CHASE/CHALLENGERS: Possible?
Dwight Williams
I was wondering...considering that the two books would seem to have a
certain degree of logical theme/content overlap, how likely is it that we
could have a meeting of these characters?
Or would it be too soon for either book to do this?
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Crisper Than Thou
Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>I was wondering...considering that the two books would seem to have a
>certain degree of logical theme/content overlap, how likely is it that we
>could have a meeting of these characters?
Okay, so I think we know who CHASE's number one fan is at this point.
In this nutsy land of crossovers, I suppose anything is possible, eventually.
(In the DCU, they have a saying: "If you sit in front of the Lexcorp building
long enough, every hero on the planet will walk by at some point.")
--The Elder Dan
--
In dreams, logic grows on trees.
Steven Grant
>Or would it be too soon for either book to do this?
Let's just say it's not likely at the moment.
Dwight Williams
"Steven Grant" (sdg...@premier1.net) writes:
>>Or would it be too soon for either book to do this?
>
> Let's just say it's not likely at the moment.
When you're both ready, then.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Dwight Williams said:
>I was wondering...considering that the two books would seem to have a
>certain degree of logical theme/content overlap, how likely is it that we
>could have a meeting of these characters?
I think it's =definitely= too soon, on account of the fact that /Chase/ #1
has yet to appear. {smile}
It certainly seems like a meeting that could be done without it seeming
terribly "forced", and could be interesting. But I'd want it to happen
only when/if their respective writers think it would makes sense
(especially if it's a crossover between the two series). The marketing
folks would probably want it to happen within the next few months; I'd be
content to wait until 1999.
Cheers, Todd
"It may be true that never has a more important show been held in a less
important place." - NY Times cultural correspondent Bruce Weber, about the
current display in Grand Rapids of paintings by Renaissance master Perugino
Dwight Williams
Todd VerBeek, gwm (ver...@bigfoot.com) writes:
> My pal Dwight Williams said:
>>I was wondering...considering that the two books would seem to have a
>>certain degree of logical theme/content overlap, how likely is it that we
>>could have a meeting of these characters?
>>Or would it be too soon for either book to do this?
>
> I think it's =definitely= too soon, on account of the fact that /Chase/ #1
> has yet to appear. {smile}
>
> It certainly seems like a meeting that could be done without it seeming
> terribly "forced", and could be interesting. But I'd want it to happen
> only when/if their respective writers think it would makes sense
> (especially if it's a crossover between the two series). The marketing
> folks would probably want it to happen within the next few months; I'd be
> content to wait until 1999.
I think I posted something to the effect that I acknowledged such to be
the case in response to Mr. Grant's posting. No problem there...
Steven Grant
>When you're both ready, then.
Okay. I haven't read any of the CHASE material yet, I don't really know
anything about it aside from the basic premise and the talent.
Steven Grant
andrew (MELBOURNE) wrote in message
>Well, first off, it was yet another DC title set to feature characters
>without powers that DC decided should be given powers anyway. Man, I
>hate that.
From what I gather, CHASE has more in common with MEN IN BLACK than with
CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN...
Crisper Than Thou
Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>"Steven Grant" (sdg...@premier1.net) writes:
>>>Or would it be too soon for either book to do this?
>>
>
Why do I feel like I'm suddenly in a production of _Fiddler on the Roof_...?
Heheheheh.
andrew (MELBOURNE)
Steven Grant (sdg...@premier1.net) wrote:
: >When you're both ready, then.
: Okay. I haven't read any of the CHASE material yet, I don't really know
: anything about it aside from the basic premise and the talent.
Well, first off, it was yet another DC title set to feature characters
without powers that DC decided should be given powers anyway. Man, I
hate that.
</annoyed>
--Andrew
______________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Melbourne (215) 417-8354 PO Box 375
-jack-of-trades- melb...@sas.upenn.edu 3910 Irving Street
available at-> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn Philadelphia, PA 19104
Randy Lander
cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) wrote:
>Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>I was wondering...considering that the two books would seem to have a
>>certain degree of logical theme/content overlap, how likely is it that we
>>could have a meeting of these characters?
>Okay, so I think we know who CHASE's number one fan is at this point.
Hey, now...I'm willing to fight over the designation of CHASE's number
one fan. :)
>In this nutsy land of crossovers, I suppose anything is possible, eventually.
> (In the DCU, they have a saying: "If you sit in front of the Lexcorp building
> long enough, every hero on the planet will walk by at some point.")
Joker ought to set up there with a sniper rifle and flaming yellow
kryptonite bullets. He could take out half the DCU before they brought
him down. :)
The above are the opinions of Randy Lander. Had they been
the biblical truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@io.com <*> http://www.io.com/~rwlander
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>andrew (MELBOURNE) wrote in message
>>without powers that DC decided should be given powers anyway. Man, I
>>hate that.
My pal Steven Grant said:
>From what I gather, CHASE has more in common with MEN IN BLACK than with
>CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN...
I don't think they (/Chase/ and /MIB/) will have the same =tone=, however.
From what I've seen, /Chase/ isn't intended to be particularly funny or
wryly ironic. As a mostly-normal person dealing with meta-normals, the
character of Chase has at least =some= common ground with the Challs.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>When you're both ready, then.
My pal Crisper Than Thou said:
>Why do I feel like I'm suddenly in a production of _Fiddler on the Roof_...?
>Heheheheh.
[singing] TRADITION! Crossovers are to be arranged... by the EDITORS!
Still laughing? {wicked grin}
Crisper Than Thou
Todd VerBeek, gwm <ver...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>My pal Steven Grant said:
>>From what I gather, CHASE has more in common with MEN IN BLACK than with
>>CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN...
>
>I don't think they (/Chase/ and /MIB/) will have the same =tone=, however.
>From what I've seen, /Chase/ isn't intended to be particularly funny or
>wryly ironic.
For the most part, that's correct. The intent is definitely not to portray
the DCU as whimsical, or comedic, or slapstick in nature. The DCU is a lot
like our own world, with points of tragedy and points of humor-- sometimes
closely tied together. The primary similarity to MIB, really, would be
the idea of the government organization that has the know-how and the tools
to deal with Absolutely Anything.
>As a mostly-normal person dealing with meta-normals, the
>character of Chase has at least =some= common ground with the Challs.
Definitely. One major difference, though, is that the Challs tackle the
unknown (says so right in the name) while Chase will be up against
situations that at least *seem* to be pretty clearly understood, at
least up front. The Challs solve mysteries; Chase deals with problems
of public welfare.
A crossover story between CHASE and CHALLS could be done poorly about
eighty different ways, and both books have realms of territory to
explore without stepping on each others' toes.
Besides, crossing over with CHALLS would bring it into the arena of "work"
instead of "pleasure" for me, and could seriously interfere with the air of
wide-eyed wonder that I apply to its reading every month. And we can't
have that!
Crisper Than Thou
>>Why do I feel like I'm suddenly in a production of _Fiddler on the Roof_...?
>>Heheheheh.
>
>[singing] TRADITION! Crossovers are to be arranged... by the EDITORS!
>
>Still laughing? {wicked grin}
Actually, just this past week I've started to hear mutterings outside my
window that sound like the Crossover Polizei gathering in preparation for
a midnight storming of the CHASE home offices. Jimbo and I are stuffing
the family diamonds in breadballs and swallowing them as quickly as we
can, but if I start posting about how enthused I am to be part of the
Next Big Thing or whatever, please understand that the electroshock which
they applied to our genitalia no doubt broke me 'n Jim like twigs.
Always looking for the next metaphor,
Steven Grant
>Besides, crossing over with CHALLS would bring it into the arena of "work"
> instead of "pleasure" for me, and could seriously interfere with the air
of
> wide-eyed wonder that I apply to its reading every month. And we can't
> have that!
Funny, crossing Chase over with COTU would bring it into the arena of work
rather than pleasure for me, too, though I might change my mind now that DC
has sent me the Chase issue of BATMAN.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Steven Grant said:
>>>From what I gather, CHASE has more in common with MEN IN BLACK than with
>>>CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN...
Suck-up Todd VerBeek, gwm <ver...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>I don't think they (/Chase/ and /MIB/) will have the same =tone=, however.
>>From what I've seen, /Chase/ isn't intended to be particularly funny or
>>wryly ironic. As a mostly-normal person dealing with meta-normals, the
>>character of Chase has at least =some= common ground with the Challs.
My pal Crisper Than Thou said:
>Definitely. One major difference, though, is that the Challs tackle the
> unknown (says so right in the name) while Chase will be up against
> situations that at least *seem* to be pretty clearly understood, at
> least up front. The Challs solve mysteries; Chase deals with problems
> of public welfare.
So all we need is for a Well-Understood Meta-Villain to team up with a
Mysterious Unknown! {grin}
>A crossover story between CHASE and CHALLS could be done poorly about
> eighty different ways, and both books have realms of territory to
> explore without stepping on each others' toes.
I have no doubt of that.
Jason Fliegel
In article <3491d...@satellite.premier1.net>,
Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>D. Curtis Johnson (cri...@shell15.ba.best.com) wrote
You know, my first thought upon reading this was "Right on! If the writer
of CHASE doesn't want to cross over, and the writer of CHALLENGERS doesn't
want to cross over, then why should they cross over!?!"
But then I thought about it a little more. I mean, with all due respect
to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson, you're being paid to write these books.
And, indirectly, it's the fans who are paying you. And if the fans want a
CHASE/CHALLS crossover, you damn well ought to give them one. If that
makes writing the books a little less fun and a little more of a chore,
then that is unfortunate. We should all be lucky enough to get paid to do
something we enjoy. But in reality, everyone has parts of their job they
don't enjoy. Perhaps a CHASE/CHALLS crossover would be one such part for
each of you, but that shouldn't be enough to deprive the fans of a
crossover they want to see.
Now, understand, I am not saying that the dozen or so people who have said
"Yeah, that would be cool!" should be viewed as proof positive that fandom
as a whole wants a CHASE/CHALLS crossover. If that were the case, every
comic DC published would feature Hal Jordan, his married friends Nightwing
and Starfire, and a talking gorilla. But if it could be shown that it's
not 12 but 12,000 people who want to see Chase meet the Challengers, then
it's your job to give them what they want, regardless of how unpleasant it
makes your job. Either that, or hand over your pen to someone with the
ability and the inclination to give the fans what they want.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>But then I thought about it a little more. I mean, with all due respect
>to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson, you're being paid to write these books.
That's true, but it's a double consideration. If we don't feel we can do a
good crossover, it's a disservice to the readers to attempt one just because
they want one. Plus how many readers want one and how many don't. There
are all kinds of considerations.
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a CHASE/CHALLS
>crossover) have to wait to satisfy the artisitic impulses of two people?
If you can get that up to 50,000 fans, you can pretty much dictate terms
these days...
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>That's certainly true. But I read your and Mr. Johnson's comments as "We
>don't want to," rather than "We couldn't do it well
You'd be surprised how often not wanting to hinders doing it well...
Dwight Williams
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
> In article <3491d...@satellite.premier1.net>,
> Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>D. Curtis Johnson (cri...@shell15.ba.best.com) wrote
>>>Besides, crossing over with CHALLS would bring it into the arena of "work"
>>> instead of "pleasure" for me, and could seriously interfere with the air
>>> of wide-eyed wonder that I apply to its reading every month. And we
>>> can't have that!
>>
>>Funny, crossing Chase over with COTU would bring it into the arena of work
>>rather than pleasure for me, too, though I might change my mind now that DC
>>has sent me the Chase issue of BATMAN.
I still that I don't want to rush either party into something they don't
think they'll enjoy or if the timing's wrong just yet.
> You know, my first thought upon reading this was "Right on! If the writer
> of CHASE doesn't want to cross over, and the writer of CHALLENGERS doesn't
> want to cross over, then why should they cross over!?!"
>
> But then I thought about it a little more. I mean, with all due respect
> to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson, you're being paid to write these books.
> And, indirectly, it's the fans who are paying you. And if the fans want a
> CHASE/CHALLS crossover, you damn well ought to give them one. If that
> makes writing the books a little less fun and a little more of a chore,
> then that is unfortunate. We should all be lucky enough to get paid to do
> something we enjoy. But in reality, everyone has parts of their job they
> don't enjoy. Perhaps a CHASE/CHALLS crossover would be one such part for
> each of you, but that shouldn't be enough to deprive the fans of a
> crossover they want to see.
Time was I would've pushed in just this sort of way. Now I ain't so sure
that that's the best way to get what I want...
> Now, understand, I am not saying that the dozen or so people who have said
> "Yeah, that would be cool!" should be viewed as proof positive that fandom
> as a whole wants a CHASE/CHALLS crossover. If that were the case, every
> comic DC published would feature Hal Jordan, his married friends Nightwing
> and Starfire, and a talking gorilla. But if it could be shown that it's
> not 12 but 12,000 people who want to see Chase meet the Challengers, then
> it's your job to give them what they want, regardless of how unpleasant it
> makes your job. Either that, or hand over your pen to someone with the
> ability and the inclination to give the fans what they want.
For the latter option, I would prefer to re-write that as "find someone
you both trust to save you the trouble, lest the editor pick someone not
suited and thereby anger you and us alike"...so long as I can keep from
phrasing it as an ultimatum...which this is starting to smell like to my
nostrils, Jason.
I've already said that I am willing to wait. I stand by that.
Jason Fliegel
In article <66ve1d$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
>> Now, understand, I am not saying that the dozen or so people who have said
>> "Yeah, that would be cool!" should be viewed as proof positive that fandom
>> as a whole wants a CHASE/CHALLS crossover. If that were the case, every
>> comic DC published would feature Hal Jordan, his married friends Nightwing
>> and Starfire, and a talking gorilla. But if it could be shown that it's
>> not 12 but 12,000 people who want to see Chase meet the Challengers, then
>> it's your job to give them what they want, regardless of how unpleasant it
>> makes your job. Either that, or hand over your pen to someone with the
>> ability and the inclination to give the fans what they want.
>
>For the latter option, I would prefer to re-write that as "find someone
>you both trust to save you the trouble, lest the editor pick someone not
>suited and thereby anger you and us alike"...so long as I can keep from
>phrasing it as an ultimatum...which this is starting to smell like to my
>nostrils, Jason.
>
First of all, I'd like to say that I intended my comments to be
provocative but not offesnive. If I went too far, Mr. Grant & Mr.
Johnson (or anyone else who I offended), please accept my apologies.
That said, I stand by the spirit of what I said. If, for instance, 20,000
fans want something, it seems stupid for DC not to give it to them. I
understand that when someobdoy writes a comic book, it's as much an
artistic endeavour as it is a commercial one. And I understand that when
you allow your public to dictate every term of a story, you wind up with a
really bad story. On the other hand, when there are broad-based demands
for certain characaters or situations, the creators ought to have a damned
good reason for not giving the fans what they want. "There's no way I can
work that into my story without major problems" is a legitimate reason; "I
don't wanna" is not. And it seems like all too often these days, comic
companies let their writers and/or their editors do what they wanna, not
what the fans want. Sometimes this can lead to good stories, but it seems
that for every Alan Moore's SWAMP THING, there's twenty [INSERT NAME OF
SELF INDULGENT STORYLINE HERE]. If we're going to indulge anybody, it
ought to be the fans, and not the creators.
That said, I want to stress that I don't mean to imply that Mr. Johnson
or Mr. Grant are writing self indulgent stories. As far as I know, Mr.
Johnson hasn't had any work published yet, and, while I'm sure I've read
stories by Mr. Grant, none are springing to mind right now. I used their
comments as a springboard to rant, but didn't mean to single them out --
apologies again if it came across that way.
>I've already said that I am willing to wait. I stand by that.
Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a CHASE/CHALLS
crossover) have to wait to satisfy the artisitic impulses of two people?
--
Jason Fliegel
In article <34935...@satellite.premier1.net>,
>>to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson, you're being paid to write these books.
>
>good crossover, it's a disservice to the readers to attempt one just because
>they want one.
That's certainly true. But I read your and Mr. Johnson's comments as "We
don't want to," rather than "We couldn't do it well." Certainly, nobody
is served by poorly done comics. And, while in my original post, I
suggested letting someone else do the crossover if you weren't doing it
"because you didn't want to," I also recognize that "musical creative
teams" often leads to inferior comics.
>Plus how many readers want one and how many don't.
I definitely agree here. As I said, 6 people posting something to Usenet
is not an overwhelming groundswell. On the other hand, there are
occassions when it is evident that a substantial group of fans want two
characters to meet, or a particular character to show up, or whatever.
> There
>are all kinds of considerations.
>
Agreed. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "Give the people what they
want if it is at all within your abilities to do so" should be one of the
top considerations.
Anyway, I just want to apologize if I came off too harsh originally. I
guess I've just come to the conclusion that at least part of the reason
the industry's gone down the tubes in the past 10-15 years is because it's
stopped catering to the fans and started catering to the creators.
