemy and say, 'How come all Joss Whedon's TV shows get canceled?
What's wrong with him?' The chances are they'll ignore you, operating on the
assumption that the nearest bag of Fritos would have more intelligent things to
say than you do."
Tim
news:slrnc7mrl5....@force.stwing.upenn.edu...
> The real answer to which, of course, is "the same reason that Firefly,
> Wonderfalls, Crusade[1], Farscape, et al got canceled."
But all of these shows (with the possible exception of Wonderfalls, which I
never saw) were lousy.
Tim
Samy Merchi
> So now there's "Fallen Angel" which, frankly, is better written than
> anything I ever did on Hulk.
I'm curious as to whether you can give reasons to this? In what ways do you
think FA is better than your HULK?
I've read your PPTSSM, your X-FACTOR, your INCREDIBLE HULK, your AQUAMAN,
your YOUNG JUSTICE, your SUPERGIRL, and personally I find FA worse by leaps
and bounds than any of those.
I'm willing to concede that in the case of the first three, my liking of
the character(s) may have influenced my liking of the stories as well, but
with the latter three, I had, by and large, never read a solo story (and in
some cases, not even a cameo appearance) featuring any of those characters
before, so there was little to no pre-disposition to like the characters or
the stories. But like them I did, sometimes as quickly as after a single
issue. Something I've yet to feel for FA.
As for everything else in your post, I agree with pretty much all of it.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
R. Tang
Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> wrote:
>pad...@aol.com (Padguy) wrote in
>
>> So now there's "Fallen Angel" which, frankly, is better written than
>> anything I ever did on Hulk.
>
>I'm curious as to whether you can give reasons to this? In what ways do you
>think FA is better than your HULK?
>
>I've read your PPTSSM, your X-FACTOR, your INCREDIBLE HULK, your AQUAMAN,
>your YOUNG JUSTICE, your SUPERGIRL, and personally I find FA worse by leaps
>and bounds than any of those.
Really? I don't see how, unless you're basing this on the
perceived morality of the characters.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Samy Merchi
>>I've read your PPTSSM, your X-FACTOR, your INCREDIBLE HULK, your
>>AQUAMAN, your YOUNG JUSTICE, your SUPERGIRL, and personally I find FA
>>worse by leaps and bounds than any of those.
> Really? I don't see how, unless you're basing this on the
> perceived morality of the characters.
Quite really, yes. And while the morality of the characters does factor
into things in *some* way, I'm sure, I doubt it's the predominant reason; I
quite enjoyed Ellis' DV8, for example, despite the fact that the
protagonists were utter rat-bastards: alcoholics, murderers, incesters (is
that the noun for someone who commits incest?), druggies, manipulators, etc
etc. And I loved that book. So I do think that atmosphere can be written
successfully.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that I'm just plain not enjoying the
book on a subjective level; I'm glad PAD does like what he's doing with the
book (as do, evidently, many regulars of this newsgroup), and by no means
do I think he should cater to me, because people like me who have given the
book a try and found it not to their tastes may be a very small minority:
it's hard to know for sure without proper market research.
So in the end, the subjective perspective matters fairly little because
it's pretty unique to each and every one of us, and it's not something
that's easy to change. Objectively, however, I'm curious as to in what ways
Peter feels his writing is better on FA than on HULK. Is the pacing better?
Does he think the cliffhangers are more compelling in FA? The characters
deeper? The dialogue more realistic?
Padguy
quality.
Padguy
>it's pretty unique to each and every one of us, and it's not something
>that's easy to change. Objectively, however, I'm curious as to in what ways
>Peter feels his writing is better on FA than on HULK. Is the pacing better?
>Does he think the cliffhangers are more compelling in FA? The characters
>deeper? The dialogue more realistic?
>
Yes to all of those, actually. That and the fact that the characterization is
deeper and more demanding in such a way that you *don't* necessarily get it all
in one issue...which doesn't automatically make it more successful insofar as
readers are concerned, but I think it makes it more successful as a creative
endeavor.
And I submit, although I've no way of proving it, that if I'd written DV8 you'd
be put off by it, whereas if Ellis had written "Fallen Angel" you'd be more
inclined to like it. For that matter, if Ellis had written "Fallen Angel," I
suspect retailers wouldn't have flipped out and demanded a "Mature Readers"
label on it because of different expectations.
