WE WILL KILL WIZARD

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Bart Gerardi

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

[follow-up set to rac.misc]


PandaZoom was peeved when he wrote:
>
> Wizard Press is the worst magizine know to man.

I understand what you are saying, but that just isn't true.
There are sooo many worse ones. The High Times strikes me for one.

>
> #1: Most everything in the price guides are false.

This is wrong too. I think they accurately report what thier
dealers tell them, and most of what they tell Wizard is true.
I *have* seen Avengers Ann 10 sell for $30...


> #2: The write up things that are rumors saying that they are true!

Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.


> #3: They ruin good comics like BONE and ruin good movies like
> Ghost/Shell by the nonstop blood-banging hype that kills the soul or
> fun of collecting and or buying comics.

Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
good to begin with.

> #4: They do the same things over and over ond over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over once more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So does Marvel and DC


> #5: Note that the comics that put the most "Paid for" ads, get more
> and more hype from the newsroom.
>

This is probably true, and falls into that journalistic integrity
thing...


Bart


--
=======================================================
Bart Gerardi ger...@mail.dec.com
Finance IS 508 493 0845
Digital Equipment Trustno1
=======================================================

PatDOneill

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

In article <324807...@mail.dec.com>, Bart Gerardi
<Ger...@mail.dec.com> writes:

>Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
>integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.

As news editor of WIZARD, I read this as a complete falsehood. CBG often
prints press releases from publishers verbatim or virtually so. WIZARD
does not and will not. CBG often publishes (without adequate
identification) material that in any other publication would be called an
"advertorial"--an article that looks like it was prepared by the editorial
staff of the publication but was actually supplied (and run with little or
no editing) by the subjects of the article.

A case in point is the Spider-Man cover story in CBG #1193--it's written
by Marvel's publicist, John Cerilli. Though he is so identified in his
by-line, there is nothing else in the design of the article that would
tell the reader, "This is all Marvel's hype, unfiltered through any
intermediary, such as the editors of this publication." Another case is
the Tomoe/Witchblade article in the same issue, written by Rob Samsel, who
makes his living as a public relations writer for places like Top Cow. And
that doesn't even make it clear that Rob was probably paid by Top Cow and
Crusade for that piece, not by CBG.

You won't ever see that in WIZARD. All of WIZARD's news stories and
articles are written by WIZARD staffers or free-lancers unaffiliated with
the publishers or creators about whom they are writing. Back when I was
the features editor at WIZARD, I stopped using some freelancers--notably
Hank Kanalz and Eric Stephenson--when they went on staff with comics
publishers.

>> #5: Note that the comics that put the most "Paid for" ads, get more
>> and more hype from the newsroom.
>>

>This is probably true, and falls into that journalistic integrity
thing...

Like to see anybody actually try to prove this one. I once went through
six months worth of WIZARD, counting ad pages and editorial space, to show
that there was no such bias, when this same accusation was made in a
discussion on CI$.

Best, Pat


Ian Finnesey

unread,
Sep 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/25/96
to

Bart Gerardi (Ger...@mail.dec.com) wrote:
: > #1: Most everything in the price guides are false.

: This is wrong too. I think they accurately report what thier
: dealers tell them, and most of what they tell Wizard is true.
: I *have* seen Avengers Ann 10 sell for $30...

Would you see that were it not for the existance of the price guide?
Also, how accurate are the prices on the "hot" books?


: > #3: They ruin good comics like BONE and ruin good movies like


: > Ghost/Shell by the nonstop blood-banging hype that kills the soul or
: > fun of collecting and or buying comics.

: Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
: good to begin with.

Did you READ the entire series? (and did you do it TWICE? you really
have to... it's an intricate, and coherent plot, and funnier than some
"humor" comics.) If you only got the first issue, you're missing out.

: > #4: They do the same things over and over ond over and over and over


: > and over and over and over and over and over once more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: So does Marvel and DC

And Image. And just about any company publishing superhero titles.


David L. Eppley

unread,
Sep 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/25/96
to

Bart Gerardi <Ger...@mail.dec.com>

>For Comics news CBG is much better.