Storylines, characters, or directions that should be put out of their
misery seem to ramble on forever simply because the writer or editor or
whoever likes them, while the fans all the while beg for an entirely
diffent book. But I don't want to imply that either you or Mr. Johnson
are at the self-indulgent end of the industry -- I just used your comments
as an excuse to rant on self-indulgence.
Brian McDn
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
>Dwight Williams <ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) writes:
>>> But if it could be shown that it's not 12 but 12,000 people who want
>>>to see Chase meet the Challengers, then it's your job to give them
>>>what they want, regardless of how unpleasant it makes your job.
>>>Either that, or hand over your pen to someone with the ability and
>>>the inclination to give the fans what they want.
>>
>>For the latter option, I would prefer to re-write that as "find someone
>>you both trust to save you the trouble, lest the editor pick someone
>>not suited and thereby anger you and us alike"...so long as I can keep
>>from phrasing it as an ultimatum...which this is starting to smell like
>>to my nostrils,
>
>First of all, I'd like to say that I intended my comments to be provocative
>but not offesnive. If I went too far, Mr. Grant & Mr. Johnson (or anyone
>else who I offended), please accept my apologies.
So close...
>That said, I stand by the spirit of what I said.
And yet, so far.
> If, for instance, 20,000 fans want something, it seems stupid for DC
>not to give it to them.
It also seems stupid for DC to force the creators down a path they're unwiling
to take. That's a great way to drive them away to companies who'll treat the
talent with a little respect.
>I understand that when someobdoy writes a comic book, it's as much an
>artistic endeavour as it is a commercial one.
Then I don't think you understand a damned thing. It's an artistic endeavor
for the creators. It's a commercial endeavor for the company. If the creators
start thinking commercially, instead of personally and creatively, then you get
crap. Look at how much Priest has complained about editorial interference at
DC. I won't deign to speak for him, but he seems to like the freedom of
Acclaim much more than DC's control. And ChrisCross opted out of pencilling
the last issue of XERO in part because he was unhappy with DC's treatment of
the book. If these guys abandon DC for good, that's a loss not only for DC,
but for us as well.
> And I understand that when you allow your public to dictate every term of
>a story, you wind up with a really bad story.
Change that to "any term", and you're closer to the truth. We can suggest
things we'd like to see DC try, but if a writer doesn't WANT to do it, and DC
backs them up on it, that should pretty much settle it. I don't want
comics-by-committee, especially not a committee of 20,000.
> On the other hand, when there are broad-based demands for certain
>characaters or situations, the creators ought to have a damned good
>reason for not giving the fans what they want. "There's no way I can
>work that into my story without major problems" is a legitimate reason;
>"I don't wanna" is not.
Gee, when you phrase it like that, you very nearly seem correct. Of course,
what Steven and Dan actually said was more to the effect of "It would make it
seem less like fun and more like work". How good is the writing going to be if
you're forcing them to produce something against their will?
> And it seems like all too often these days, comic companies let their
>writers and/or their editors do what they wanna, not what the fans want.
Golly, allowing creative vision. Yeah, no one wants to see THAT happening.
>Sometimes this can lead to good stories, but it seems that for every Alan
>Moore's SWAMP THING, there's twenty [INSERT NAME OF SELF
>INDULGENT STORYLINE HERE].
How about YOU name 20 self-indulgent storylines, and tell us why the fans would
have been better served if the creators had compromised their creativity.
Then consider Morrison's ANIMAL MAN and DOOM PATROL, Priest's QUANTUM & WOODY,
Delano/Ennis/Jenkins' HELLBLAZER, Busiek's THUNDERBOLTS and ASTRO CITY, Sim's
CEREBUS, Ennis' PREACHER and HITMAN, Ellis' TRANSMETROPOLITAN and
STORMWATCH...oh, that's enough for now. Each one of these titles by these
creators has a group of fans who were/are there expressly because their
creative vision shines through unhindered. Now, come up with 20 self-indulgent
storylines for each of these titles.
>If we're going to indulge anybody, it ought to be the fans, and not the
>creators.
And if the fans want something the creator isn't willing to give? How many
instances like Veitch leaving SWAMP THING or Ellis' aborted SATANA are you
willing to suffer before you realize the creators are what drive this business?
>That said, I want to stress that I don't mean to imply that Mr. Johnson
>or Mr. Grant are writing self indulgent stories.
No, you merely implied they were personally self-indulgent for not wanting to
give you a CHALLS/CHASE crossover.
>As far as I know, Mr. Johnson hasn't had any work published yet, and,
>while I'm sure I've read stories by Mr. Grant, none are springing to mind
>right now. I used their comments as a springboard to rant,
Likewise.
>but didn't mean to single them out apologies again if it came across that way.
>I've already said that I am willing to wait. I stand by that.
>Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a
>CHASE/CHALLS crossover) have to wait to satisfy the
>artisitic impulses of two people?
Because without creators, you'd be looking at blank pieces of paper.
Here's another hypothetical for you: Would you rather have two well-written
books by creators unhindered by fan/editorial pressure, or two mediocre books
by their mediocre, but more pliable, replacements?
Brian.
Brian McDn
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
>Steven Grant <sdg...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>D. Curtis Johnson (cri...@shell15.ba.best.com) wrote
>>>Besides, crossing over with CHALLS would bring it into the arena of
>>>"work" instead of "pleasure" for me, and could seriously interfere with
>>>the air of wide-eyed wonder that I apply to its reading every month. And
>>>we can't have that!
>>
>>Funny, crossing Chase over with COTU would bring it into the arena of
>>work rather than pleasure for me, too, though I might change my mind
>>now that DC has sent me the Chase issue of BATMAN.
>
>You know, my first thought upon reading this was "Right on! If the writer
>of CHASE doesn't want to cross over, and the writer of CHALLENGERS
>doesn't want to cross over, then why should they cross over!?!"
>
>But then I thought about it a little more.
You should have gone with your first thought here. Your second thought is
completely ridiculous and insulting. Good lord this pisses me off.
>I mean, with all due respect to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson,
A phrase that is almost NEVER followed up by anything approaching respect.
>you're being paid to write these books. And, indirectly, it's the fans who are
>paying you. And if the fans want a CHASE/CHALLS crossover, you damn
>well ought to give them one.
This is respect? You arrogant little creative fascist, I'm glad you're not
even remotely in charge of anything that I actually enjoy reading. You really
think that you have the right to dictate terms to the CREATORS? You have
exactly one right here: The right to purchase the best possible comics that
these two men can write.
> If that makes writing the books a little less fun and a little more of a
>chore, then that is unfortunate.
Yes, it is, because making something work makes it less fun, and consequently,
there is less motivation for the writer to give 100%. Let's face it, if you're
doing something you love, you don't want some pushy fans trying to be the
broomstick up your butt.
> We should all be lucky enough to get paid to do something we enjoy.
>But in reality, everyone has parts of their job they don't enjoy. Perhaps
>a CHASE/CHALLS crossover would be one such part for each of you, but
>that shouldn't be enough to deprive the fans of a crossover they want to see.
And if they don't want to do it, and leave their respective books? Are you
really expecting them to subjugate their personal desires just so YOU can be
happy? Did YOU order issues of SATANA? I did, and I'm never going to get to
read them, because someone decided to impose themselves on Warren Ellis.
>Now, understand, I am not saying that the dozen or so people who have
>said "Yeah, that would be cool!" should be viewed as proof positive that
>fandom as a whole wants a CHASE/CHALLS crossover. If that were the
>case, every comic DC published would feature Hal Jordan, his married
>friends Nightwing and Starfire, and a talking gorilla. But if it could be
shown
>that it's not 12 but 12,000 people who want to see Chase meet the
>Challengers, then it's your job to give them what they want, regardless
>of how unpleasant it makes your job.
Good lord I'm glad you're not in charge. "Who cares if you don't like it.
Just suck it up and write good comics, damn you!" Uh, sure boss. I'll get
right on that.
>Either that, or hand over your pen to someone with the
>ability and the inclination to give the fans what they want.
You mean like Ron Marz? He's good at stepping into unpleasant situations. How
do you stand on the whole Kyle thing? Bottom line, you do NOT screw around
with something that works. Doing that makes the GOOD writers not want to write
for you. If you want to bend writers to the will of the fans, you'll have to
find writers weak enough to bend.
Brian.
Pariah
Steven Grant wrote:
> Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>
> >That's certainly true. But I read your and Mr. Johnson's comments as "We
> >don't want to," rather than "We couldn't do it well
>
> You'd be surprised how often not wanting to hinders doing it well...
Agreed. When it comes to creative work, being forced to do someone usually
means that their heart isn't in it... which usually is noticeable.
OTOH, I remember watching a biography of someone who used to paint movie
posters.. he was put under a lot of pressure and hated it. When he finally
retired, he started drawing landscape... which art critics said pale in
comparison to his movie poster work.
It probably depends on the artist/writer.. and as a good rule of thumb, it's
not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do. If it
comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
Pariah
Pierce Askegren
Pariah wrote:
>
>... and as a good rule of thumb, it's
>not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do.
If it
>comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
And that's supposed to make the regular writers (and, in this case, the
creators) feel more confident and secure in their roles when they
return?
BTW, the term "guest writer," though accurate in some circumstances, is
not quite synonymous with "scab," which is how you're using it.
It's amazing how eager some people are to deprive creative personnel of
what little control they have....
Pierce
Pariah
Pierce Askegren wrote:
> Pariah wrote:
> >
> >... and as a good rule of thumb, it's
> >not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do.
> If it
> >comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
>
> And that's supposed to make the regular writers (and, in this case, the
> creators) feel more confident and secure in their roles when they
> return?
Well, if the writer doesn't WANT to do something, and knows he wouldn't do
it well, he shouldn't have a problem with letting someone else, who would
be more enthusiastic, do it for him.
> BTW, the term "guest writer," though accurate in some circumstances, is
> not quite synonymous with "scab," which is how you're using it.
I haven't really thought about the context of which I am using. The word
'scab' implies that the replacement writer is of inferior quality. This
need not be the case. It could be the writer of the other part of the
crossover, it could be someone else who writes his own series and would
like to writer an issue or two of another particular title.
> It's amazing how eager some people are to deprive creative personnel of
> what little control they have....
I only support this in the case that an overwhelming majority of people
want to see something... not just six prople on usenet. Two issues isn't
really usurping control for another writer, if the editor does his job and
makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the creative direction.
Pariah
Pariah
Brian McDn wrote:
> Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> writes:
> >Pierce Askegren wrote:
>
> >Well, if the writer doesn't WANT to do something, and knows he
> >wouldn't do it well, he shouldn't have a problem with letting someone
> >else, who would be more enthusiastic, do it for him.
>
> Oh, sure. "Please sir, hand off the book I'm investing large chunks of my time
> and creative energy in to someone who'll be more compliant with your wishes!
> Please sir, deprive me of two months contact with my characters. Please sir,
> deprive me also of two months pay for the issues I'm not writing." Yeah, what
> writer wouldn't go for that?
This leaves the writer with a decision. If he REALLY doesn't want to do something,
and he obviously couldn't put a whole lot of effort into it, then he should accept
that they will temporarily find someone who will and can do it. He may not like it,
but he put himself in that situation.
Again, this only applies of an overwhelming majority of readers want to see
something.
> >> BTW, the term "guest writer," though accurate in some circumstances,
> >>is not quite synonymous with "scab," which is how you're using it.
> >
> >I haven't really thought about the context of which I am using. The word
> >'scab' implies that the replacement writer is of inferior quality. This need
> >not be the case. It could be the writer of the other part of the crossover, it
>
> >could be someone else who writes his own series and would like to writer
> >an issue or two of another particular title.
>
> Like, say, everyone's favorite Ron Marz? Or Keith Giffen? Continuity-pal John
> Byrne? Pick some writer you don't like. You want that writer working on a
> book you DO like? Even if it's a good writer, like Priest or Waid, who's to
> say they'll be able to pull off CHALLENGERS as well as Steven Grant. Part of
> its appeal is the atmosphere that Grant (and Len Kaminski) have invested in it.
> I love Priest's work and I like Waid, but I wouldn't implicitly trust either
> of them to do COTU total justice (no pun intended).
If they liked and followed the series, I would trust them to do two issues of it,
so long as the editors (or the writer) keep an eye on it and make sure they don't
do anything damaging to the series.
> >I only support this in the case that an overwhelming majority of people
> >want to see something... not just six prople on usenet.
>
> Disappointment is an inevitable part of life, and I'd rather be disappointed a
> little than disappointed a lot when the second-rate crossover comes along.
But the crossover isn't GOING to be second-rate. It might, be, or it might not be.
> > Two issues isn't really usurping control for another writer, if the editor
> >does his job and makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the
> >creative direction.
>
> Maybe I'm putting too much stress on the personal aspects of creation, but this
> strikes me as roughly equivalent to saying "It was only sex, honey, it didn't
> mean anything!"
I don't view it this way at all... and I don't think it should be viewed this way.
I ran a game of DC Heroes in which I created the backdrop universe and all it's
components (I was perpetually the GM). My friend wanted to do an adventure. While I
was initially very hesitant to give him control of all my character for even one
adventure (the guest-GM and I have nothing in common creatively), I did so anyway.
Some of the players wanted to do some sort of space adventure and I don't do space
adventures. It would have been childish and immature for me to tell him no because
they're MY characters and he can't have them and make me sit out for a couple
weeks. Instead, since I was stubbornly unwilling to do a space adventure, I handed
over the keys (so to speak) and let him take charge, just for a little bit.
> And ask Len Kaminski how happy he was when DC gave two of the Scare Tactics
> plus specials to Chuck Dixon to write. Or look up his rant in Deja News. Then
> say that two issues isn't much.
Well, why did they give the book to Dixon?
Pariah
Steven Grant
Brian McDn wrote in message
>Gonorrhea or chlamydia, eh? Which choice is better?
Or, as I once phrased it, would you rather be raped by Goths or Visigoths?
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
>paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
>write what DC wants you to write. And DC wants you to write what the fans
>will buy, because DC wants the fans' money. And if the fans would buy a
>CHASE/CHALLS crossover (signifcantly more than they would buy whatever it
>is you'd write if you had unfettered creative freedom), then you ought to
>write it, and you ought to be a skilled enough writer that you can do a
>good job on it.
Yes, I'm a hired gun. That doesn't mean I think every target someone wants
me to shoot deserves to be shot. I'm nobody's slave, y'know? I'm nobody's
employee, actually. I'm a freelancer. That means I always have the right
to say no.
Look, if DC wanted to do a CHASE/COTU crossover badly enough and I didn't
want to do it, they'd get someone else to do it. It's not that big an
issue.
Especially since there hasn't exactly been a groundswell for such a thing.
>Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
>personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
>mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
>to some degree. Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
>IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
>entering." Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
>instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car." Why should
>comic book writers get to say "I know everyone wants to see Reed, Sue, Ben
>and Johnny, but I'd rather write about Ben, a Skrull, Ant Man, and slutty
>Sue."
I think if, say, you're going to take over an established property, you and
the editor should have some ground rules going in. I do that on most of my
books. On creator-owned books, the ground rules are that what I say goes,
period. On company owned books, I have considerably more tolerance and
flexibility. If someone's taking over FF, they should either resign
themselves to writing about THE FF, or have a very good reason why it should
be a different FF. I don't have any problem with that. But this is between
editor and writer, not writer and fan.
Mike Chary
>>crossover) have to wait to satisfy the artisitic impulses of two people?
>
>these days...
>
The only thing 50,000 fans can seem to agree on is that comics aren't
worth their trouble.
There's a sort of panic atmosphere in comics these days. Creators are on
edge because they don't have a good way to gauge which books will succeed
and which won't. (It's pretty damn frustrating to poor your heart and
soul into something whether it sucks or not, and then have Spawn out sell
it five to one.) Fans don't know whether to buy now, wait for a
collection, or some combination. When something does seem to be
succeeding, companies end up trying to milk it. It's making people mean.
It's making tempers short. Companies are getting so defensive it's hard
to get an answer from them. Fans are taking plot developments personally.
When I was a kid, they wrote Iris Allen out of the Flash permanently (I
refuse to use the words "killed off" because no one died :)) I didn't
*like* it, but it led to a pretty good story and I didn't even write a
letter whining. And Iris stayed dead for a while. If that happened today
people would be screaming for blood.
My point here is, I think, people should just relax a little. Read the
comics. Take your time. Surely there's something to enjoy in them?
Concentrate on that. Screw everything else.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
In Memoriam Richie Ashburn, the Greatest Defensive Center Fielder of All
Time. A hell of a hitter and the best announcer this biased Phillies fan
ever heard. We'll miss you Whitey. :'(
Brian McDn
>>>
>>>... and as a good rule of thumb, it's not a good idea to get a writer
>>>to do something he doesn't want to do. If it comes down to it, get a
>>>guest writer for an issue or two.
>>
>> And that's supposed to make the regular writers (and, in this case,
>>the creators) feel more confident and secure in their roles when they
>>return?