Samy Merchi
> Yes to all of those, actually. That and the fact that the
> characterization is deeper and more demanding in such a way that you
> *don't* necessarily get it all in one issue...which doesn't
> automatically make it more successful insofar as readers are
> concerned, but I think it makes it more successful as a creative
> endeavor.
I agree that the readers should not get *all* of the characterization in
any one issue. However, there is also the other extreme: the readers
getting *no* characterization in any one issue. I don't think FA goes that
far, but I would submit that perhaps it does give *less* characterization
per issue than the average comic book, due to pacing, and the feel that the
characters are intentionally being held mysterious.
> And I submit, although I've no way of proving it, that if I'd written
> DV8 you'd be put off by it, whereas if Ellis had written "Fallen
> Angel" you'd be more inclined to like it.
It's possible; however, it's not because of the psychological effect of
which name is slapped on the cover -- it's because Ellis would in
likelihood handle FA in a different manner -- one which might have synced
better with my preferences. Conversely, however, it would quite likely have
synced *worse* with some other peoples' preferences. I'm sure that even on
this newsgroup, we can find people who would take your FA anyday over
Ellis'.
It's kind of like cooking: you put a dash of this writer, and a twist of
that concept, and the taste that results might be found appealing by some
people, but unappealing by others.
I might be put off by Frank Miller's AVENGERS too. But some people would
probably think it the best AVENGERS ever (kind of like the phenomenon with
Morrison's NEW X-MEN).
Tim
> >> The real answer to which, of course, is "the same reason that Firefly,
> >> Wonderfalls, Crusade[1], Farscape, et al got canceled."
> >
> >But all of these shows (with the possible exception of Wonderfalls, which
I
> >never saw) were lousy.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> See, whereas others thought they were innovative, challenging, and high
> quality.
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. But calling them innovative
seems a bit of stretch:
Firefly: Western as Sci Fi
Wonderfalls: (in the words of one reviewer) Joan of Arcadia meets Ally
McBeal
Crusade: sequel to Babylon 5, which wasn't particularly innovative itself
Farscape: standard Sci Fi fare avec Muppets
I think the real telling thing is that 3 of the shows, except Wonderfalls,
were given more than enough time to collect an audience and it didn't
happen.
Tim
Padguy
>Firefly: Western as Sci Fi
>Wonderfalls: (in the words of one reviewer) Joan of Arcadia meets Ally
>McBeal
>Crusade: sequel to Babylon 5, which wasn't particularly innovative itself
>Farscape: standard Sci Fi fare avec Muppets
>
Oh, come on, that's not fair. Practically anything can be reduced to ten word
"it's so and so meets such and such." That doesn't mean it's not innovative.
And you're doing it in such a way that it leads me to believe you're less
interested in acknowledging innovation than you are in trying to come up with
ways to ignore it when it's right in front of you.
"Western as Sci-Fi" describes everything from "Star Trek" to "Star Wars." The
innovation of "Firefly" was that it was a series that avoided many of the
calcified tropes that TV space-going series have developed over the years and,
in doing so, provided something so different that even I didn't get it at
first, mostly due to Fox's hamhanded butchering of the airing order. Defining
a TV series in terms of "Joan of Arcadia" is ludicrous since "Joan of Arcadia"
is simply Joan of Arc in modern dress and she doesn't get burned at the stake.
Saying B5 "wasn't particularly innovative" is patently ridiculous, unless
you're ready to point out a plethora of ongoing TV series of *any* type with a
preplanned five year story arc. And whereas others would offer "Farscape" high
quality marks for presenting an array of fully developed aliens who are
something other than humans with masks or funny rubber pieces on their noses,
you dismiss it out of hand with a "sound bite" that could just as easily
summarize "Pigs in Space."
I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons, but one
could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
Will Frank
> Firefly: Western as Sci Fi
> Wonderfalls: (in the words of one reviewer) Joan of Arcadia meets Ally
> McBeal
> Crusade: sequel to Babylon 5, which wasn't particularly innovative itself
> Farscape: standard Sci Fi fare avec Muppets
>
> I think the real telling thing is that 3 of the shows, except Wonderfalls,
> were given more than enough time to collect an audience and it didn't
> happen.