Actually, I think RACM is far superior to CBG for comics news. Obviously,
RACM gets it's material quicker than CBG does, but the color commentary
here is often far superior to anything I read in any comics magazine.

Most CBG articles are too close to hype for comfort; I usually read it
for the columnists, particuarly ME. Although, at least CBG prints their
articles on readable backgrounds. Wizard and Overstreet have a tendancy
to make the text unreadable by placing it against the oddest backgrounds.
I'm surprised they haven't tried black text on a black background, yet.

-Dave Eppley

The Pulse

unread,
Sep 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/25/96
to

PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <324807...@mail.dec.com>, Bart Gerardi

: <Ger...@mail.dec.com> writes:
:
: >Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
: >integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.
:
: As news editor of WIZARD, I read this as a complete falsehood. CBG often

: prints press releases from publishers verbatim or virtually so. WIZARD
: does not and will not.

Are you sure about that? The smaller articles in the news section read to
me like they are press releases. IIRC the Friends of Lulu press release[1]
about the pie in the face contest was used almost verbatimly in the
Wizard article about it.


CBG often publishes (without adequate
: identification) material that in any other publication would be called an
: "advertorial"--an article that looks like it was prepared by the editorial
: staff of the publication but was actually supplied (and run with little or
: no editing) by the subjects of the article.


To me, this could also describe a lot of Wizard articles, again mostly
those in the news section.

(snip)


:
: You won't ever see that in WIZARD. All of WIZARD's news stories and


: articles are written by WIZARD staffers or free-lancers unaffiliated with
: the publishers or creators about whom they are writing. Back when I was
: the features editor at WIZARD, I stopped using some freelancers--notably
: Hank Kanalz and Eric Stephenson--when they went on staff with comics
: publishers.


Image right? While i applaud you on doing so, i still find Wizard to be
not critical enough in general terms. Most interviews tend to ask only
the most superficial questions, never digging deep enough for the more
interesting subjects. Also Wizard *does* seem to slavishly follow what
ever the major companies deem "hot". Examples? The Valiant hype, the
generous praise heaped upon Liefeld's Youngblood, Marvel Vs. DC etc.

The most important bone i've to pick with Wizard is, however, that
without them the whole speculators craze wouldn't have gotten so out of
hand. For years, Wizard gave the idea that the comics you bought on monday,
would be worth the entire US national debt by friday.[2]


Martin wisse

[1] as also posted in this here newsgroup
[2] or so it seemed..

Adam Hardy

unread,
Sep 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/25/96
to

Bart Gerardi (Ger...@mail.dec.com) wrote:
: Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
: good to begin with.

How many people actually agree with this? I love everything that Jeff's
done with Bone. Does anyone else think that Bone has been "ruined"...?
-A
____________________Adam Hardy (ora...@simons-rock.edu)_____________________
"...They were soon joined by Donald, Herbert's singularly well-favoured
sheepdog, and many were the giggles and barks that came from the shrubbery."
-from "The Curious Sofa, a Pornographic Work by Ogdred Weary"

Brett George

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

There's been an awful lot of bashing going on here lately. Most of
which is based on unsubstantiated rumour. Now it's fine and dandy to voice
an opinion. That's what free speech is all about. It's quite different to
make allegations without any evidence of proof.
I'll be the first to admit that I have gone off on a few subjects
without thinking about it and have sometimes gotten in trouble for it.
That's cool, when I screw up, I can accept the blame.

I want to go on record here by passing out a blanket apology to anyone
affiliated with Wizard. I've said some things in the past that were pretty
strong without any kind of verification.
That was wrong.

It's easy for all of us to sit behind the obscurity of our keyboards and
lay blame everywhere. The truth is, most of us don't know diddly! Or even
squat for that matter! I know I have'nt worked for Wizard, so I can't say
with any authority what goes on in the fact gathering process they do
every month. I can generalize and give an opinion and will continue to do
so. But the blanket condemnation needs to stop.
Wizard is not the cause of all the woes in comicdom. And you actually
pay them a compliment by believing they can single handedly shape the
comic industry. In the end it's the consumers/fans/collectors that shape
this industry.
WE as consumers have rights that can be enforced IF enough people work
toward a common goal. This petty sniping does'nt do anyone any good. It
only adds to the "immature" label that comic books has been struggling to
get rid of for years.