>
>wouldn't do it well, he shouldn't have a problem with letting someone
>else, who would be more enthusiastic, do it for him.
Oh, sure. "Please sir, hand off the book I'm investing large chunks of my time
and creative energy in to someone who'll be more compliant with your wishes!
Please sir, deprive me of two months contact with my characters. Please sir,
deprive me also of two months pay for the issues I'm not writing." Yeah, what
writer wouldn't go for that?
>> BTW, the term "guest writer," though accurate in some circumstances,
>>is not quite synonymous with "scab," which is how you're using it.
>
>I haven't really thought about the context of which I am using. The word
>'scab' implies that the replacement writer is of inferior quality. This need
>not be the case. It could be the writer of the other part of the crossover, it
>could be someone else who writes his own series and would like to writer
>an issue or two of another particular title.
Like, say, everyone's favorite Ron Marz? Or Keith Giffen? Continuity-pal John
Byrne? Pick some writer you don't like. You want that writer working on a
book you DO like? Even if it's a good writer, like Priest or Waid, who's to
say they'll be able to pull off CHALLENGERS as well as Steven Grant. Part of
its appeal is the atmosphere that Grant (and Len Kaminski) have invested in it.
I love Priest's work and I like Waid, but I wouldn't implicitly trust either
of them to do COTU total justice (no pun intended).
>> It's amazing how eager some people are to deprive creative personnel of
>> what little control they have....
>
>I only support this in the case that an overwhelming majority of people
>want to see something... not just six prople on usenet.
Disappointment is an inevitable part of life, and I'd rather be disappointed a
little than disappointed a lot when the second-rate crossover comes along.
> Two issues isn't really usurping control for another writer, if the editor
>does his job and makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the
>creative direction.
Maybe I'm putting too much stress on the personal aspects of creation, but this
strikes me as roughly equivalent to saying "It was only sex, honey, it didn't
mean anything!"
And ask Len Kaminski how happy he was when DC gave two of the Scare Tactics
plus specials to Chuck Dixon to write. Or look up his rant in Deja News. Then
say that two issues isn't much.
Brian.
Brian McDn
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> writes:
>Brian McDn wrote:
>> Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> writes:
>>>Pierce Askegren wrote:
>
>>>Well, if the writer doesn't WANT to do something, and knows he
>>>wouldn't do it well, he shouldn't have a problem with letting someone
>>>else, who would be more enthusiastic, do it for him.
>
>> Oh, sure. "Please sir, hand off the book I'm investing large chunks of
>>my time and creative energy in to someone who'll be more compliant
>>with your wishes! Please sir, deprive me of two months contact with
>>my characters. Please sir, deprive me also of two months pay for the
>>issues I'm not writing." Yeah, what writer wouldn't go for that?
>
>something, and he obviously couldn't put a whole lot of effort into it, then
>he should accept that they will temporarily find someone who will and can
>do it. He may not like it, but he put himself in that situation.
Gonorrhea or chlamydia, eh? Which choice is better? Actually, the people who
made the boneheaded judgement call to force the writer into a crossover or an
involuntary vacation put the writer in that situation. The writer, one
assumes, just wants to write the best comics possible. Your scenario here is
putting him into a position where that may not be possible.
>Again, this only applies of an overwhelming majority of readers want to
>see something.
See, there are plenty of majorities who want to see something or another.
Interfering with the creative process might get you what you want on the face
of it, but you're bound to be disappointed in other ways. You want your
crossover? Be prepared to lose creators unwilling to cooperate.
>>>I haven't really thought about the context of which I am using. The word
>>>'scab' implies that the replacement writer is of inferior quality. This need
>>>not be the case. It could be the writer of the other part of the crossover,
>>>it could be someone else who writes his own series and would like to
>>>writer an issue or two of another particular title.
>>
>> Like, say, everyone's favorite Ron Marz? Or Keith Giffen? Continuity-pal
>>John Byrne? Pick some writer you don't like. You want that writer working
>>on a book you DO like? Even if it's a good writer, like Priest or Waid,
who's
>>to say they'll be able to pull off CHALLENGERS as well as Steven Grant.
>>Part of its appeal is the atmosphere that Grant (and Len Kaminski) have
>>invested in it. I love Priest's work and I like Waid, but I wouldn't
implicitly
>>trust either of them to do COTU total justice (no pun intended).
>
>If they liked and followed the series, I would trust them to do two issues
>of it, so long as the editors (or the writer) keep an eye on it and make sure
>they don't do anything damaging to the series.
Did Priest like JUDGE DREDD? His one issue of DC's series was...okay. It
wasn't all that special. Some folks don't like Morrison's work on FLASH, and
Morrison clearly loves the character.
Still, there's a much greater chance that you won't GET a Priest or a Waid.
You might get [fill in the name of the writers you don't like]. I don't WANT
fill-in writers and artists. They're almost always inferior to the regular
creative team, and the issues are frequently just treading water.
>>>I only support this in the case that an overwhelming majority of people
>>>want to see something... not just six prople on usenet.
>>
>> Disappointment is an inevitable part of life, and I'd rather be disappointed
a
>> little than disappointed a lot when the second-rate crossover comes along.
>
>But the crossover isn't GOING to be second-rate. It might, be, or it might
>not be.
Well, the odds are definitely in favor of suckage, and I don't think I want to
take that kind of chance.
>>> Two issues isn't really usurping control for another writer, if the editor
>>>does his job and makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the
>>>creative direction.
>>
>>Maybe I'm putting too much stress on the personal aspects of creation,
>>but this strikes me as roughly equivalent to saying "It was only sex,
>>honey, it didn't mean anything!"
>
>I don't view it this way at all... and I don't think it should be viewed this
way.
Clearly, or you wouldn't be trying to pimp the books you like away from their
principle creative teams.
>I ran a game of DC Heroes in which I created the backdrop universe and
>all it's components (I was perpetually the GM). My friend wanted to do
>an adventure. While I was initially very hesitant to give him control of all
>my character for even one adventure (the guest-GM and I have nothing in
>common creatively), I did so anyway.
Well, that's fine. Had I been in your position, I don't know that I would have
given up the world I had so pain-stakingly created. I guess it just depends on
how much of yourself you've invested in your world, and how willing you are to
risk someone else screwing it up. At the same time, a gaming world is
inherently shared by all the people who play in it, so I don't know that it's
even all that similar.
>Some of the players wanted to do some sort of space adventure and I
>don't do space adventures. It would have been childish and immature for
>me to tell him no because they're MY characters and he can't have them
>and make me sit out for a couple weeks.
No, it's perfectly reasonable for you to not want to surrender your creative
output. Not childish at all. I wouldn't give you one of my short stories, and
let you tack on a different ending. That gaming world is, in part, your
intellectual and emotional property. It's yours to do ANYTHING you want to
with it, including restricting the games played in it.
>> And ask Len Kaminski how happy he was when DC gave two of the Scare
>> Tactics plus specials to Chuck Dixon to write. Or look up his rant in Deja
>> News. Then say that two issues isn't much.
>
>Well, why did they give the book to Dixon?
It was two books, and according to Len's posts (if I recall correctly) it was
because DC started the Plus Special plan with very little preparation. Len
didn't have time to write all four, so they gave two to Dixon. And guess what?
They weren't all that good, especially compared to Len.
Brian.
Jason Fliegel
In article <34937...@satellite.premier1.net>,
>>don't want to," rather than "We couldn't do it well
>
>You'd be surprised how often not wanting to hinders doing it well...
>
Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
write what DC wants you to write. And DC wants you to write what the fans
will buy, because DC wants the fans' money. And if the fans would buy a
CHASE/CHALLS crossover (signifcantly more than they would buy whatever it
is you'd write if you had unfettered creative freedom), then you ought to
write it, and you ought to be a skilled enough writer that you can do a
good job on it.
Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
to some degree. Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
entering." Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car." Why should
comic book writers get to say "I know everyone wants to see Reed, Sue, Ben
and Johnny, but I'd rather write about Ben, a Skrull, Ant Man, and slutty
Sue."
Jason Fliegel
In article <19971214053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Brian McDn <bria...@aol.com> wrote:
>jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
Y'know, I spent like 45 minutes responding to this, and then my modem
disconnected. Now you only have to sit through the "abbreviated, only
spending 10 minutes to reconstruct it" version.
>>I understand that when someobdoy writes a comic book, it's as much an
>>artistic endeavour as it is a commercial one.
>
>Then I don't think you understand a damned thing. It's an artistic endeavor
>for the creators. It's a commercial endeavor for the company. If the creators
>start thinking commercially, instead of personally and creatively, then you get
>crap. Look at how much Priest has complained about editorial interference at
>DC. I won't deign to speak for him, but he seems to like the freedom of
>Acclaim much more than DC's control. And ChrisCross opted out of pencilling
>the last issue of XERO in part because he was unhappy with DC's treatment of
>the book. If these guys abandon DC for good, that's a loss not only for DC,
>but for us as well.
First of all, my understanding of the XERO situation was that the creators
were more upset over DC's lack of support for the title than they were
with any editorial interference.
Second ... it's work for hire. These people are PAID to WRITE. You
damned well better believe that's commercial. If you want to be
successful, you HAVE TO write what people want to buy. If you want to
hold on to your artistic integrity, that's fine. But don't expect to do
it on DC's dime. Vincent Van Gogh painted what he wanted to paint, how he
wanted to paint it. And he sold one painting in his whole lifetime, and
lived in abject poverty. Michelangelo did work for hire when he did the
Sistine Chapel, and he had to do what his boss told him to. If he would
have rather painted a Roman Orgy than the Binding of Isaac, he would have
been out of luck.
>> On the other hand, when there are broad-based demands for certain
>>characaters or situations, the creators ought to have a damned good
>>reason for not giving the fans what they want. "There's no way I can
>>work that into my story without major problems" is a legitimate reason;
>>"I don't wanna" is not.
>
>Gee, when you phrase it like that, you very nearly seem correct. Of course,
>what Steven and Dan actually said was more to the effect of "It would make it
>seem less like fun and more like work". How good is the writing going to be if
>you're forcing them to produce something against their will?
If they're professional writers, I hope it'd still be pretty damned good.
I'm sorry for Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson that doing their job would be "not
fun" and "work," but that's why they call it a job. Other people don't
get to pick and chose only the fun parts -- even other writers. Why
should a comic book writer be any different?
>How about YOU name 20 self-indulgent storylines, and tell us why the fans would
>have been better served if the creators had compromised their creativity.
I'd rather not name names. But I'm sure we can all think of self
indulgent storylines that seem to have next to no fan support, yet go on
for months or even years.
>
>Then consider Morrison's ANIMAL MAN and DOOM PATROL, Priest's QUANTUM & WOODY,
>Delano/Ennis/Jenkins' HELLBLAZER, Busiek's THUNDERBOLTS and ASTRO CITY, Sim's
>CEREBUS, Ennis' PREACHER and HITMAN, Ellis' TRANSMETROPOLITAN and
>STORMWATCH...oh, that's enough for now. Each one of these titles by these
>creators has a group of fans who were/are there expressly because their
>creative vision shines through unhindered. Now, come up with 20 self-indulgent
>storylines for each of these titles.
>
Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose HITMAN has 50,000 readers. And
suppose 40,000 of them want to see Hitman meet a talking gorilla. Why is
Garth Ennis' creative vision more important than the wishes of 40,000
fans? And if Kurt Busiek is willing to give the fans a talking Gorilla in
THUNDERBOLTS, what's Ennis going to do when those 40,000 fans desert him
for Busiek?
>>If we're going to indulge anybody, it ought to be the fans, and not the
>>creators.
>
>And if the fans want something the creator isn't willing to give? How many
>instances like Veitch leaving SWAMP THING or Ellis' aborted SATANA are you
>willing to suffer before you realize the creators are what drive this business?
>
This business is at least as much character driven as it is creator
driven. How else do you explain the differeing sales figures between
Morrison's JLA and his FLASH and his FLEX MENTALLO and his SKRULL KILL
KREW?
>>That said, I want to stress that I don't mean to imply that Mr. Johnson
>>or Mr. Grant are writing self indulgent stories.
>
>No, you merely implied they were personally self-indulgent for not wanting to
>give you a CHALLS/CHASE crossover.
>
Not me. 20,000 (admittedly hypothetical) fans.
>>Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a
>>CHASE/CHALLS crossover) have to wait to satisfy the
>>artisitic impulses of two people?
>
>Because without creators, you'd be looking at blank pieces of paper.
Without any creators at all, true. But without these two particular
creators? I'm sure somebody else would be willing to do the job.
>
>Here's another hypothetical for you: Would you rather have two well-written
>books by creators unhindered by fan/editorial pressure, or two mediocre books
>by their mediocre, but more pliable, replacements?
Well that's a no brainer -- well-written beats mediocre any day. But I
don't think giving the fans what they want implies necessary mediocrity.
And I think NOT giving the fans what they want often implies cancellation.
So here's my hypothetical back at you: Would you rather have two intensely
personal, high quality 12-issue runs or two less personal, but comparably
high quality 120-issue runs?
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>If they're professional writers, I hope it'd still be pretty damned good.
>I'm sorry for Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson that doing their job would be "not
>fun" and "work," but that's why they call it a job. Other people don't
>get to pick and chose only the fun parts -- even other writers. Why
>should a comic book writer be any different?
Any particular reason why it SHOULDN'T be different? I don't remember any
law anywhere stating that one's profession MUST be a pain in the ass.
As for your economic theories, as I've said before, I am NOT a DC employee.
I work WITH DC. The only person I work FOR is me. This doesn't give me
license to be unreasonable, but it does give me choices that I wouldn't have
if, say, I were working on a factory line or if I were on staff at Microsoft
producing computer manuals. Writing a check doesn't automatically make
anyone right, and the comics business no longer works like that.
Furthermore, you're a little confused about exactly what constitutes writing
in this case. DC isn't giving me, or anyone else, assignments strictly on
our ability to string words together. They're paying for our attitudes and
our judgment. In most cases, we make the decisions (subject to editorial
supervision, we don't work in a vacuum), because we're being PAID to make
the creative decisions. That's what we do. If Dan Thorsland calls me up
and says, "Gee, we'd really like you to guest-star Batman in COTU" or "gee,
we'd really like you to do an issue that ties into 'Millenium Giants,'"
okay, I'm a reasonable guy, if I can accommodate him, I will. We get paid
for our ideas, but we're only human, just because the company WANTS a
specific idea from us doesn't mean we're going to be able to automatically
manufacture one. Like I say, we're not working on an assembly line. DC has
asked me to tie COTU into things like GENESIS, and I've refused, not because
I have anything against GENESIS, but because I had no take on it that I
considered interesting, and it's a disservice TO THE READERS to do material
with no ideas or feeling behind it.
In other words, I get paid to write, not take dictation. This is CREATIVE
writing, it has different rules and mechanisms from, say, doing letter
pages.
Your "boss say, worker do" economic argument is a bit, um, well, Dickensian
if not flat out medieval, and while it's your privilege to believe that's
the way the world works (or ought to work), it doesn't. Not always, anyway.
Hernan Espinoza
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>The only thing 50,000 fans can seem to agree on is that comics aren't
>worth their trouble.
>There's a sort of panic atmosphere in comics these days. Creators are on
>edge because they don't have a good way to gauge which books will succeed
>and which won't. (It's pretty damn frustrating to poor your heart and
>soul into something whether it sucks or not, and then have Spawn out sell
>it five to one.) Fans don't know whether to buy now, wait for a
>collection, or some combination. When something does seem to be
>succeeding, companies end up trying to milk it. It's making people mean.
>It's making tempers short. Companies are getting so defensive it's hard
>to get an answer from them. Fans are taking plot developments personally.
>When I was a kid, they wrote Iris Allen out of the Flash permanently (I
>refuse to use the words "killed off" because no one died :)) I didn't
>*like* it, but it led to a pretty good story and I didn't even write a
>letter whining. And Iris stayed dead for a while. If that happened today
>people would be screaming for blood.
>My point here is, I think, people should just relax a little. Read the
>comics. Take your time. Surely there's something to enjoy in them?
(8-O <squint> Who are you and where's Mike Chary?
>Concentrate on that. Screw everything else.
Oh, there he is. 8-)
Seriously, though, I agree with Mike. There is a crisis
atmosphere among comics fandom [I cannot speak to the professionals,
since I don't really know any personally] that's chewing away at
people's perspective. you know, it always bother's me a little when
people say "It's just comics", but that's not always a put down, sometimes
it's just a good thing to remember.
-Hernan
Michael Blakeman Cleveland
>>You'd be surprised how often not wanting to hinders doing it well...
>Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
>paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
>write what DC wants you to write. And DC wants you to write what the fans
>will buy, because DC wants the fans' money.
I can't argue with that last sentence, but I can hope that DC hires
writers who have clever ideas and write well, expecting that if those
writers write what they want to, their storeis will appeal to other
people (i.e., the fans) as well.
That's certainly a more forward-thinking philosophy than you're showing.