_Firefly_ was given less than 13 episodes. You really think that's
enough time to build an audience, you're as dumb as Rupert
Murdoch. Ditto _Crusade_--but I'll concede that one is more
complex. _Farscape_ *had an audience,* and Sci-Fi cancelled it out of
the blue.
Janus
news:c5k0mp$2jadi$1...@ID-145207.news.uni-berlin.de:
> "Padguy" <pad...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040414050742...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>
>> >> The real answer to which, of course, is "the same reason that
>> >> Firefly, Wonderfalls, Crusade[1], Farscape, et al got canceled."
>> >
>> >But all of these shows (with the possible exception of Wonderfalls,
>> >which
> I
>> >never saw) were lousy.
>> >
>> >Tim
>> >
>> See, whereas others thought they were innovative, challenging, and
>> high quality.
>
> I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. But calling them
> innovative seems a bit of stretch:
>
> Firefly: Western as Sci Fi
Whereas, Westerns are basically Samurai/Ronin flicks. Everything can be
reduced to basic elements.
> Wonderfalls: (in the words of one reviewer) Joan of Arcadia meets Ally
> McBeal
Did Wonderfalls pre-date Joan? If so why is it being reduced to a
comparison of a later show?
Why isn't Joan: Wonderfalls meets Providence?
> Crusade: sequel to Babylon 5, which wasn't particularly innovative
> itself Farscape: standard Sci Fi fare avec Muppets
>
I liked Babylon 5 , but not Farscape. I didn't watch Crusade.
> I think the real telling thing is that 3 of the shows, except
> Wonderfalls, were given more than enough time to collect an audience
> and it didn't happen.
>
> Tim
>
I only watched Firefly. I didn't find it particularly rivetting, but it
wasn't terrible.
--
The head of the English department asked me, "Do you read any crap?"
And I said, no, in that insufferable high school manner, no doubt.
And he said, "You need to read more crap."
The point was to read more for entertainment and for fun.
GAIL SIMONE
Brian Doyle
> And whereas others would offer "Farscape" high
> quality marks for presenting an array of fully developed aliens who are
> something other than humans with masks or funny rubber pieces on their
noses,
> you dismiss it out of hand with a "sound bite" that could just as easily
> summarize "Pigs in Space."
Okay, now THAT is a crossover I would pay good money to see; Link meets
D'argo, Piggy mets Chianna, Strangepork meets Pilot... Perhaps their ships
could meet in orbit over planet Koozebane...
> I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons,
but one
> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
I take it you've read Helene Hanff's book which comments on the first
production of "Oklahmona!" ? Great fun.
Tim
> Oh, come on, that's not fair. Practically anything can be reduced to ten
word
> "it's so and so meets such and such." That doesn't mean it's not
innovative.
> And you're doing it in such a way that it leads me to believe you're less
> interested in acknowledging innovation than you are in trying to come up
with
> ways to ignore it when it's right in front of you.
Sorry, but none of the shows struck as much more than variations on familiar
themes. Taking a paragraph to say that for each show didn't strike me as
necessary.
> "Western as Sci-Fi" describes everything from "Star Trek" to "Star Wars."
The
> innovation of "Firefly" was that it was a series that avoided many of the
> calcified tropes that TV space-going series have developed over the years
and,
> in doing so, provided something so different that even I didn't get it at
> first, mostly due to Fox's hamhanded butchering of the airing order.
While Fox truly fumbled by not showing the intact pilot, it doesn't change
the fact that Firefly wasn't anything new. An unanimated cast sleepwalking
through dull scripts didn't help either.
> Defining
> a TV series in terms of "Joan of Arcadia" is ludicrous since "Joan of
Arcadia"
> is simply Joan of Arc in modern dress and she doesn't get burned at the
stake.
As I said, the words weren't mine and I'm not overly willing to defend them.
IMHO, "quirky" has overdone lately.
> Saying B5 "wasn't particularly innovative" is patently ridiculous, unless
> you're ready to point out a plethora of ongoing TV series of *any* type
with a
> preplanned five year story arc.
I watched both pilots and perhaps a handful of episodes and nothing I saw
changed my original opinion of the series that it was everything I didn't
like about Star Trek in concentrated hour segments: dull, preachy soap opera
with false depth. As for the "preplanned five year story arc" I thought the
same thing about B5 as I did about "24": "Wow, what chutzpah." Just because
your series starts with a story bible large enough to choke a horse doesn't
make your show great.