By your philosophy, only the current fans who demand things will be
satisfied; no new readers will enter the marketplace.
I also wonder: how do you think DC should decide which fans to listen to?
And why do you think that the fans who _don't_ get what they demand
won't leave the marketplace?
The last time I said this everybody got all riled up, so DISCLAIMER: This
is just my opinion!: It is a moral imperative that the fans not be
allowed to dictate to the creative teams.
I decided this after watching The New (Teen) Titans crumble as various
editors forced Marv Wolfman to write a series of cataclysms that he
clearly wasn't interested in. The writing got progressively worse, and
eventually enough readers left that the title couldn't be saved. I
think the same type of conflict led to Gerard Jones burning out (the
biggest, but not only, loss there being Green Lantern: Mosaic). And
it seems the same sort of writer/editor conflict led to Tony Isabella
being fired from the most recent Black Lightning series. I guarantee
I wanted to read what Tony Isabella wanted to write _much_ more
than what Pat Garrahy thought fans wanted to read.
> And if the fans would buy a
>CHASE/CHALLS crossover (signifcantly more than they would buy whatever it
>is you'd write if you had unfettered creative freedom), then you ought to
>write it, and you ought to be a skilled enough writer that you can do a
>good job on it.
I think it'd be acceptable if fan demand worked like this:
If enough fans demand a Chase/Challengers crossover (and excuse me, but
does _anyone_ on this newsgroup think they do? The characters have a
_total_ of 12 appearances to date.) by writing the editor, the editor
should try to use whatever wiles he can summon to trick the writer into
_wanting_ to write that crossover.
>Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
>personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
>mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
>to some degree. Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
>IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
>entering." Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
>instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car." Why should
>comic book writers get to say "I know everyone wants to see Reed, Sue, Ben
>and Johnny, but I'd rather write about Ben, a Skrull, Ant Man, and slutty
>Sue."
They shouldn't _get_ to say it. They should _have_ to. Well, some
variation:
Writer: "Hey, I've got this great storyline for Fantastic Four...
blah blah blah."
Editor: "That _does_ sound good, but it doesn't actually _use_ the
characters enough."
Further discussion then leads to the story being used or not.
Hmm. Intersting. I don't object to an editor putting the brakes on a
story if he thinks the fans will hate it. But then, I think that happens
a lot less often than editors demanding stories that they think (incorrectly)
the fans will love. I also think that by trying to please everyone
(or rather, all the current fans), DC would end up pleasing no one.
Michael C
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I mean, with all due respect
: to Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson, you're being paid to write these books.
: And, indirectly, it's the fans who are paying you.
VERY indirectly. They are paid by DC, and they should answer to their
editors and their muses, most likely in that order. :)
: And if the fans want a
: CHASE/CHALLS crossover, you damn well ought to give them one.
Oh, please. If I didn't like you so much, Jason, I'd tell you to grow up.
SOME fans want a crossovers. Others couldn't care less. I know it's a
tough truth to realize, but IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE CREATORS TO PLEASE
THE FANS. Steven has explained why, in fact, in a very eloquent post
elsewhere in this newsgroup. What it boils down to is, the fans are about
as monolithic a reading group as rac* is, and most of the time "the fans"
have no IDEA what "they" want.
: If that
: makes writing the books a little less fun and a little more of a chore,
: then that is unfortunate.
This comes off as so incredibly arrogant I can well understand why some
creators avoid interacting with fans.
- Elayne
--
"No. That's not what I'm saying. As a matter of fact, I'm saying that
that's not what I'm saying, and I've been saying it, and I will continue
to KEEP saying it until people stop telling me that I'm saying something
else." - Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net>, making a point on rac*
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I stand by the spirit of what I said. If, for instance, 20,000
: fans want something, it seems stupid for DC not to give it to them.
Okay, prove 20,000 fans want something.
So far, the only recent fan action we've seen that has a goal of proving
this sort of thing is the GL petition. And that has *less than 1000
signatures*. Good luck proving 20,000 fans want ANYthing.
I agree with Steven. Fans as a group (hivemind? <g>) don't know WHAT they
want.
: Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a CHASE/CHALLS
: crossover) have to wait to satisfy the artisitic impulses of two people?
Because that's the way it works. The artistic impulses (and editorial
directives) take priority over what a few fans might want. IMHO, artistic
impulses (i.e., wanting to tell a good story) should ALWAYS take priority.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
: paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
: write what DC wants you to write.
Okay, so far you've got it right.
: And DC wants you to write what the fans
: will buy, because DC wants the fans' money.
Here you start to go on shaky ground though. DC wants creators to put out
what they *believe* fans will buy. Is it hard to understand, Jason, that
what YOU believe fans will buy may be different from what DC believes?
: And if the fans would buy a CHASE/CHALLS crossover...
If, if, if. Please, prove there are 20,000-- or, hell, since Steven used
the number, 50,000 fans willing to buy this. Until you can, you're just
another fan pissing in the wind.
: Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
: personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
: mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
: to some degree.
Yes, they have to structure scripts to 22 pages, put up with crossovers,
work within editorial constraints, all that stuff. They *don't* have to
listen to every fan with an idea for what he or she thinks would make a
good story. They don't work for you, Jason, much as you may wish they
did.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Steven Grant (sdg...@premier1.net) wrote:
: But this is between editor and writer, not writer and fan.
Bravo, Steven. You know, this has been one of the hardest realizations
for me in the transition from fan to pro-- that pros are in NO WAY
obligated to listen to fan feedback. A part of me still believes feedback
is a good thing to have, but the more pros I talk to the more I rethink
that position. A freelance comic book writer writes first and foremost to
please his/her editor and him/herself. NOT to please the fans. Because
pleasing the fans is, de facto, a losing proposition. There are just too
many fans who want different (often diametrically opposing) things, and as
you point out elsewhere a ton of fans have no IDEA what they want. I can
absolutely undersatnd the mindset that says any writer who listens to fan
feedback dooms him/herself.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: ... it's work for hire. These people are PAID to WRITE.
And by writing the comics that their editors hire them to write, they are
fulfilling their end of the bargain. Your point?
: If you want to be successful, you HAVE TO write what people want to buy.
Of course. But until there's some sort of incontrovertible proof that
"people want to buy THIS BOOK," the decision on what people want to buy
will be made by the editors. NOT BY THE FANS.
: I'm sorry for Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson that doing their job would be "not
: fun" and "work," but that's why they call it a job.
I'm sorry you still don't get it, Jason. Their job is not to please
Jason, it's to fulfill the assignments given them by their editors.
: Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose HITMAN has 50,000 readers. And
: suppose 40,000 of them want to see Hitman meet a talking gorilla.
You're damn right it's a hypothetical. You can't prove any of this.
That's part of the problem with your premise, Jason. You can't prove
40,000 fans want ANYthing. You can only shout about what YOU want. It's
up to DC to figure out what a substantial number of fans want, and this is
done based, in part, on what's currently selling.
Crisper Than Thou
Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>Second ... it's work for hire. These people are PAID to WRITE. You
>damned well better believe that's commercial. If you want to be
>successful, you HAVE TO write what people want to buy.
But not necessarily what any specific group of people want to buy. If
20,000 people want CHASE AND THE CHALLENGERS (which, at this point, has
turned, in my head, into an Elseworlds Scooby-Doo/Josie and the Pussycats
kinda story, with the five of them tooling around in an old El Dorado
solving mysteries and playing upbeat musical numbers while the obligatory
celebrity guest-star engages in slapstick) but 25,000 want something else,
then neither Steven nor I am necessarily obligated to work on CHASE/CHALLS
to "make a buck". Should DC nonetheless pursue what the fans demand,
even if it means putting other people on it? Maybe. But if you get what
you demanded-- and it's not what you wanted after all, because neither
Steven nor I are involved-- I hope you aren't going to complain to anyone
but the mirror.
>If they're professional writers, I hope it'd still be pretty damned good.
And, while I cannot speak for Steven, yes, there is some truth to this--
not everything I write is exactly what I would have wanted to do. Some
things I'm told "need to go"; other things, I'm told, "need to be added".
And I argue with Eddie [Berganza] about the whys and the wherefores, and
we do a very good job of compromising on something that I can put on
paper and look at and say, yeah, I'd hella dig this book.
If I write the book purely to fill the specifications of the editorial staff,
the readership, or the Powers That Be, and in the end, I wouldn't want to
read the story I've just written, then hello, I must be going now.
>I'm sorry for Mr. Grant and Mr. Johnson that doing their job would be "not
>fun" and "work," but that's why they call it a job. Other people don't
>get to pick and chose only the fun parts -- even other writers. Why
>should a comic book writer be any different?
Well, I already *have* a thankless, grueling job in the cold, grey world.
It pays about five times what my comics work does at this point. CHASE is
what I'm doing to break out of the mindset you describe above. There is a
word for professional writers who do what they do just because it's a
paycheck, and who aren't particularly interested in rising above the idea
of writing as just another form of hammering rail spikes. That word is
"hack". Please kill me if I reach that point.
>Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose HITMAN has 50,000 readers. And
>suppose 40,000 of them want to see Hitman meet a talking gorilla. Why is
>Garth Ennis' creative vision more important than the wishes of 40,000
>fans? And if Kurt Busiek is willing to give the fans a talking Gorilla in
>THUNDERBOLTS, what's Ennis going to do when those 40,000 fans desert him
>for Busiek?
<scarcasm> Something with 11 variant covers. </sarcasm>
If a talking gorilla will snare 40,000 readers, pretty soon we'll have
TALKING GORILLA, TALKING GORILLAS: YEAR ONE, TALKING GORILLAS: CONGO
LOST, TALKING MONKEYS JR., etc. Catering directly to bottom line
popularity produces gimmicks, gluts, and inevitable collapse.
>Without any creators at all, true. But without these two particular
>creators? I'm sure somebody else would be willing to do the job.
Sure. Would you like it? Dunno.
>Well that's a no brainer -- well-written beats mediocre any day. But I
>don't think giving the fans what they want implies necessary mediocrity.
>And I think NOT giving the fans what they want often implies cancellation.
As I mentioned in my earlier email to you, it's BAD for people in the
entertainment fields to ignore what their fans want, obviously-- but it's
not much better to let the masses drive. Steering is not a committee
task. While "giving the fans what they want" does not necessarily result
in mediocrity, catering to the majority (IMHO) *does*.
--The Elder Dan
--
In dreams, logic grows on trees.
Crisper Than Thou
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: I stand by the spirit of what I said. If, for instance, 20,000
>: fans want something, it seems stupid for DC not to give it to them.
>
>Okay, prove 20,000 fans want something.
Lots and lots of studies are done in just about every field to try and
understand how many real-life examples of opinion equate to any sort of
realistic map of the Big Picture. The Nielsen ratings, the Gallup poll,
consumer surveys of people who send in their registration cards for the
new Compaq they bought, etc.-- all geared towards trying to understand
what The People really want.
And, of course, nobody's ever really gotten it, which is why election
results can sometimes be very surprising, the sure-fire hit show flops
in less than a month, and the computer industry is nearly all random
firing into the darkness.
>So far, the only recent fan action we've seen that has a goal of proving
>this sort of thing is the GL petition. And that has *less than 1000
>signatures*.
Which says what about the entire set of people who read, or are interested
in, Green Lantern? It says that 1000 of them are pissed off enough to make
noise. How many satisfied readers = 1000 pissed off readers? A vocal
minority is not the same thing as a mandate from the people.
Crisper Than Thou
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>
>It probably depends on the artist/writer.. and as a good rule of thumb, it's
>not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do. If it
>comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
Ouch. This smacks of a common concern among much of the Silicon Valley
workforce (and probably in most other big urban centers), which can be
basically summed up as: "Employees getting you down? Fire 'em and hire
temps for half the money! And when those temps turn out to be fuckups
as well, ditch most of 'em without warning and hire one or two of the
best ones as employees!"
If DC tells me, "Why don't you do a few issues of CHASE set in a nunnery?"
and I say, "Uh. Cam would kill herself before she'd become a nun." and DC
says, "Why don't you take a vacation from the book for a few months while
we have someone else write about Cam being a nun?" then, well, I won't be
coming back after that vacation. Nobody likes to be handed a vote of no
confidence, which is what the situation you're describing is, basically.
And if "They" are going to do something to the book, the character, or the
storyline that is SO against my intentions that they have to move me off
the project in order to do it, is the book likely to be in the sort of
condition afterwards that I'd want to come back to it?
Crisper Than Thou
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>Two issues isn't
>really usurping control for another writer, if the editor does his job and
>makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the creative direction.
Well, see, if the reason for a guest writer is to write a story that the
original writer was told to do, which (s)he refused, then I would guess
that this story *is* against the "creative direction"-- at least in the
opinion of the original writer.
<Really evil example deleted because, upon re-reading it, it's pretty
deliberately incendiary and adds nothing to the point. Fill in your own
scenario, real or imagined, in which a writer has been, is being, or
might be overruled on a story, and has been, is being, or might be
replaced with someone who did, does, or will "play ball".>
Steven Grant
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <673up5$b...@panix3.panix.com>...
>I agree with Steven. Fans as a group (hivemind? <g>) don't know WHAT they
>want.
Um... I didn't say that exactly, Elayne. I said they don't really know what
they want until they see it. THEN they know.
Crisper Than Thou
Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
>personal.
Well, I think you're *not* realizing this as much as you think you are,
because your examples--
>Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
>IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
>entering."
>Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
>instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car."
--are NOT creative arts. There is very little room for creativity OR art
in them. Technical writing is not about expressing an idea you have that
nobody else has dreamed of; it's not about making an audience of people
happy, or sad, or thrilled, or introspective. If your technical writing
makes people laugh, then cry, you are not a good technical writer.
>Why should
>comic book writers get to say "I know everyone wants to see Reed, Sue, Ben
>and Johnny, but I'd rather write about Ben, a Skrull, Ant Man, and slutty
>Sue."
For the same reason that Marilyn Manson gets to say, "I know everyone wants
the Spice Girls, but I'd rather scare the shit out of little kids". For the
same reason that Steven Spielberg gets to say, "Sure, I can bang out Lost
World, but once in a while, I'd like to do something like Amistad, okay?"
For the same reason that artists everywhere, all the time, have gotten
away with saying, "Yeah, I know I could make more money putting the tools
of my trade up my ass and squatting on paper for the masses' approval,
but I'd rather put some skill into it, thank you."
If nobody else but the comic book writer wants to read about Ben, a Skrull,
Ant Man, and a slutty Sue, then he will live and die in obscurity, probably
of starvation. That is his choice. And, hey, the comics field is FULL of
people who are barely getting by, doing the story they really want to do,
who would probably strangle to death anyone who tried to suggest that they'd
be better off rolling over to do something for the masses.
Steven Grant
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <673vfa$c...@panix3.panix.com>...
>Bravo, Steven. You know, this has been one of the hardest realizations
>for me in the transition from fan to pro-- that pros are in NO WAY
>obligated to listen to fan feedback.
Obligated, no. But I do think it's the polite thing to do.
Steven Grant
Crisper Than Thou wrote in message
>If I write the book purely to fill the specifications of the editorial
staff,
> the readership, or the Powers That Be, and in the end, I wouldn't want to
> read the story I've just written, then hello, I must be going now.
Life's funny, actually. I've written stories I couldn't have cared less
about that people have raved to high heaven, and stories near and dear to my
heart that have been ignored or vilified.
All in all, I'd still rather have done the latter, though stories near and
dear that people rave to high heaven remain preferable.
>Well, I already *have* a thankless, grueling job in the cold, grey world.
> It pays about five times what my comics work does at this point. CHASE is
> what I'm doing to break out of the mindset you describe above. There is a
> word for professional writers who do what they do just because it's a
> paycheck, and who aren't particularly interested in rising above the idea
> of writing as just another form of hammering rail spikes. That word is
> "hack". Please kill me if I reach that point.
Actually, it isn't a word, it's a phrase, and the phrase is "writers will
bills to pay." I know it's popular, but people have lots of perfectly valid
motives that have nothing to do with art, and it doesn't really pay to get
too judgmental about these things.
>>Without any creators at all, true. But without these two particular
>>creators? I'm sure somebody else would be willing to do the job.
>
>Sure. Would you like it? Dunno.
I didn't notice that before, but "the job" always makes me think of pro
wrestling, where "doing the job" means you're the one who gets paid to lose.
Steven Grant
Crisper Than Thou wrote in message
> And if "They" are going to do something to the book, the character, or the
> storyline that is SO against my intentions that they have to move me off
> the project in order to do it, is the book likely to be in the sort of
> condition afterwards that I'd want to come back to it?
And how likely is it that the character will survive as something you feel
attached to, under those conditions? Not very. Plus you're likely, in
these continuity-obsessed times, to end up clotted with some useless bit of
continuity that the other writer(s), having no first hand knowledge of your
intent and direction, feel obliged to saddle their stories with.