> And whereas others would offer "Farscape" high
> quality marks for presenting an array of fully developed aliens who are
> something other than humans with masks or funny rubber pieces on their
noses,
> you dismiss it out of hand with a "sound bite" that could just as easily
> summarize "Pigs in Space."
While I'll freely admit the "avec Muppets" line was just a flip remark, I
still don't think that just because aliens are interesting looking that
makes them interesting in all regards. As a fan of Doctor Who, the "Monster
from Central Casting" syndrome doesn't really bother me as I can look past
the shortcomings of poor special effects and see a good story. What I can't
do look at "great" special effects and ignore a poor story (see the Star
Wars prequels and the Matrix trilogy for shining examples of this.) (BTW,
this pretty much echoes my opinion about comics: bad stories with good art
aren't better than good stories with "bad" art. Gimme a good story and
George Tuska over your average Image book any day!)
> I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons,
but one
> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
The less said about musicals, the better, IMHO. :)
Tim
Edward McArdle
<ttenc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>While I'll freely admit the "avec Muppets" line was just a flip remark, I
>still don't think that just because aliens are interesting looking that
>makes them interesting in all regards. As a fan of Doctor Who, the "Monster
>from Central Casting" syndrome doesn't really bother me as I can look past
>the shortcomings of poor special effects and see a good story. What I can't
>do look at "great" special effects and ignore a poor story (see the Star
>Wars prequels and the Matrix trilogy for shining examples of this.) (BTW,
>this pretty much echoes my opinion about comics: bad stories with good art
>aren't better than good stories with "bad" art. Gimme a good story and
>George Tuska over your average Image book any day!)
If you don't like all these things (which is your prerogative), what *do*
you like currently?
Your standards may simply have grown so high that nothing can please you,
and you'll just have to read books! Or write them!
On a different tack...
A lot of shows have a specific mysterious character, like Trance in
Andromeda, or the sister in Firefly, where all is to be revealed about
them s l o w l y over the series. Then the series is canceled, and we end
up knowing very little about them. But they can be the most interesting
thing about the show.
Padguy
>> I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons,
>but one
>> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
>
>I take it you've read Helene Hanff's book which comments on the first
>production of "Oklahmona!" ? Great fun.
>
Padguy
>but one
>> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
>
>The less said about musicals, the better, IMHO. :)
Oh! Okay, well, if I'd understood up front you were a snob, I'd have known
better than to bother...
Tim
> >> I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons,
> >but one
> >> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
> >
> >The less said about musicals, the better, IMHO. :)
>
> Oh! Okay, well, if I'd understood up front you were a snob, I'd have
known
> better than to bother...
Note the smiley. I was making a joke. I really have no strong feeling about
musicals one way or the other.
Tim
Tim
news:mcardle-1504...@1cust85.tnt5.mel1.da.uu.net...
> If you don't like all these things (which is your prerogative), what *do*
> you like currently?
If you're talking movies, they're not much current I like, mostly because I
almost never go to the movies (for example, last year I went to the movies 3
times: Two Towers, X-Men 2 (not my choice) and Return of the King. I doubt
I'll end up going more than that this year, maybe for Spidey 2 and possibly
for Harry Potter 3.) Which has very little to do with the quality of current
movies and everything to do with the price of them , not to mention the
general unpleasantness of going to a movie theater. I just wait for them to
turn up on Encore or in that big ol' bin of $5 DVDs at Wal-Mart and watch
them in the comfort of my own home.
For TV, about the only things I go out of my way to watch anymore are West
Wing, Simpsons, Queer Eye, South Park and Airline.
On the comic front, beyond the obvious Fallen Angel & Captain Marvel, a few
titles I like are (in no particular order):
Avengers (pre Chuck Austin, anyway)
JSA
Wanted
Poison Elves
Losers
Exiles
Amazing Spider-Man
Fables
Y The Last Man
Boneyard
Liberty Meadows
> Your standards may simply have grown so high that nothing can please you,
> and you'll just have to read books! Or write them!
I say I like George Tuska and someone thinks my standards are too high? I
barely know how to reply to that! :)
I do love books. I just went on vacation and it was great just to be able to
kick back and nose-dive into some good books. I was finally able to read
"Two In the Field," the sequel to the fantastic "If I Never Get Back" after
waiting 15 years for it to come out and got a healthy chunk of Neil Gaiman's
"American Gods" under my belt as well. I've still got a stack of books as
tall as I am to get through, including the new Clive Cussler and Kavalier &
Klay. Someday...
> On a different tack...
> A lot of shows have a specific mysterious character, like Trance in
> Andromeda, or the sister in Firefly, where all is to be revealed about
> them s l o w l y over the series. Then the series is canceled, and we end
> up knowing very little about them. But they can be the most interesting
> thing about the show.
Not much to say here except I agree, although I've only seen about 10
minutes of Andromeda.
Tim
R. Tang
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I mean, "Oklahoma" was incredibly innovative for any number of reasons,
>>but one
>>> could just as easily sniff and say, "Dancing cowboys. Who cares?"
>>
>>The less said about musicals, the better, IMHO. :)
>
>Oh! Okay, well, if I'd understood up front you were a snob, I'd have known
>better than to bother...
Not a snob. A snob has a reason for their attitude...
These types just annoy those of us who really ARE better...
>
>PAD
>This post written specifically for alt.fan.peter-david. Any crosspostings
>appear against the wishes of the author.
Andy Jakcsy
<<
>> "Western as Sci-Fi" describes everything from "Star Trek" to "Star Wars."
The
>> innovation of "Firefly" was that it was a series that avoided many of the
>> calcified tropes that TV space-going series have developed over the years
and,
>> in doing so, provided something so different that even I didn't get it at
>> first, mostly due to Fox's hamhanded butchering of the airing order.
>
>While Fox truly fumbled by not showing the intact pilot, it doesn't change
>the fact that Firefly wasn't anything new. An unanimated cast sleepwalking
>through dull scripts didn't help either.
>
>>
With your first comment, I'll say that 95% of everything has already been done,
and the other 5% is in development. And "Firefly" was far more the 5% that was
in development than the 95% that's already been done.
With your second, I'll say that "Friends" also has an "unanimated cast
sleepwalking through dull scripts." That doesn't stop it from being the
highest rated show on television.
----
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
--Sigmund Freud
"Sometimes a cake is just a cake."
--Deanna Troi, Star Trek: TNG: "Phantasms"
Andrew Timson
news:c5i08i$1vc29$1...@ID-145207.news.uni-berlin.de:
Crusade was lousy because TNT decided to frell with it. Had they left it
alone--or had they let even the next episode (one of the three whose
scripts were publicly available for a time post-cancellation) be made, vast
improvments in quality would've been apparent.
The same could be said for Firefly, if all you watched was the Fox-
mandated-quickly-thrown-together-piece-of-crap first episode (as opposed to
the actual pilot/first episode, not show until the *end* of its Fox run).
--
Andrew Timson
===============
Grr. Argh.
Brian Doyle
> >I take it you've read Helene Hanff's book which comments on the first
> >production of "Oklahmona!" ? Great fun.
> >
> Actually, no. I haven't. Why, what's it say?
It's in her excellent "Underfoot in Show Business", which I thoroughly
recommend to anyone interested in theatre history or just a brilliantly
observant writer (she also wrote approximately half of "84 Charing Cross
Road"), she details her time with the theatre company which first produced
the show and which was not known for successes
It's first problem was the whole thing. The original title was "Away We
Go", described as "a new American Folk Opera". The main comic was known for
his work in Yiddish theatre, but hadn't done much in English, the principle
dancer was a Russian ballerina, and they had an Armenian director from
Hollywood.....
The score was written by the untried team of an operetta lyricist whose
composer had just died, and a musical comedy composer whose lyricist had
just died.
Even the people associated with it felt it lacked.. well anything. As one
person put it, "It opens with a middle aged woman on a bare stage churning
butter, and gets cleaner from there".
Walter Winchell's "Rose" (No one ever remembers her last name) went to see
the show and seemed to loathe it with a passion. The summation Winchell
sent to the main backer (which deifed even the most diligent Press Officer's
ability to selectively extract) was "No legs No jokes No chance" and he
pulled his third of the money pre-Broadway opening.
Then there was the title. No one was keen on "Away We Go", and even less
keen on the composers proposal of "Yessirree" as a title.
The wife of one of the producers eventually came up with the name
"Oklahoma". Now this sounds fine to us, we're used to it. But to consider
what it must have felt like for them at the time, try to imagine someone
trying to sell you the idea of a musical called "New Jersey", or "Maine".