Pariah
Crisper Than Thou wrote:
> Which says what about the entire set of people who read, or are interested
> in, Green Lantern? It says that 1000 of them are pissed off enough to make
> noise. How many satisfied readers = 1000 pissed off readers? A vocal
> minority is not the same thing as a mandate from the people.
Here here!!!!
Pariah
Pariah
Crisper Than Thou wrote:
> Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
> >Two issues isn't
> >really usurping control for another writer, if the editor does his job and
> >makes sure the writer doesn't do anything against the creative direction.
>
> Well, see, if the reason for a guest writer is to write a story that the
> original writer was told to do, which (s)he refused, then I would guess
> that this story *is* against the "creative direction"-- at least in the
> opinion of the original writer.
Well, that depends. If people want a crossover between BATMAN and IMPULSE, that
would disrupt (at the very least) BATMAN's creative direction. If people wanted
SHAZAM to cross-over with IMPULSE, but the writers of each respective series
don't care for the other series, and therefore really don't want to do a
crossover or don't think they could do it well, then it has less to do with
direction and more to do with a story that the writer doesn't want to write.
It depends.
Pariah
> <Really evil example deleted because, upon re-reading it, it's pretty
> deliberately incendiary and adds nothing to the point. Fill in your own
> scenario, real or imagined, in which a writer has been, is being, or
> might be overruled on a story, and has been, is being, or might be
> replaced with someone who did, does, or will "play ball".>
Was this my example (my particular experience with the RPG) or the example he
gave regarding SCARE TACTICS?
If it was mine, sorry it didn't fly (though I don't realize what exactly is
wrong with it).
Pariah
Pariah
Crisper Than Thou wrote:
> Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
> >
> >It probably depends on the artist/writer.. and as a good rule of thumb, it's
> >not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do. If it
> >comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
>
> Ouch. This smacks of a common concern among much of the Silicon Valley
> workforce (and probably in most other big urban centers), which can be
> basically summed up as: "Employees getting you down? Fire 'em and hire
> temps for half the money! And when those temps turn out to be fuckups
> as well, ditch most of 'em without warning and hire one or two of the
> best ones as employees!"
>
>
> If DC tells me, "Why don't you do a few issues of CHASE set in a nunnery?"
> and I say, "Uh. Cam would kill herself before she'd become a nun." and DC
> says, "Why don't you take a vacation from the book for a few months while
> we have someone else write about Cam being a nun?" then, well, I won't be
> coming back after that vacation.
I don't think it should necessarily be done of an editor's whim. Also, I'm not
talking about major changes. I'm talking about a simple crossover. If they want
to write Chase as a nun, then by all means, leave. I sure wouldn't read the
book... nor would most people. If it's a matter of the direction of the series's
direction... then if the writer doesn't agree with what all of the fans want (and
the fans don't want to buy what he's doing)... then they should find a writer who
wants to do it. If it's the matter of a couple issues and a non-essential
storyline to the series, then I don't see why a writer should be offended. If
they want to change everything (or a lot of it), then that's a different scenario
all-together.
>Nobody likes to be handed a vote of no
> confidence, which is what the situation you're describing is, basically.
> And if "They" are going to do something to the book, the character, or the
> storyline that is SO against my intentions that they have to move me off
> the project in order to do it, is the book likely to be in the sort of
> condition afterwards that I'd want to come back to it?
Because what they want to do will have no bearing on what happens when you
return? I'm not talking about any serious directional change (no moving locales,
adding or killing characters)... just a simple story that crosses-over between
two titles.
Pariah
Pariah
Steven Grant wrote:
> Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
> >In article <34937...@satellite.premier1.net>,
>
> Yes, I'm a hired gun. That doesn't mean I think every target someone wants
> me to shoot deserves to be shot. I'm nobody's slave, y'know? I'm nobody's
> employee, actually. I'm a freelancer. That means I always have the right
> to say no.
>
> Look, if DC wanted to do a CHASE/COTU crossover badly enough and I didn't
> want to do it, they'd get someone else to do it. It's not that big an
> issue.
Would you be willing to go back to the series after the storyline is over or
would you not wish to go back? (I got the impression before that you didn't want
anyone touchign your characters, here you seem to be thinking along the same
lines as me, where as long as they don't make any dumb character moves or
betrayals, it really doesn't matter... unless of course you would refuse to go
back to the story)
> >Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
> >personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
> >mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
> >to some degree. Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
> >IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
> >entering." Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
> >instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car." Why should
> >comic book writers get to say "I know everyone wants to see Reed, Sue, Ben
> >and Johnny, but I'd rather write about Ben, a Skrull, Ant Man, and slutty
> >Sue."
>
> I think if, say, you're going to take over an established property, you and
> the editor should have some ground rules going in. I do that on most of my
> books. On creator-owned books, the ground rules are that what I say goes,
> period. On company owned books, I have considerably more tolerance and
> flexibility. If someone's taking over FF, they should either resign
> themselves to writing about THE FF, or have a very good reason why it should
> be a different FF. I don't have any problem with that. But this is between
> editor and writer, not writer and fan.
But the editor would be interacting with the fans.. sort of. The editor would be
the one responsible for pleasing the fans, I mean. He's the one who would have
to speak for the fans by saying that F4 should be about Reed, Sue and company.
(that's what I'm thinking anyway, correct me if I'm wrong)
Pariah
Pariah
Steven Grant wrote:
> Crisper Than Thou wrote in message
>
> > And if "They" are going to do something to the book, the character, or the
> > storyline that is SO against my intentions that they have to move me off
> > the project in order to do it, is the book likely to be in the sort of
> > condition afterwards that I'd want to come back to it?
>
> And how likely is it that the character will survive as something you feel
> attached to, under those conditions? Not very.
After two issues? (reminder: I'm not talking about any directional changes) If
they want to make serious changes, that's one thing. If they want to write an
issue or two using your character, without making any serious changes, how would
that 'taint' your character?
If a character is so easily tainted, then how is it that there are as many
crossovers as there are? (I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic, nor am I tryin
g to prove a point.. I am curious for your prefessional input) With the
up-coming crossover between GA/GL/Flash.. wouldn't Dixon feel as if Green Arrow
is being 'usurped' by letting other writers write his character? (this applies
to all JLA characters, come to think of it).
What I am thinking is, in the case of JLA, even though it's Morrison writing
Connor Hawke and not Chuck Dixon.. it's okay because no drastic changes to
Connor's character in JLA is being done.
Surely something to that effect could be done with a guest-writer on a series..
writing a story without making character betrayals or directional changes.
> Plus you're likely, in
> these continuity-obsessed times, to end up clotted with some useless bit of
> continuity that the other writer(s), having no first hand knowledge of your
> intent and direction, feel obliged to saddle their stories with.
I can get two meanings out of this set of statements
(1) You're afraid the writer will leave you with some unfinished business
regarding his storyline.
I don't think this is it, if it is, however: The editor could prevent this from
happening... and the writers involved could just write a story that begins and
ends within the confines of the four issues, without lingering plot theads.
(2) You're afraid the writer will tread on your subplots without fully being
aware of your intentions.
This could be avoided with some effort by the editor and restraint by the
writer.
Pariah
Pariah
I wish to better illustrate my position to differenciate myself from Jason
Fleigle (or he might see things the way I do and just disagree).
If I say I want to see a COTU/CHASE crossover, and Dan and Steven better do it
because I'm a fan and that's what I want, I'm being foolish and self-centered.
If me and ten fans all want to see the same crossover and demand it, we're
still being rather silly.
If the letter-columns are flooded for such a cross-over, most of the fans
anyone knows wants to see such a crossover, then it really should be
considered.
It's like the ROBIN series. For YEARS people were asking for it. To this day, I
only remember one letter saying that they shouldn't do it... and they finally
did it and (to my knowledge) sales have been doing well (and it's one heck of a
book).
When you get enough requests for something, I don't see the harm in an editor
(or a writer) working such a thing out... provided we're not talking ahout
anything that would alienate it's regular creative team or a significant number
of fans.
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Steven Grant (sdg...@premier1.net) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <673vfa$c...@panix3.panix.com>...
Most assuredly. But then what happens when a writer or editors listens
politely then decides not to do anything about it? People bitch. In
theory I agree with you, but in practice it seems, more and more, like
even listening in the first place leads to a no-win scenario.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
CpSpalding (cpspa...@aol.com) wrote:
: There is a middle ground here. Fans can have say on the
: larger issues, but ont he day to day work its really out of their control.
Have as much of a say as you want. But as far as having INFLUENCE-- uh,
no. That's not the fans' place.
David Stepp
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Randy Lander wrote:
> instruction materials. You want a little creativity and fire, you let
> the creator grow attached to the characters. If they grow attached,
> doesn't it make sense that they don't want their vision mucked with?
This works both ways, esp in serial fiction. Most of the
characters DC can effectively sell are already someone else's and have an
established fan base with a lot of attachment. Turning them over to
someone's creative vision that alienates that fan base and then blows off
their affections as fanaticism isn't doing a service to the characters,
the company or the fans, especially when sales are in a nosedive.
I think Jason is being distorted pretty badly here. His point is
valid. If there are 20,000 readers of Chase and 20,000 would be hot for a
Batman appearance, then you should do it. Entertainment is not art in that
entertainment is commercial and art is not. If it galls you so badly that
you would rather flip hamburgers, then grab your spatula and go. I am
paying for my entertainment not your artistic pleasure. On the other hand,
I think Jason and most other fans recognize that that which would govern
best, governs least. It is not up to fans to micromanage titles. Most fans
don't want to. Most of the arguments here, regardless of what artists may
take personally, center around 3 things: inconsistencies with previous
interpretations, general writing flaws, and bad artwork. I have never seen
a thread of any magnitude that said "Batman *must* have a cross-over with
the Flash and they should fight the Scarecrow and the Trickster" or some
such. The closest we get is stupid "Who'd win?" threads. Artists should
not feel threatened by the criticisms here since I find most are
reasonably sound, even when I don't agree with them. If you find your
sales are dropping out from under you and fans are in an uproar, maybe you
should consider the idea that you're failing to communicate whatever you
think your story is. It's your job and our hobby and neither of us is
looking to lose.
Also, Dan's criticism of Jason's numerology is pretty egregious
bullshit. I have worked hard the last few months to push against that and
I am disappointed Dan wasn't listening. It's true it's hard to know what
is and is not a majority presence but it's not impossible. There are very
defined ways to do it and while it's hard to pick up subtleties in
variable populations, it is possible to see large shifts. We don't know in
what light the GLC survey reflects the population of GL fans. That test
has not been performed and until it is, no one can claim an fair
advantage. Jason stated that his numbers with hypothetical were in a
majority within that hypothesis. Attacking those numbers outside that
context is a cheap shot at best and a demonstration of ignorance at worst.
In an effort to sum up, most fan "demands" (which are not
ultimatums, to the poster who abused the word for incendiary purposes,
ultimatums are a sub-type of demand, namely the final ones) arise from the
internal logic of the series. If Chase spends the entire series in Gotham,
doing high visibility things, it begs the question in a serial universe of
what would Batman think and/or do? If there is a large outcry for that,
the artist should think about Chase, read some current Batman and answer
the fans' question. This is not succumbing to market forces. It's
satisfying the natural curiosity of your readers. If you don't respond to
that, it is pretty reasonable for fans to find something else to satisfy
their curiosity. In my view, that's a pretty sad way to lose a title.
D.
Steven Grant
Jason Fliegel wrote in message ...
>Second, my participation in this thread was premised entirely on a post
>from Mr. Grant and a post from Mr. Johnson, in which they seemed to be
>saying, as politely as possible, so as not to offend anyone, "Screw you,
>fans! I'll write the book that I want to write, and if you don't like it,
>get your own book! I'm having fun doing what *I* want to do, so I'm going
>to keep on doing it, your wishes be damned!" Now, after reading Mr.
>Johnson's and Mr. Grant's further posts to this thread, I think that they
>intended their comics to be more of a lighthearted joke than a serios
>statement that they would rather do what was fun than work.
No, I don't think either of us was being humorous, but an interpretation of
"screw you, fans" is way off the mark as well. All we were saying was that
we weren't convinced that a CHASE/COTU crossover was a particularly good
idea. Not everything is personal.
Steven Grant
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message
>Most assuredly. But then what happens when a writer or editors listens
>politely then decides not to do anything about it? People bitch. In
>theory I agree with you, but in practice it seems, more and more, like
>even listening in the first place leads to a no-win scenario.
Well, sure, but as soon as you start worrying about whether people will
bitch about what you're doing or not doing, you're dead in the water. Half
the time people will bitch when you do what they wanted you to, because you
put your own spin on it and not theirs. It's nothing to be too concerned
about.
CpSpalding
Steven Grant writes:
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <673vfa$c...@panix3.panix.com>...
>>Bravo, Steven. You know, this has been one of the hardest realizations
>>for me in the transition from fan to pro-- that pros are in NO WAY
>>obligated to listen to fan feedback.
>
>Obligated, no. But I do think it's the polite thing to do.
>
>
>
You know this strikes me as kind of a silly arguement. Writers are as
obligated to listen to individual fans because we buy their books as the cop
who pulls you over because you pay his salary. However, comic company execs
need to do just such a thing if they want to be successful. Its silly to
argue, for example, that Green Arrow needed to be changed because of falling
sales, but now changing it because of fan support would violate Dixon's
artistic integrity. There is a middle ground here. Fans can have say on the
larger issues, but ont he day to day work its really out of their control.
"I'd like to slap into a coma the feebs at DC who thought it was cool to turn
Green Lantern into a wimp, a drunk, a psycho and, last time I checked an
airhead," Harlan Ellison
Randy Lander
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) wrote:
>Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
>paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
>write what DC wants you to write. And DC wants you to write what the fans
>will buy, because DC wants the fans' money. And if the fans would buy a
>CHASE/CHALLS crossover (signifcantly more than they would buy whatever it
>is you'd write if you had unfettered creative freedom), then you ought to
>write it, and you ought to be a skilled enough writer that you can do a
>good job on it.
Fans will buy stupid things. Fans will also buy good things. It's
incredibly difficult to determine which. Driving your writers by focus
groups is intensely stupid.
Writing isn't like bagging at a grocery store or typing up insurance
claim forms. (Okay, the typing part is similar <g>) If you come across
with an attitude of "You want your paycheck, you do what we want"
you're going to get the same quality of writing you get in VCR
instruction materials. You want a little creativity and fire, you let
the creator grow attached to the characters. If they grow attached,
doesn't it make sense that they don't want their vision mucked with?
The above are the opinions of Randy Lander. Had they been
the biblical truth, your bushes would be on fire.
---------------------------------------------------------
rwla...@io.com <*> http://www.io.com/~rwlander
Randy Lander
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) wrote:
>Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose HITMAN has 50,000 readers. And
>suppose 40,000 of them want to see Hitman meet a talking gorilla. Why is
>Garth Ennis' creative vision more important than the wishes of 40,000
>fans?
Um...on the assumption that you're actually serious with this
question...because 40,000 readers didn't create the character. Because
about 25,000 most likely couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
Because (hypothetically) Hitman is in the middle of a four-issue arc,
with a subplot that's been developing for the past six issues, and a
gorilla would be the equivalent of taking a big monkeywrench (no pun
intended) and throwing it into the works. Because this smacks of
writing by committee, and the Declaration of Independence aside, that
usually churns out crap.
>And if Kurt Busiek is willing to give the fans a talking Gorilla in
>THUNDERBOLTS, what's Ennis going to do when those 40,000 fans desert him
>for Busiek?
He's going to be sad that the character he wanted to write isn't
popular with the fans and accept that his vision might get him
cancelled or fired. And if he can't live with that, *then* he'll
change the book.
>>>Why should 20,000 fans (who, by hypothesis, want to see a
>>>CHASE/CHALLS crossover) have to wait to satisfy the
>>>artisitic impulses of two people?
>>
>>Because without creators, you'd be looking at blank pieces of paper.
>Without any creators at all, true. But without these two particular
>creators? I'm sure somebody else would be willing to do the job.
This is a lovely sentiment. So if we all wanted to have a talking
gorilla in issue #65 of Spectre, and Ostrander and Mandrake didn't
want to do it, their record of doing things right should be tossed and
they should bring in Marz and Pop Mhan to do it?
Despite the fact that the *creators* of these character, who know them
a damn sight better than fans, have said the crossover wouldn't work
without seeming contrived, we should get a couple hacks with no
artistic integrity or respect for their fellow artists to create it?
>So here's my hypothetical back at you: Would you rather have two intensely
>personal, high quality 12-issue runs or two less personal, but comparably
>high quality 120-issue runs?
I don't believe someone who was "just doing a job" rather than
fulfilling a "creative vision" would make 24 high quality issues, much
less 120.
Jason Fliegel
In article <673v72$c...@panix3.panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
Y'know, when Mike Chary tells you to mellow out and Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
gets short with you, you know either you're touching a nerve or you've
completely lost your marbles. Or possibly both. This will likely be my
last word on the subject, since I'm mostly repeating myself. After this,
Pat can have his title as "Most reviled poster on rac.*" back.