But it was the best they could do, and mimeographed 10,000 releases, as well
as three sheet posters, playbills and the like.
Then AFTER they'd started folding them up the releases, and the day before
opening, came the call which informed them that those in charge had decided
it wouldn't be called "Oklahoma" after all... it would be "Oklahoma!"
So Helene and her colleague basically had to start filling in 30,000
exclamation points by hand, whilst everyone else tried to find printers who
could take a large scale job at such short notice.
It should be noted that there were severe doubts about the choreography (by
an unknown named Agnes de Mille) the casting, including such nobody's as
Celeste Holm and Alfred Drake.
Wonderful book, and she says it much better than I can summarise, but I will
comment on how she gets started;
She won a fellowship from the Bureau of New Plays, which up until then had
given the two winners $1,500 and sent them off into the wide world to see
what they would do. This year it was different, and the twelve winners had
training arranged for them by the Theatre Guild, which would ensure that
they would get a firm grounding in their craft, and be mentored by some of
their most respected members, a much more coherent and well thought out
training scheme.
Of the 12 people who won in the year Helene did, three became screenwriters,
one became a TV critic, one a physician, one a short story writer, one a
movie theatre manager, two became English professors, two became TV writers
and one had private means and didn't do much of anything. Not one of them
ever became a theatre playwright...
On the other hand, the two winners from the previous year, who'd been given
the money and sent out without such training or mentoring achieved some
small fame in the field, you might have heard of them even.... their names
were Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller.
Tim
"Andrew Timson" <arseni...@deletethissectionhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CB91C5662D...@141.211.2.240...
> frell
Frell?
Tim
Brian Doyle
"Tim" <ttenc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5q436$49u19$1...@ID-145207.news.uni-berlin.de...
Expletive used in Farscape, similar to a human expletive that rhyhmes with
"duck" (Eg "Frell!" or "We're frelled"), but more permissible on network TV
Derik Smith
>What upsets *me* is that my ability to sustain a B or
>even C list title for far more years than most any other
>writer could manage is *so* taken for granted that it
>seems a singular standard has been applied to me:
>If I stay on a title and it doesn't run forever, something's
>wrong.
Well maybe if you just did 2 years on a title then bailed and let it
crash-and-burn within 6 months of your departure like OTHER writers you'd get a
fair rap. You know- "the title was canceled because it couldn't keep going
without him" as opposed to "man even [name creator] couldn't keep this dog
above the cancellation line."
PAD also wrote, albeit a little earlier:
>Buying habits of most fans and retailers run in the following order:
>
>First priority: Publisher.
>Second priority: Character.
>Third priority: Artist
>Fourth priority: Writer
Of course the artist is the first draw. He illustrates the cover. If you
want the writer to be the #1 draw for a series, stick your resume on the cover,
or a script excerpt of a particularly good moment that issue. Or heck, why
have covers at all? Why not just stick some extra panels on there?
I mock your round robin artist worries next to what Christopher Priest has
been nailed with. ;-)
>In comics, it's the brand name of the publisher + character + artist. If the
>first three are pluses, the writer doesn't matter because most readers will
>still buy it, or at least sample it. If the first three are negatives, the
>writer doesn't matter because most readers don't sample it. If two of the
>three are negatives, the writer has a hard row to hoe.
If a book is really pretty, of course people will sample it, but will they
stay with it? That's doesn't matter for most creative teams, they only seem to
stay on for 6 issue arcs anymore. There's no accountability for
sustainability. You, on the other hand, appear to write arcs that, at a
minimum, run 25 issues. So you put out a good story to try and attract the
people who are sampling the book, based on the nifty cover and the promising
#1- and hope that enough of them like what they see to come back next month,
then spend the next 5 years slowly driving that audience away 500 readers per
issue who didn't like THIS issue enough to pick up the next, until you reach
the cancellation point.
And no one does crossovers or guest-stars anymore for fear of driving away
their own readership that doesn't want to read about Resurrection Man. Except
when they do- and it's Deadman or Ka-Zar, who lack a title of their own to
benefit from the crossover. Not a year goes by I don't read some GREAT new Dr.
Strange tale… in someone else's book. And any temptation I might have to
PICK UP a new Dr. Strange title is mitigated by my knowledge that it will have
him having his life torn apart, depowered, and fighting Dormamu- instead of the
cool iconic status quo he sports in every cameo that actually makes me like the
character.