>
>: Again, with all due respect ... you're a paid writer. That means you get
>: paid to write. In this case, you're paid by DC, and you should therefore
>: write what DC wants you to write.
>
>Okay, so far you've got it right.
>
>: And DC wants you to write what the fans
>: will buy, because DC wants the fans' money.
>
>Here you start to go on shaky ground though. DC wants creators to put out
>what they *believe* fans will buy. Is it hard to understand, Jason, that
>what YOU believe fans will buy may be different from what DC believes?
>
Understand, though, I'm not talking about what *I* want. I've admitted to
not reading CHALLS, and CHASE has had exactly one appearance, which was
not written by Mr. Johnson.
And the editor, if he's doing his or her job correctly, ought to be the
intermediary between the fans and the creators. One of his or her jobs is
to figure out what the fans want, and get the creators to give it to them.
>: And if the fans would buy a CHASE/CHALLS crossover...
>
>If, if, if. Please, prove there are 20,000-- or, hell, since Steven used
>the number, 50,000 fans willing to buy this. Until you can, you're just
>another fan pissing in the wind.
>
OK. First of all, I tried to make it clear from the start that I was
talking in hypotheticals.
Second, my participation in this thread was premised entirely on a post
from Mr. Grant and a post from Mr. Johnson, in which they seemed to be
saying, as politely as possible, so as not to offend anyone, "Screw you,
fans! I'll write the book that I want to write, and if you don't like it,
get your own book! I'm having fun doing what *I* want to do, so I'm going
to keep on doing it, your wishes be damned!" Now, after reading Mr.
Johnson's and Mr. Grant's further posts to this thread, I think that they
intended their comics to be more of a lighthearted joke than a serios
statement that they would rather do what was fun than work. So, to some
extent, I was working from a false premise. That said, we can all think
of books where the writer went off in one direction despite overwhelming
protests from the fans. And I question both the wisdom and the
professionalism. I question the wisdom of it because this industry is
hemmorhaging readers like nobody's business -- creators should be bending
over backwards to hold onto readers, and the way to do that is to give
them what they want. I question the professionalism of it because writers
are paid to write books that will sell as well as possible, not to write
books that will make they, the writers, happy.
>: Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
>: personal. But by necessity, when you're doing creative writing for a
>: mainstream commercial publication, you have to rein in the personal parts
>: to some degree.
>
>Yes, they have to structure scripts to 22 pages, put up with crossovers,
>work within editorial constraints, all that stuff. They *don't* have to
>listen to every fan with an idea for what he or she thinks would make a
>good story. They don't work for you, Jason, much as you may wish they
>did.
>
Suppose, though (and this is hypothetical, as I have conceded from the get
go), it could be shown that 60,000 people wanted Hal Jordan to return and
5 people wanted Hal Jordan not to return. Why is it dispositive that 2 of
those 5 people are Ron Marz and Kevin Dooley?
Now, I freely admit that this hypothetical is very contrived. But the
situation that led to this thread (at least as I was originally reading
it) was a chorus of fans asking for CHASE/CHALLS, and the creators
basically saying "Nah. We don't feel like it. We'd rather have fun that
give you the book you'd like to read."
Oh, and for the record, I do agree with Mr. Grant that most times, fans
don't know what they want until after they get it. And I do agree with
you that most times, there is no consensus on what the fans want. I just
think that when we get that rare instance when the vast majority of the
fans want something, the creators ought to do everything in their power to
give it to them.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Jason Fliegel
In article <6749cg$o08$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>,
Crisper Than Thou <cri...@shell15.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
My really, honest-to-God, last word on the subject:
> your examples--
>
>>Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
>>IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
>>entering."
>
>>Technical writers don't get to say "Gee, I know this is a VCR
>>instruction book, but I'd rather explain how to build a car."
>
>--are NOT creative arts. There is very little room for creativity OR art
> in them. Technical writing is not about expressing an idea you have that
> nobody else has dreamed of; it's not about making an audience of people
> happy, or sad, or thrilled, or introspective. If your technical writing
> makes people laugh, then cry, you are not a good technical writer.
>
I disagree that there's no room for creativity in legal writing or
technical writing or journalism or any other kind of writing that seems,
at first glance, to be no more than just "write down the facts." True,
it's not the same TYPE of creativity that ones employs when one writes
fiction, but it's creativity all the same.
>If nobody else but the comic book writer wants to read about Ben, a Skrull,
> Ant Man, and a slutty Sue, then he will live and die in obscurity, probably
> of starvation. That is his choice. And, hey, the comics field is FULL of
> people who are barely getting by, doing the story they really want to do,
> who would probably strangle to death anyone who tried to suggest that they'd
> be better off rolling over to do something for the masses.
>
The thing is, though, that it's one thing for an artist to decide he's
willing to die in obscurity and starvation. It's another thing for him to
try to take somebody else's property (such as THE FANTASTIC FOUR, which is
owned, after all, by Marvel, and not the writer) with him. I think
somewhere in this thread I made the analogy that Michelangelo could not
have painted an orgy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, no matter how
much he wanted to, if it wasn't cool with his patron. I guess I see
fandom as the patron. And it's the creator's job to give fandom what it
wants. Most of the time, fandom sends out so many conflicting messages
that all you can really get is that fandom wants good stories -- and, in
those cases, the best course of action is probably to folllow your Muse
(within reason). But, on those rare instances where fandom manages to
make clear what it wants, I think the creator has an obligation to give
them what they ask for, even if his Muse is pulling him in a different
direction.
Oh, and in case I haven't made it clear -- I think this discussion (or
argument, or whatever you want to call it) is based, at least in part, on
a misunderstanding of what both you and Mr. Grant were saying. To the
extent that I misread or misinterpreted you, please accept my apologies.
Tom Galloway
In article <6746bc$ier$1...@shell15.ba.best.com> cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) writes:
>If DC tells me, "Why don't you do a few issues of CHASE set in a nunnery?"
> and I say, "Uh. Cam would kill herself before she'd become a nun." and DC
Kewl. A few issues featuring a zombie nun, who died by the mortal sin
of suicide and has to both fight her way out of hell and redeem herself
by somehow repenting said mortal sin having started to do so by taking vows.
So does Dan now win the original comics hero contest?
tyg t...@netcom.com
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>> Pariah wrote:
>> >... and as a good rule of thumb, it's
>> >not a good idea to get a writer to do something he doesn't want to do.
>> >If it comes down to it, get a guest writer for an issue or two.
>Pierce Askegren wrote:
>> And that's supposed to make the regular writers (and, in this case, the
>> creators) feel more confident and secure in their roles when they
>> return?
My pal Pariah said:
>Well, if the writer doesn't WANT to do something, and knows he wouldn't do
>it well, he shouldn't have a problem with letting someone else, who would
>be more enthusiastic, do it for him.
Even if that someone else stands a chance of getting the characters wrong
or otherwise messing things up? Creators tend to be somewhat protective
of their creations, for reasons that I think would be obvious (and valid).
>> BTW, the term "guest writer," though accurate in some circumstances, is
>> not quite synonymous with "scab," which is how you're using it.
>I haven't really thought about the context of which I am using. The word
>'scab' implies that the replacement writer is of inferior quality.
Not really... at least it shouldn't. A "scab" is someone hired to take
the place of a worker who is on strike as a contract-negotiating tactic.
It's not a question of whether replacement workers are inferior or not,
but the role they play in employer/employee relations (i.e. generally
disruptive).
Cheers, Todd
"It may be true that never has a more important show been held in a less
important place." - NY Times cultural correspondent Bruce Weber, about the
current display in Grand Rapids of paintings by Renaissance master Perugino
Mike Chary
Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>Y'know, when Mike Chary tells you to mellow out and Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
>gets short with you, you know either you're touching a nerve or you've
>completely lost your marbles. Or possibly both. This will likely be my
See, now this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I didn't say
anything to Fliegel. I was actually responding, I think, to Stephen
Grant's post. But Fliegel assumed I was talking about him because he's
defensive. Why's he defensive, because people refuse to relax.
>last word on the subject, since I'm mostly repeating myself. After this,
>Pat can have his title as "Most reviled poster on rac.*" back.
And don't nobody here revile you.
And if 50,000 people wanted to read the story, and grant didn't want to
write it, I'm fairly sure they could find someone.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"You've got some nerve calling yourself blind." - Louis DePalma
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now, I
have the South fight the Klingons." -- David Spensely
CpSpalding
Elayne wrote:
>: There is a middle ground here. Fans can have say on the
>: larger issues, but ont he day to day work its really out of their control.
>
>Have as much of a say as you want. But as far as having INFLUENCE-- uh,
>no. That's not the fans' place.
Yes, there is a difference there, but I do think fans have an influence if in
no other way than dropping a title can get in cancelled.
Joe
Abhay Khosla
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Jason Fliegel wrote:
> In article <19971214053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> Brian McDn <bria...@aol.com> wrote:
> >jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
> >>I understand that when someobdoy writes a comic book, it's as much an
> >>artistic endeavour as it is a commercial one.
> >Then I don't think you understand a damned thing. It's an artistic endeavor
> >for the creators. It's a commercial endeavor for the company. If the creators
Rather simplistic, isn't it? It can be a commercial endeavor for a
creator, too. Isn't that the popular justification for the Alan Moore
crap work? He's doing Violator vs. Badrock for the cash? Really, looking
around... how many artistic endeavors are out there? And which are we
as a whole really served better by?
> >start thinking commercially, instead of personally and creatively, then you get
> >crap. Look at how much Priest has complained about editorial interference at
Invisibles sells crap. JLA is the first DC book to sell in millenia. He
may be thinking creatively with JLA, but its not as personal and its not
in the same way as with the Invisibles. neither book is what I'd call
crap. And right now, we need *both* books.
> Second ... it's work for hire. These people are PAID to WRITE. You
> damned well better believe that's commercial. If you want to be
> successful, you HAVE TO write what people want to buy. If you want to
Keeping in mind things out of a writer's control like coke-head decisions
from marketting or the odd bad guess or whatever... oh thats rac.mu...
> lived in abject poverty. Michelangelo did work for hire when he did the
> Sistine Chapel, and he had to do what his boss told him to. If he would
> have rather painted a Roman Orgy than the Binding of Isaac, he would have
> been out of luck.
Anyone else ever heard the story where Michelangelo would rather have been
sculpting. You know because he wasn't a painter, and the Pope made him, so
michelangelo would write these begging letters signed, blah blah,
sculptor. I hope thats not a true story.
> >> On the other hand, when there are broad-based demands for certain
> >>characaters or situations, the creators ought to have a damned good
> >>reason for not giving the fans what they want. "There's no way I can
> >>work that into my story without major problems" is a legitimate reason;
> >>"I don't wanna" is not.
There are books with overriding vision or style, clearly, but there are
also a lot of books without that vision in which I think readers should be
more respected. And the best part, that sometimes people on USENET know
*more* about the characters(not just the history, the characters) than the
writers. There are some old characters out there,30-60 years old, and
very few of those books have anything resembling a vision working on
them...
There's a James Robinson interview on Mania(I go there for Newsarama,
really.. god what an ugly, decrepit stupidly designed site) and Robinson
says he only wanted to kill *one* character. And DC gave him THREE. That
whole "alienate your readers" thing is so 1993! Do you know what I mean?
We're all they have left- the truly desparate, perhaps, but their
audience, nonetheless. I think they can find it in their hearts to throw
us a bone now and then.
> >How about YOU name 20 self-indulgent storylines, and tell us why the fans would
> >have been better served if the creators had compromised their creativity.
Way I'd heard the reason noone did JLA with the Big Seven was that it was
too big a hassle to coordinate all the characters from their various
editorial departments. That could be wrong- just grapevine. If its
possibly true, though... I'd say not listening to people there turned out
to be a mistake. That seems to have worked.
While I liked a lot of v4, I guess that would be the "Classic" response.
Its a case of vision failing over the long term(because in the long term
you'd want to go back to the happy stuff...), though I would still argue
the relative quality of a good few of the issues(futilely.. but..)
I believe a lot of the arguments about Starman is that its last issue, oh
well the last i read anyway, was self-indulgent. Thats a very specific
thing where they couldn't have asked the fans(well they could have), but
at the same time... I remember folks being a bit antsy over a dead Rogues
Gallery. DC's had experience with this before, I believe.
While I sadly missed out on a lot of the fun, the Spider-Clone thing... I
hear it turned out pretty bad, huh? Apparently the big idea was to just
flat out replace Peter Parker with some Ben guy who was Peter Parker, only
they didn't clone the fashion sense. Apparently, fans didn't much care
for it, or maybe they did. I didn't see the numbers.
I'd say a lot of the response to Marvels latest rounds of #1's lately have
been this bizarre sense of fans getting to have some sort of reclamation
of classic characters from... well... self-indulgent stuff, mostly. There
was a wee bit of hubris in that whole project, I don't know what it was...
> I'd rather not name names. But I'm sure we can all think of self
> indulgent storylines that seem to have next to no fan support, yet go on
> for months or even years.
I hear Superman's not only a blue asshole, but he's a red asshole, too,
now.. I'm three shades from a goddamn standing ovation, I must say.
Onwards, Maestro!
> >Then consider Morrison's ANIMAL MAN and DOOM PATROL, Priest's QUANTUM & WOODY,
> >Delano/Ennis/Jenkins' HELLBLAZER, Busiek's THUNDERBOLTS and ASTRO CITY, Sim's
> >CEREBUS, Ennis' PREACHER and HITMAN, Ellis' TRANSMETROPOLITAN and
> >STORMWATCH...oh, that's enough for now. Each one of these titles by these
> >creators has a group of fans who were/are there expressly because their
> >creative vision shines through unhindered. Now, come up with 20 self-indulgent
> >storylines for each of these titles.
Have you seen the numbers? Group is right, if you define group as people
who can fit in a bathtub together(ooooh). A couple of those books could
be seeing much nicer numbers. Hey, I'm a fan who follows the
vision-thing, but that is not a group in the majority, sadly. There's
another group, at the other extreme, not the majority either, who'd just
be happy if the superhero universes looked right, again. Apparently, Teen
Titans is BEATING HITMAN. I don't like either, but come on... you can't
just pick out 10 good runs and say, See? There've been plenty of creator
driven things that have bit. Seen a new issues of Seekers lately?
The majority of product isn't vision-driven at the Big Two-
its character driven. Have you seen Marvel's upcoming batch of books?
I've heard of all the characters already. They're experimenting with
approximately *nil.* For chrissakes, they put out a MOON KNIGHT comic
again! MOON KNIGHT! Followed by Werewolf by Night!(Which at least had
good creators). I mean... god! Thats the stuff that sells. And if its
character driven, we're entitled to an opinion too, which occaisonyally,
not always, maybe not even frequently, but sometimes, can be espescially
valid set of opinions(flashback: "DEAR GOD, someone, anyone, CUT
Superman's hair!!!" Why did *anybody* have to ever type that, let alone
me, sick, staying up all night for what now seems to be no perfectly good
reason but originally to study for Genetics exam at 10 am, have to take
time to type about someone else messing up a fictional character's
HAIRCUT?!?!?!?!?! They damn well drove me to it, thats my story and I
stick by it...)
> suppose 40,000 of them want to see Hitman meet a talking gorilla. Why is
> Garth Ennis' creative vision more important than the wishes of 40,000
> fans? And if Kurt Busiek is willing to give the fans a talking Gorilla in
Because its his vision that got those fans on the books he works on. ON
the other hand, people who read Superman may not necessarily be there
because they're ga-ga over Dave MIscheline... I liked some of his
Spiderman's, but its a hypothetical. Run with it, my minions...
> THUNDERBOLTS, what's Ennis going to do when those 40,000 fans desert him
> for Busiek?
Write a comic with the word "penis" in it? Just a guess.
> >And if the fans want something the creator isn't willing to give? How many
> >instances like Veitch leaving SWAMP THING or Ellis' aborted SATANA are you
> >willing to suffer before you realize the creators are what drive this business?
Both of those are bonehead editorial/corporate decisions. I wanted
Ellis's Satana. I'm least sold on this Panic Nation thing at the moment,
going to settle for that. I personally still think there's a GOLDMINE to
be had in Sex Puppet comics. Thats just my cross to bear, honestly.
Creators are nice. I dig them. But drive... I don't know about *drive*
> And I think NOT giving the fans what they want often implies cancellation.
> So here's my hypothetical back at you: Would you rather have two intensely
> personal, high quality 12-issue runs or two less personal, but comparably
> high quality 120-issue runs?
I want maxiseries back in better shape, so the former...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Y'know, when Mike Chary tells you to mellow out and Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: gets short with you, you know either you're touching a nerve or you've
Was I getting short with you? I'm sorry, but I guess you've pressed a
button on a subject I've been discussing with people for some time now.
: >Here you start to go on shaky ground though. DC wants creators to put out
: >what they *believe* fans will buy. Is it hard to understand, Jason, that
: >what YOU believe fans will buy may be different from what DC believes?
: Understand, though, I'm not talking about what *I* want. I've admitted to
: not reading CHALLS, and CHASE has had exactly one appearance, which was
: not written by Mr. Johnson.
Then what ARE you talking about, Jason? You started out by addressing
Steven and Dan, basically telling them you disagreed with their creative
decision not to do a crossover that was suggested to them by a fan. Then
you went on a whole diatribe about how creators should listen to fans.
Now you're saying you're not even interested in this crossover. Color me
confused. What's your point here? Is it totally theoretical?
: And the editor, if he's doing his or her job correctly, ought to be the
: intermediary between the fans and the creators. One of his or her jobs is
: to figure out what the fans want, and get the creators to give it to them.
Jason, you're still laboring under the impression that the fans still
enter into the creative process. They don't. The editor's job is to put
together the best book he/she can, to make sure his/her creative staff is
doing their best, to traffic, to schedule, etc. It's NOT to interface
with the fans. NOBODY on the creative level HAS to be in contact with the
fans. The fans are the end-product of the creative process, NOT the
impetus.
: OK. First of all, I tried to make it clear from the start that I was
: talking in hypotheticals.
By tailoring the post specifically to Steven and Dan, you seemed to
indicate just the opposite.
: Second, my participation in this thread was premised entirely on a post
: from Mr. Grant and a post from Mr. Johnson, in which they seemed to be
: saying, as politely as possible, so as not to offend anyone, "Screw you,
: fans! I'll write the book that I want to write, and if you don't like it,
: get your own book! I'm having fun doing what *I* want to do, so I'm going
: to keep on doing it, your wishes be damned!"
NOW you're starting to get it. This is EXACTLY the correct attitude to
take. Politely, of course. :) But they're RIGHT, Jason. They SHOULD
write whatever they want to, and whatever their editors direct them to.
If you don't like it, well, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. Don't BUY it if you
don't like it. I'm sorry, but this is reality. The fans are NOT a part
of the creative process, as much as they may wish to be.
: Now, after reading Mr.
: Johnson's and Mr. Grant's further posts to this thread, I think that they
: intended their comics to be more of a lighthearted joke than a serios
: statement that they would rather do what was fun than work. So, to some
: extent, I was working from a false premise.
The false premise from which you're working is the idea that fans should
be part of the creative process, NOT Steven's and Dan's intent regarding
their specific books.
: That said, we can all think
: of books where the writer went off in one direction despite overwhelming
: protests from the fans.
So?
: And I question both the wisdom and the professionalism.
Question all you like. You as a fan are NOT part of the process. I'm
sorry, I feel a little like a parent trying to explain that Santa Claus
isn't real. Jason, Stan Lee, um, exaggerated. The fans are NOT the
editors. Things AREN'T done because you demanded it. That's not how it
works, and it never HAS been how it works.
: I question the wisdom of it because this industry is
: hemmorhaging readers like nobody's business -- creators should be bending
: over backwards to hold onto readers, and the way to do that is to give
: them what they want.
Jason, THE READERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. Every fan wants something
different. I want strong female characters, for instance, but the
definition of a strong female character differs for me and for, let's say,
Chuck Dixon. Or Mark Waid. Or Johanna Draper.
: I question the professionalism of it because writers
: are paid to write books that will sell as well as possible, not to write
: books that will make they, the writers, happy.
No, they're paid to do the best books they can. If those books sell well,
the writers will develop a fan base. Again, the fans as END-product, NOT
impetus.
: Suppose, though (and this is hypothetical, as I have conceded from the get
: go), it could be shown that 60,000 people wanted Hal Jordan to return and
: 5 people wanted Hal Jordan not to return. Why is it dispositive that 2 of
: those 5 people are Ron Marz and Kevin Dooley?
: Now, I freely admit that this hypothetical is very contrived.
Very. Contrived *and* unprovable, so I won't even bother answering it.
: But the
: situation that led to this thread (at least as I was originally reading
: it) was a chorus of fans asking for CHASE/CHALLS, and the creators
: basically saying "Nah. We don't feel like it. We'd rather have fun that
: give you the book you'd like to read."
You are grossly misinterpreting the creators' response. In fact, I think
you're exaggerating the "chorus of fans" as well. I saw one or two people
who thought it might be neat. Hey, me and Leah and a few other people
think it'd be neat to have Barbara Kesel take over TEEN TITANS after
Jurgens leaves. But we have NO SAY in the matter. And that's all the
creators are reminding you. As a fan, you DON'T GET TO DECIDE. I'm sorry
if that makes you feel depowered.
: I just
: think that when we get that rare instance when the vast majority of the
: fans want something, the creators ought to do everything in their power to
: give it to them.
Since "vast majority" is still, as you admit, theoretical and pretty much
unprovable, how do you cater to it?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: The thing is, though, that it's one thing for an artist to decide he's
: willing to die in obscurity and starvation. It's another thing for him to
: try to take somebody else's property (such as THE FANTASTIC FOUR, which is
: owned, after all, by Marvel, and not the writer) with him.
You raise a good point here. Shared-universe characters are, by and
large, owned by the companies that hire the creators to write and draw
those characters. They are NOT owned by the fans. You realize you're
shooting your premise to hell, don't you? :)
: I think
: somewhere in this thread I made the analogy that Michelangelo could not
: have painted an orgy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, no matter how
: much he wanted to, if it wasn't cool with his patron. I guess I see
: fandom as the patron.
Well, this is an incorrect view, then. Fandom isn't the patron. DC (or
whatever comic book company) is the patron. Fandom is the public that
views the finished work.
: And it's the creator's job to give fandom what it wants.
No, it's not. I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: And if 50,000 people wanted to read the story, and grant didn't want to
: write it, I'm fairly sure they could find someone.
It is my partner's considered opinion that, if every one of those 50,000
people were to send Grant (or just about any other writer) a dollar, he'd
not only write the story, he'd probably staple and mail it himself. :)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
CpSpalding (cpspa...@aol.com) wrote:
: Elayne wrote:
: >: There is a middle ground here. Fans can have say on the
: >: larger issues, but ont he day to day work its really out of their control.
: >
: >Have as much of a say as you want. But as far as having INFLUENCE-- uh,
: >no. That's not the fans' place.
: Yes, there is a difference there, but I do think fans have an influence if in
: no other way than dropping a title can get in cancelled.
That's end-product influence, not creative influence.
JohannaLD
From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
>what happens when a writer or editors listens
>politely then decides not to do anything about it? People bitch.
Not only that -- they then use this excuse of "they're ignoring me" to
justify increasingly rude behavior. "I have to MAKE them listen." Uh,
sure. Listening doesn't equal obeying!
>in practice it seems, more and more, like
>even listening in the first place leads to a no-win scenario.
You know, I never thought I'd see the day when Elayne said pros
shouldn't participate on the net. I guess dealing with reviews of
her charity story was a learning experience.
Johanna
JohannaLD
From: David Stepp <dst...@post.its.mcw.edu>
>Most of the characters DC can effectively sell are already someone
>else's and have an established fan base with a lot of attachment.
You're assuming that fans of a particular character are a monolithic
block. What if, for example, we discuss Shrinking Violet? Some people
are fans of the v4 bitter lesbian; others are fans of the sweet, shy
young girl. They're all part of the fan base, but they're "attached" to
different aspects. (Any character with an established fan base has
a similar history, with more than one version.)
>If there are 20,000 readers of Chase and 20,000 would be hot for a
>Batman appearance,
This will never happen. Leaving aside that there's no way to reliably
measure what fans want to see, there is no case in which all of them
will ever agree on anything.
>then you should do it.
Even if you magically could determine EVERY SINGLE FAN wanted
something, you still shouldn't do it. Because they won't like the
WAY you did it. Or the outcome you gave it. Or they'll think it's
boring and predictable. Remember the warning "be careful what
you wish for?" People don't often like getting what they want.
>I am paying for my entertainment not your artistic pleasure.
Does the quality of the art put into the book not affect your
entertainment value? That is, you don't think forcing a creator
to do something that she thinks is bad for the book will impact
your enjoyment at all?
>I have never seen
>a thread of any magnitude that said "Batman *must* have a cross-over with
>the Flash and they should fight the Scarecrow and the Trickster"
The whole GL "attack team" garbage is an attempt to do just what
you describe. "Hal MUST come back and his crime MUST be retconned."
>If you find your
>sales are dropping out from under you and fans are in an uproar,
I think most sales drop because of boredom. Even if a title keeps its
level of quality writing and art, fans start wandering. Thus, we
have events to keep their attention.
Johanna
JohannaLD
Pariah said:
>If it's the matter of a couple issues and a non-essential
>storyline to the series,
Is there such a thing as a non-essential storyline? Isn't that kind of
"this doesn't really matter" attitude just what fans here complain
about?
Come on, you know that if, for example, Superman showed up in Chase
for a two-issue story, people would keep asking next time she got in
trouble "why doesn't she call Superman again?" So the writer has to
come up with a reason she doesn't, and the crossover has forced the
writer to change plans.
Johanna
Matthew P Wiener
In article <6746bc$ier$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>, crisper@shell15 (Crisper Than Thou) writes:
>Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>>It probably depends on the artist/writer.. and as a good rule of
>>thumb, it's not a good idea to get a writer to do something he
>>doesn't want to do. If it comes down to it, get a guest writer for
>>an issue or two.
>Ouch. This smacks of a common concern among much of the Silicon Valley
> workforce (and probably in most other big urban centers), which can be
> basically summed up as: "Employees getting you down? Fire 'em and hire
> temps for half the money! [...]"
No, it does not smack of this concern whatsoever. Not even close.
Now if you had a company that was modifying their product line for a few
months--say to meet some special military order--and then some employees
objected and were told continue working or take a long vacation, we'll
have the door open for you when we switch back, then you'd have something
comparable.
What you are describing is more like the earlier years of the comic book
industry. Denny O'Neil, for example, was first hired as a replacement
for writers fired for *asking* DC about health insurance, a fact he did
not learn about for twenty years. *That* stinks. Artistic integrity
versus DC's ownership is a yawner. Getting all hyped up over it as you
have because you're swell on your integrity is a terrible insult to the
many people who have genuinely been rolled over by greedy corporations.
>If DC tells me, "Why don't you do a few issues of CHASE set in a
>nunnery?" and I say, "Uh. Cam would kill herself before she'd become
>a nun." and DC says, "Why don't you take a vacation from the book for
>a few months while we have someone else write about Cam being a nun?"
>then, well, I won't be coming back after that vacation. [...]
So what? Your choice. They *own* these characters, remember.
>Nobody likes to be handed a vote of no confidence, which is what the
>situation you're describing is, basically.
What "no confidence"? DC in the described situation apparently has the
confidence the writer could in fact do it.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
JohannaLD
Jason Fliegel said:
>we can all think of books where the writer went off in one direction
>despite overwhelming protests from the fans.
Most of the standout books of the past ten years have been, if not
protested, at least not expected -- Swamp Thing, Sandman, etc. And
those books attracted new readers because they were DIFFERENT and
had a strong personal vision.
>creators should be bending
>over backwards to hold onto readers, and the way to do that is to give
>them what they want.
See above. Do readers really want Yet Another Superhero Team Title,
or might they like something that has a unique spin, like Major Bummer
or Young Heroes in Love? No one was asking for those; in fact, some
older fans despise those books. Yet they've got buzz and are a breath
of fresh air.
Johanna
Bill Roper
Would it be fair to say that the upshot of all this is:
1) If and when Steven and Dan have an idea that they really like
for a Challs/Chase crossover, *then* they'll think about
writing it.
2) They don't have such an idea right now.
3) Trying to force a story when you don't have a good idea leads
to uninspired work.
4) All things considered, there's plenty of uninspired work that
we can buy, so why should we push to get more? :)
Or have I missed the drift?
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.net
Bill Roper
In article <675smh$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Question all you like. You as a fan are NOT part of the process. I'm
>sorry, I feel a little like a parent trying to explain that Santa Claus
>isn't real. Jason, Stan Lee, um, exaggerated. The fans are NOT the
>editors. Things AREN'T done because you demanded it. That's not how it
>works, and it never HAS been how it works.
Didn't Weisinger float trial balloons in his books on a frequent basis?
(Ok, more like he threw a lot of ideas at the wall to see which ones
would stick, but still...) Wasn't there a reference in one of the LSH
Archives to the fact that it was fan response (measured in letters)
that led to later appearances of the group? Wasn't Supergirl a
similar case?
I'm *not* saying that the fans are the editors. OTOH, it may well
be useful for the editors and writers to listen to what the fans
are saying. As you've observed, they may decide that their course
is correct, regardless of what they hear. Their privilege.
Our privilege is to stop buying the book. Our obligation is to
let them know why.
*My* particular hot button is the darkening, disgracing, and death
of Golden and Silver Age characters. It's why I've dropped Green
Lantern and Green Arrow. It's why I'm just about ready to drop
Starman. (On the Marvel side, it's why I dropped Iron Man like
a hot rock. Of course, so did the writer. And good for him!)
Now, if one person walks into DC, sings a bar of Alice's Restaurant
and walks out...
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.net
Bill Roper
In article <19971216144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The whole GL "attack team" garbage is an attempt to do just what
>you describe. "Hal MUST come back and his crime MUST be retconned."
Not exactly. The problem is that Emerald Twilight makes absolutely
*no* sense. First, you destroy the GLC. Then you spend a year
rebuilding it. Then you destroy it again. This is creative
bankruptcy in and of itself.
Then, you have a character's old home town destroyed. Of course,
none of the people he most cared about were still there, since
they'd all been maneuvered out of town by the previous writer.
And he'd been shown in other titles as having not only coped
with the loss, but having taken out the bastard who did it.
And when the Guardians grouse at him, instead of tossing the
ring at them saying "I quit" (which *would* have been in
character), he goes nuts and kills one of his best friends in
the GLC. Despite having no earlier signs of mental instability?
You know, most of those people who you see in the paper talking
about murderer X saying, "He was such a nice boy. Who would
have known?", were not privileged to see the fellow's thought
balloons for thirty years.
So, when you speak of garbage involving Hal, you're correct.
I'd just like DC to take out the trash, because it really
smells.
(And all of this is without regard as to whether anyone involved
in these decisions is a nice guy. Nice guys can do dumb things.
It happens all the time.)
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.net
Dwight Williams
You got the point. Or rather four points, in one post.
And I say again, no hurry on that crossover. I'm willing to wait. Figure a
*minimum* of about two years or so, before they feel ready enough to consider
trying to write it. Might need to take longer, which is also OK.
Later!
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Jason Fliegel
In article <676548$9d3$1...@Venus.mcs.net>, Bill Roper <ro...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Would it be fair to say that the upshot of all this is:
>
>1) If and when Steven and Dan have an idea that they really like
> for a Challs/Chase crossover, *then* they'll think about
> writing it.
>
>2) They don't have such an idea right now.
>
>3) Trying to force a story when you don't have a good idea leads
> to uninspired work.
>
>4) All things considered, there's plenty of uninspired work that
> we can buy, so why should we push to get more? :)
>
>Or have I missed the drift?
I think where I disagree with you is point #3. Sometimes, being put into
a box and told to write your way out leads to a better story than simply
being given free rein. Not always, but sometimes. And, to a certain
extent, all writers who are working on work for hire are put into that
box. Want to write a story about a lonely millionaire with a talking dog
who is haunted by the ghost of Sir Laurence Olivier? Too bad; you've been
hired to write THE FLASH. And even if all you want to write about this
month is that millionaire, your editor is still going to want a FLASH
story on his desk come the deadline. But maybe, just maybe, you can find
a way to write a Flash story that includes your millionaire, his dog, and
the ghost, and it will be that much better. Or maybe you'll be forced to
think about the Flash in a whole new way, in order to find your
inspiration, and that will lead to a better story. Hell, one of Mark
Gruenwald's best stories ever was a crossover tie-in (Acts of Vengeance).
But what do I know? One of my all-time favorite stories is the DC
CHALLENGE, which was all about forcing creators to find inspiration in a
forced story.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Bill Roper (ro...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: Would it be fair to say that the upshot of all this is:
: 1) If and when Steven and Dan have an idea that they really like
: for a Challs/Chase crossover, *then* they'll think about
: writing it.
: 2) They don't have such an idea right now.
: 3) Trying to force a story when you don't have a good idea leads
: to uninspired work.
: 4) All things considered, there's plenty of uninspired work that
: we can buy, so why should we push to get more? :)
: Or have I missed the drift?
I think you've missed the drift, especially from my end. My particular
upshot is: Fans don't get to dictate stories. Never have, never will.
If the fans don't like it, oh well.
Jason Fliegel
In article <675smh$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
Yeah. I know I said I was done with this thread. I was wrong. Mea
culpa. Sorry, folks, you're stuck with some more of my comments. :)
>
>: Y'know, when Mike Chary tells you to mellow out and Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
>: gets short with you, you know either you're touching a nerve or you've
>
>Was I getting short with you? I'm sorry, but I guess you've pressed a
>button on a subject I've been discussing with people for some time now.