>My run on "Hulk" is the classic proof. Most readers didn't know
>me from a hole in the wall. A few did from my Spidey work, but
>not tons. But because it was Marvel, the Hulk, with artwork that
>was getting a lot of buzz, people were willing to sample the new
>storylines and liked what they saw.
So your complaint is that in a collaborative medium, in a shared universe,
the writer, the artist and the character have to come together and produced
sustained quality material in order for new readers to feel they can come
onboard and result in an increase in sales instead of a downslide?
So you expect, what? That the writer should be able to sell the title
even when paired with an inappropriate artist or title character no one is
interested in?
In the last two years I've observed more sustained sales gains coming from
putting name a name writer on a title than a hot artist. And cover price cant'
matter that much because every 10c issue seems to create an actual sales bump
of about 5%, approaching pre-stunt sales within 6 months. Between writer,
artist and cost, the writer seems to matter most- insofar as 'If the writer
isn't working, nothing else matters.'
>So now there's "Fallen Angel" which, frankly, is better
>written than anything I ever did on Hulk. It's DC, so
>that's a plus. But the character is original, and nobody
>knows the artist, so that's two strikes against it right
>there. In practical terms, that means that the majority
>of readers won't even sample it. But put me on a Hulk
>one-shot with Dale Keown as penciller and bam, watch
>sales skyrocket.
Conversely, put you on a new Namora quarterly flashback anthology with
David Rees as artist, and it's the marketplace's fault no one picks it up
despite your unstoppably brilliant writing technique?
…okay, I'd buy that, but still.
Perhaps you could try writing an entire issue in a thick fog, with
nothing but page layouts and dialog balloons. Then it could succeed or fail
based solely on your merits.
Hey, you always catch flack for changing characters, making them much more
interesting and dynamic than they ever were thereby FORCING readers to pay
attention to the book and complain that you need to put them back the way they
used to be so they can go back to reading Superman instead.
Why not play against that? RETURN the character to his roots! All you
need is for Fabian Nizeca to pick Genis up again for mini and turn him black so
he can experience what it's like to be a persecuted minority (I know, pink
Kree…) then you can sweep in a year later and save the day with a new
ongoing and set things right! You know, like Denny O'Neil got all the credit
for 'fixing' Azrael by returning him to his roots and ditching the Imagey getup
so that readers could tune out and the series could be canceled on an up note!
-Derik
"It's a 'helicopter' thing, apparently." - High Wire
Semper Idem Excretum, sed Sole Profundum Variat
At what point do we start ignoring the reassurances and
start taking things at face value?
Padguy
>>
>>First priority: Publisher.
>>Second priority: Character.
>>Third priority: Artist
>>Fourth priority: Writer
>
> Of course the artist is the first draw. He illustrates the cover.
That's only relevant in terms of catching a fan's eye on the newsstand. But
that's not what I'm talking about. If a book is not published by one of the
major publishers, the quality of the cover and the artist is beside the point
because (1) retailers will order minimally (if at all), (2) a sizable
percentage of fans buy comics based on brand loyalty ("I'm not a DC reader"; "I
only read Marvels"); (3) those fans who frequent stores that display books
grouped by publisher won't even bother to look at covers outside of the
publishers they frequent.
>
> If a book is really pretty, of course people will sample it...
Not necessarily. See above.
> but will
>they
>stay with it?
"This was a good first issue. I'll be sure to collect it as a trade."
> That's doesn't matter for most creative teams, they only seem
>to
>stay on for 6 issue arcs anymore.
Well, they're smart. If you cut and run after six months or a year, no one can
slam you for being unable to sustain a book.
There's no accountability for
>sustainability. You, on the other hand, appear to write arcs that, at a
>minimum, run 25 issues.
Except that's not true. The average "Captain Marvel" story went three, four
issues. Six max. "Young Justice" had story arcs that were, on average, two
issues. "Fallen Angel" has consisted thus far of two stand-alones, a four
parter and a five parter which will be followed by three more stand-alones.
> So you put out a good story to try and attract the
>people who are sampling the book, based on the nifty cover and the promising
>#1- and hope that enough of them like what they see to come back next month,
>then spend the next 5 years slowly driving that audience away 500 readers per
>issue who didn't like THIS issue enough to pick up the next, until you reach
>the cancellation point.
And *that* isn't true. Readers aren't "driven away." Readership erodes on
all books, given enough time, if the same creative team sticks with it.
That's the reward the marketplace provides for a creative team staying with a
title. People stop talking about it beyond "Oh, another great issue" and
publishers cease advertising it as they're focusing on the New Hot Thing. What
prevents erosion is either ending the title while it's on a high, or a change
in creative team. "We've seen what X and Y writer and artist have done; now
let's jump on board to see what Z and A writer and artist have in store."
> And no one does crossovers or guest-stars anymore for fear of driving
>away
>their own readership that doesn't want to read about Resurrection Man.
Except in a two year period on Supergirl alone I guest starred Green Lantern,
Mary Marvel, the Demon, Superman, Batgirl, and Young Justice. So I'm not sure
what you're talking about.
>
>>My run on "Hulk" is the classic proof. Most readers didn't know
>>me from a hole in the wall. A few did from my Spidey work, but
>>not tons. But because it was Marvel, the Hulk, with artwork that
>>was getting a lot of buzz, people were willing to sample the new
>>storylines and liked what they saw.
>
> So your complaint is that in a collaborative medium, in a shared
>universe,
>the writer, the artist and the character have to come together and produced
>sustained quality material in order for new readers to feel they can come
>onboard and result in an increase in sales instead of a downslide?
Noooo. First, I'm not complaining, merely making observations. And second, my
point is that it's not just writer, artist and character coming together.
There's lots of books with great writers, artists and characters being put out
that have anemic sales. I'm saying that in order to get noticed, the biggest
priority is who the publisher is, and if the character is one in which the
audience is already emotionally invested. "Monolith" is supposed to be DC's
answer to the Hulk. I haven't read it yet, but have heard good things about
it. Are people responding to it and buying it as if it were the Hulk? No.
Because Number One, it's DC and not Marvel, and Number Two, it's not the Hulk.
If you took the exact same creative team and had them on the Hulk, sales would
be strong. Just as if Bruce Jones had done the exact same storyline that
played out in "Hulk," except it had been a wholly original story and character
published by Dark Horse, sales would be much, much lower.
> So you expect, what? That the writer should be able to sell the title
>even when paired with an inappropriate artist or title character no one is
>interested in?
Okay, now you're just aggressively working on missing my point, so much so that
I'm not even going to dignify that one with an answer except to say that I'm
speaking of what *is*, not what should be.
>
> In the last two years I've observed more sustained sales gains coming
>from
>putting name a name writer on a title than a hot artist.
Then you've observed wrong, unless you're ready to argue that "Powers" is
selling the same as "Spider-Man," even though in my opinion the stories in
"Powers" are some of Brian's best work. A name writer on an already existing,
popular property equals higher sales. A name writer on a title of marginal
interest equals marginal sales.
Between writer,
>artist and cost, the writer seems to matter most- insofar as 'If the writer
>isn't working, nothing else matters.'
Nice notion. However, if you've got a so-so story linked with great art, sales
are much more likely to be strong than they are if a story is brilliantly
written but the art is an eyesore.
>>So now there's "Fallen Angel" which, frankly, is better
>>written than anything I ever did on Hulk. It's DC, so
>>that's a plus. But the character is original, and nobody
>>knows the artist, so that's two strikes against it right
>>there. In practical terms, that means that the majority
>>of readers won't even sample it. But put me on a Hulk
>>one-shot with Dale Keown as penciller and bam, watch
>>sales skyrocket.
>
> Conversely, put you on a new Namora quarterly flashback anthology with
>David Rees as artist, and it's the marketplace's fault no one picks it up
>despite your unstoppably brilliant writing technique?
Okay, now you're just being a putz.
Schfooge
"Padguy" <pad...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Okay, now you're just being a putz.
>
> PAD
Well, you can't expect much from someone who doesn't even know how to spell
their name properly.
--
Derek McNeil
Robert Fernandez
>If you measure a writer's worth by how long his or her book stays on
>the market, then go read Faulkner. If you want a great time and a good
>read with characters you've come to love, and maybe even want to see
>them developed in surprising new ways, read David.
You know, for some of us reading Faulkner is a great time with
characters I grow to love. There's a reason that stuff is considered
to be classic.