>
No problem. It's just that you're usually so patient and understanding,
even with people you strongly disagree with, that it was something of a
shock to see you come into a discussion with your guns blazing, so to
speak.
>: >Here you start to go on shaky ground though. DC wants creators to put out
>: >what they *believe* fans will buy. Is it hard to understand, Jason, that
>: >what YOU believe fans will buy may be different from what DC believes?
>
>: Understand, though, I'm not talking about what *I* want. I've admitted to
>: not reading CHALLS, and CHASE has had exactly one appearance, which was
>: not written by Mr. Johnson.
>
>Then what ARE you talking about, Jason? You started out by addressing
>Steven and Dan, basically telling them you disagreed with their creative
>decision not to do a crossover that was suggested to them by a fan. Then
>you went on a whole diatribe about how creators should listen to fans.
>Now you're saying you're not even interested in this crossover. Color me
>confused. What's your point here? Is it totally theoretical?
>
Mostly theoretical. It seemed to me that a number of fans were suggesting
something, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grant said "Don't bother suggesting;
we're doing what we want." It was this attitude that I objected to -- if
a large group of fans want something, the creators ought to give it to
them.
Understand, too, that I recognize that a large group of fans did not ask
for CHASE/CHALLS. There were perhaps a dozen fans asking for it. By a
large group, I mean thousands of fans. But what if letter after letter
poured into CHASE and CHALLS asking "So, when are they going to meet?"
What if at convention after convention, fans came up to Mr. Johnson and
Mr. Grant and said "You guys should do a CHASE/CHALLS crossover?" It is
this (hypothetical) situation I am addressing, because it seems that Mr.
Johnson's and Mr. Grant's reply to a dozen fans -- "Thanks, but no thanks;
it wouldn't be fun." -- is just as valid or invalid when directed at ten
thousand fans.
>: And the editor, if he's doing his or her job correctly, ought to be the
>: intermediary between the fans and the creators. One of his or her jobs is
>: to figure out what the fans want, and get the creators to give it to them.
>
>Jason, you're still laboring under the impression that the fans still
>enter into the creative process. They don't. The editor's job is to put
>together the best book he/she can, to make sure his/her creative staff is
>doing their best, to traffic, to schedule, etc. It's NOT to interface
>with the fans. NOBODY on the creative level HAS to be in contact with the
>fans. The fans are the end-product of the creative process, NOT the
>impetus.
Here's the way I'm seeing things: The creative team works for the
editors. The editors work for DC. DC works for Time-Warner. Time-Warner
works for its shareholders. The shareholders want to make money. Work
your way back down the chain to the editors, and the way the editors make
money is by selling comics to fans. Therefore, in most cases, the editor
should try to do whatever will sell the most books possible in the long
term.
Now, I say in most cases, because there are situations in which the editor
would be willing to sacrifice sales -- for prestige, for example, or to
placate a particular creator. But he should only do so because those
things will, over the long term, translate to more money for the
shareholders.
I specify long-term, because I want to make it clear that I don't support
short-sighted gimmicks that lead to temporary sales boosts, but ultimately
disgust readers causing them to abandon the comic. That's simply
unproductive, and nobody wants it.
Now, to return to my point, most of the time, the editor can't KNOW what
is going to sell books. He may think the fans want to see a different
line-up in the Fantastic Four or Superman with different powers or a
20-something Green Lantern. And most of the time, there's no way to find
out if he's right other than making the comics, putting them on the
stands, and seeing how they sell..
But sometimes, on very rare occasions, fandom is relatively united in
its desires, and an editor or creator can get a clear sense of what fandom
wants. And what I'm saying is that on those occasions, it's the creative
team's obligation to give fandom what it wants.
>: Second, my participation in this thread was premised entirely on a post
>: from Mr. Grant and a post from Mr. Johnson, in which they seemed to be
>: saying, as politely as possible, so as not to offend anyone, "Screw you,
>: fans! I'll write the book that I want to write, and if you don't like it,
>: get your own book! I'm having fun doing what *I* want to do, so I'm going
>: to keep on doing it, your wishes be damned!"
>
>NOW you're starting to get it. This is EXACTLY the correct attitude to
>take. Politely, of course. :) But they're RIGHT, Jason. They SHOULD
>write whatever they want to, and whatever their editors direct them to.
>If you don't like it, well, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. Don't BUY it if you
>don't like it. I'm sorry, but this is reality. The fans are NOT a part
>of the creative process, as much as they may wish to be.
But if the fans don't buy their book, then their book gets cancelled.
Now, if the preservation of their artistic visions are worth more to them
than a steady paycheck, that's all well and good, but we have to remember
that there's more at stake than just their artistic visions. DC's
property -- the value of characters and trademarks which it owns -- are
also at stake, and that gives Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grant a fiduciary
obligation to DC.
>
>: Now, after reading Mr.
>: Johnson's and Mr. Grant's further posts to this thread, I think that they
>: intended their comics to be more of a lighthearted joke than a serios
>: statement that they would rather do what was fun than work. So, to some
>: extent, I was working from a false premise.
>
>The false premise from which you're working is the idea that fans should
>be part of the creative process, NOT Steven's and Dan's intent regarding
>their specific books.
>
I cannot agree with this. In any commercial medium, the audience is
indirectly a part of the creative process. We're not talking about art
created solely to satisfy the creators' needs; we're talking about art
created in part to make a buck for the people who put up the money for the
art -- DC -- and the way to do that is by giving the audience the art it
wants to see.
>: That said, we can all think
>: of books where the writer went off in one direction despite overwhelming
>: protests from the fans.
>
>So?
>
>: And I question both the wisdom and the professionalism.
>
>Question all you like. You as a fan are NOT part of the process. I'm
>sorry, I feel a little like a parent trying to explain that Santa Claus
>isn't real. Jason, Stan Lee, um, exaggerated. The fans are NOT the
>editors. Things AREN'T done because you demanded it. That's not how it
>works, and it never HAS been how it works.
>
No, the fans are usually not directly involved in the creative process.
On the other hand, how many times has a title, faced with declining sales,
tried to reinvent itself into something that, in the editor's opinion, is
more like what the fans want. Sometimes, things ARE done because we
demanded it. The Big Guns JLA. DC versus Marvel. The leader of the
Legion of Superheroes. The return of Wildfire. The end of the
Spider-Clone story. The cancellation of DAZZLER.
>: I question the wisdom of it because this industry is
>: hemmorhaging readers like nobody's business -- creators should be bending
>: over backwards to hold onto readers, and the way to do that is to give
>: them what they want.
>
>Jason, THE READERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. Every fan wants something
>different. I want strong female characters, for instance, but the
>definition of a strong female character differs for me and for, let's say,
>Chuck Dixon. Or Mark Waid. Or Johanna Draper.
>
99 times out of 100, the readers don't know what they want. I agree with
that. But sometimes, the readers do know what they want, and it's those
times that I'm trying to address.
>: I question the professionalism of it because writers
>: are paid to write books that will sell as well as possible, not to write
>: books that will make they, the writers, happy.
>
>No, they're paid to do the best books they can. If those books sell well,
>the writers will develop a fan base. Again, the fans as END-product, NOT
>impetus.
>
The best books, from DC's point of view, are those that sell the best.
Now, I'm not arguing that, in most instances, DC has a way to know, ex
ante, what is going to sell. I'm arguing that when DC does know, ex ante,
what is going to sell, the creators ought to create that book.
>: Suppose, though (and this is hypothetical, as I have conceded from the get
>: go), it could be shown that 60,000 people wanted Hal Jordan to return and
>: 5 people wanted Hal Jordan not to return. Why is it dispositive that 2 of
>: those 5 people are Ron Marz and Kevin Dooley?
>
>: Now, I freely admit that this hypothetical is very contrived.
>
>Very. Contrived *and* unprovable, so I won't even bother answering it.
>
OK. Then change "60,000" to "10,000," "Hal Jordan [not] to return," to
"CHASE and CHALLS [not] to crossover," and "Ron Marz and Kevin Dooley," to
"D. Curtis Johnson and Steven Grant."
Now, the only contrived part is "10,000." And that's not so contrived, I
think -- of the dozen or so people who opined on whether they'd like to
see such a crossover before the creators said they didn't want to do it,
all 12 were enthusiastically in favor of it. Now, 12 people isn't a
stastically significant sample, particularly when it's a self-selected
sample. But it's not unreasonable to think that these 12 people are
typical of the CHASE and CHALLS readerships.
>: I just
>: think that when we get that rare instance when the vast majority of the
>: fans want something, the creators ought to do everything in their power to
>: give it to them.
>
>Since "vast majority" is still, as you admit, theoretical and pretty much
>unprovable, how do you cater to it?
>
Most of the time, you just turn out the best book that you, the creator,
can turn out. But, on the rare instance when you know what the readership
wants, you give it to them.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Bill Roper (ro...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <675smh$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >
: >Question all you like. You as a fan are NOT part of the process. I'm
: >sorry, I feel a little like a parent trying to explain that Santa Claus
: >isn't real. Jason, Stan Lee, um, exaggerated. The fans are NOT the
: >editors. Things AREN'T done because you demanded it. That's not how it
: >works, and it never HAS been how it works.
: Didn't Weisinger float trial balloons in his books on a frequent basis?
: (Ok, more like he threw a lot of ideas at the wall to see which ones
: would stick, but still...) Wasn't there a reference in one of the LSH
: Archives to the fact that it was fan response (measured in letters)
: that led to later appearances of the group? Wasn't Supergirl a
: similar case?
Didn't DC say the fans would decide whether Jason Todd lived or died, and
all along they knew they were going to off the character?
Oh, and there's no tooth fairy, either. :)
: I'm *not* saying that the fans are the editors. OTOH, it may well
: be useful for the editors and writers to listen to what the fans
: are saying. As you've observed, they may decide that their course
: is correct, regardless of what they hear. Their privilege.
: Our privilege is to stop buying the book. Our obligation is to
: let them know why.
Obligation? Certainly your prerogative, but I don't see a reader voicing
an opinion to be an obligation.
Michael Blakeman Cleveland
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
> I've just come to the conclusion that at least part of the reason
>the industry's gone down the tubes in the past 10-15 years is because it's
>stopped catering to the fans and started catering to the creators.
Wow. I think it's just the opposite. I think the industry went down
the tubes because they tried to milk the fans dry. They flooded the
market with stuff they were sure the fans would buy. They didn't foresee
that a lot of their sales were to speculators, and that once those
specualtors realized that they weren't going to make money, they left
the market.
In the meantime, so many fans found out that the stories (/comic book
cover hyperbole voice/) THEY DEMANDED weren't very good, and left the
market.
>Storylines, characters, or directions that should be put out of their
>misery seem to ramble on forever simply because the writer or editor or
>whoever likes them, while the fans all the while beg for an entirely
>diffent book.
You know, I don't actually consider the editor part of the creative team.
I guess on good titles, the editor is, but in situations where the editors
dictated things the writers didn't want to do (a rotating cast to Marv
Wolfman on New Titans, Dooley to Gerard Jones on GL, Pat Garrahy to
Tony Isabella on Black Lightning), disasters struck.
Michael C
Jason Fliegel
In article <19971216145...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>Jason Fliegel said:
>>creators should be bending
>>over backwards to hold onto readers, and the way to do that is to give
>>them what they want.
>
>See above. Do readers really want Yet Another Superhero Team Title,
>or might they like something that has a unique spin, like Major Bummer
>or Young Heroes in Love? No one was asking for those; in fact, some
>older fans despise those books. Yet they've got buzz and are a breath
>of fresh air.
On the other hand, DC's best selling title seems to be JLA, which is the
culmination of over a decade of fandom saying things like "Vixen? Gypsy?
Vibe!?! What the hell is this? I want Superman, Batman, and Wonder
Woman." Even at the height of the Giffen League's popularity, there was a
sentiment of "This is a great book, but why couldn't we have this title
AND one with all of DC's big guns?" among fandom (at least, the small
corner of fandom I interacted with back in those dark ages when only tyg
had Internet access.)
Also, I think there's a difference between "Most fans couldn't care one
way or another about this," and "Most fans actively want this." I think
the existence of YHIL or MAJOR BUMMER is in the first category.
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Previously, cri...@shell15.ba.best.com (Crisper Than Thou) wrote:
>Jason Fliegel <jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>Look, I realize writing -- especially creative writing -- is intensely
>>personal.
>
>Well, I think you're *not* realizing this as much as you think you are,
> because your examples--
>
>>Lawyers don't get to say "Gee, I know we're representing
>>IBM in this antitrust suit, but I'd rather write about breaking and
>>entering."
>
>> [SNIP!]
>
>--are NOT creative arts. There is very little room for creativity OR art
> in them.
Hey! Hey! Hey! I'll have you know that my Revocable Living Trust
Agreements are pinnacles of creativity *and* art! They're page turners,
pure and simple. My clients can't wait to get to see how they're going to
end. (They end with the notary block, but don't ruin it for my clients.)
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"M'i .Sm Neerg Samtsirhc, M'i .Sm Nus.
M'i .Sm Revef Retsilb, M'i .Sm 101."
--Heat Zatanna
Favorite comic of the week: QUANTUM & WOODY #11
Runner-up: LEGIONNAIRES #57
LLL!
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> Jason Fliegel (jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
> : The thing is, though, that it's one thing for an artist to decide he's
> : willing to die in obscurity and starvation. It's another thing for him to
> : try to take somebody else's property (such as THE FANTASTIC FOUR, which is
> : owned, after all, by Marvel, and not the writer) with him.
>
> You raise a good point here. Shared-universe characters are, by and
> large, owned by the companies that hire the creators to write and draw
> those characters. They are NOT owned by the fans. You realize you're
> shooting your premise to hell, don't you? :)
> : I think
> : somewhere in this thread I made the analogy that Michelangelo could not
> : have painted an orgy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, no matter how
> : much he wanted to, if it wasn't cool with his patron. I guess I see
> : fandom as the patron.
>
> Well, this is an incorrect view, then. Fandom isn't the patron. DC (or
> whatever comic book company) is the patron. Fandom is the public that
> views the finished work.
>
> : And it's the creator's job to give fandom what it wants.
>
> No, it's not. I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
Would you agree that it's the editor's job, and the higher-ups job to get the
(or a) writer to please the fans?
As much as I am against fan-ruled comics (which, despite my previous posts, I
am), the fans ARE the most essential part of the publishing industries (unless
you're making a differentiation between fans and buyers). It is DC's job to
please the readers, first and foremost (they don't have to do this buy always
doing what the reader asks for, though, because that would start to irritate the
heck out of me)... and the writer is part of the DC team (whether he is working
for or with DC) whose job it is to please the fans. He may have to do it by
pleasing DC who pleases the fans... but indirectly, at least, he is supposed to
please fans, because if people don't like it, they won't buy it, and he won't be
pleasing anyone (himself, the editors, or the fans).
Pariah
Steven Grant
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote in message <675t2a$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>It is my partner's considered opinion that, if every one of those 50,000
>people were to send Grant (or just about any other writer) a dollar, he'd
>not only write the story, he'd probably staple and mail it himself. :)
And with $50,000, we could just about afford to.
Steven Grant
Bill Roper wrote in message <676548$9d3$1...@Venus.mcs.net>...
>Would it be fair to say that the upshot of all this is:
>
>1) If and when Steven and Dan have an idea that they really like
> for a Challs/Chase crossover, *then* they'll think about
> writing it.
>
>2) They don't have such an idea right now.
>
>3) Trying to force a story when you don't have a good idea leads
> to uninspired work.
>
>4) All things considered, there's plenty of uninspired work that
> we can buy, so why should we push to get more? :)
>
>Or have I missed the drift?
No, that's about right.
Crisper Than Thou
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>I think you've missed the drift, especially from my end. My particular
>upshot is: Fans don't get to dictate stories. Never have, never will.
>If the fans don't like it, oh well.
If the fans don't like it, they should switch to one of those entertainment
media where the fans *do* get to dictate content, like... uh... wait a
second, I'm sure there's one. Uh. Wait, wait, wait, it's coming to me!
Hm, no, I'm afraid the best I can come up with is "fanfic".
--The Elder Dan
--
In dreams, logic grows on trees.
Crisper Than Thou
Pariah <rwhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>Crisper Than Thou writes:
>> <Really evil example deleted because, upon re-reading it, it's pretty
>> deliberately incendiary and adds nothing to the point. Fill in your own
>> scenario, real or imagined, in which a writer has been, is being, or
>> might be overruled on a story, and has been, is being, or might be
>> replaced with someone who did, does, or will "play ball".>
>
>Was this my example (my particular experience with the RPG) or the example he
>gave regarding SCARE TACTICS?
Oh, sorry, misinterpretation. It was neither. The evil example was one that
I'd added myself, but then got rid of. It wasn't a deletion of any quoted
material from earlier posts.