Sit back and really THINK about it people.

Brett George
--
Brett George
Banzai Productions
Graphic Design & Illustration

Bart Gerardi

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

PatDOneill wrote:
>
> In article <324807...@mail.dec.com>, Bart Gerardi
> <Ger...@mail.dec.com> writes:
>
> >Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
> >integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.
>
> As news editor of WIZARD, I read this as a complete falsehood. CBG often
> prints press releases from publishers verbatim or virtually so.

You got me on this one. I think it's my frame of mind when I read them.
In general, when I read Wizard, I have the mindset of "This is what
the Wizard news guys have collected over the last month and feel
is close enough to the truth to be printed." I read CBG thinking,
"This is what someone from the company told them." For no good reason,
I hold Wizard to a higher standard of journalism. Mea culpa on this
one.

> >> #5: Note that the comics that put the most "Paid for" ads, get more
> >> and more hype from the newsroom.

> Like to see anybody actually try to prove this one.

To me, this started with the covers. As far as I'm concerned,
cover space is the only thing that really matters. And the hype
to cover space seems to have a correlation. This might be due to my
albeit faulty memory, but that is the way it seems.

The comics journal

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

Hi:

>>>Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
>>>integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.

I read both magazines as often as copies cross my desk. I'm obviously
working for a magazine and a company that has had acrimonious relations
(and some friendly ones!) with staffers at both magazines, but from my
reading of the magazine I would have to say that Wizard uses legitimate
news gathering methods in preparing those parts of their magazine labeled
as news. If anything, they're limited by space which means that some of
their articles will sometimes contain no more information than the average
press release. But that's understandable in the context of their editorial
mission. And sometimes that can't be helped: we have a subsection of the
news part of our magazine which is also brief and sometimes comes across
as a re-hash. But with someone's name on it, as it is in Wizard, I think
you can count on the very least that someone is checking out and verifying
those facts as initially given to the magazine. I'm not aware of, and I
don't think there should be according to what I know, an issue of news and
journalistic integrity regarding the news sections of Wizard Magazine.

CBG, on the other hand, according to their editorial mission still allows
a curious mix of homegrown articles and upfront press releases written by
publicity people specifically for that venue. In addition, they have
publicly-stated policies against covering certain type of news stories.
And while I think they have stepped it up since about this time last year;
and while I think their news guy -- Michael Dean I think is his name --
does a really good job with historical context (his Diamond purchasing
CC's assets story comes to mind) and he seems to be a good reporter (he
did a nice job on the Planet Comic story, I thought), with those kind of
policies in place I can't see any basic "integrity" charge levied against
Wizard that wouldn't probably be better applied to CBG. Unless you know
something I don't!

Sorry if this is late, or these issue are hashed out elsewhere: my news
gathering software is all messed up.

Tom Spurgeon
The Comics Journal

Bart Gerardi

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

Ian Finnesey wrote:
>
> Bart Gerardi (Ger...@mail.dec.com) wrote:

>
> Would you see that were it not for the existance of the price guide?
> Also, how accurate are the prices on the "hot" books?
>

As a very active participant on rac.marketplace and in Boston
shows and shops, Wizard is as accurate as anything else. It's usually
behind rac.m on hot books (they are usually cooling down before
Wizard catches on) and ahead of shows...

> : > #3: They ruin good comics like BONE and ruin good movies like
> : > Ghost/Shell by the nonstop blood-banging hype that kills the soul or
> : > fun of collecting and or buying comics.
>

> : Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
> : good to begin with.
>

> Did you READ the entire series? (and did you do it TWICE? you really
> have to... it's an intricate, and coherent plot, and funnier than some
> "humor" comics.) If you only got the first issue, you're missing out.
>

I read the Cartoon Books issues 1-11. They were awesome. What I meant
to say was, "If Bone has been ruined, it was by Jeff Smith, not Wizard."
I wasn't really saying that Bone had been ruined, although one could
infer that from my statement.

The Enigmatic C.

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:

>In article <324807...@mail.dec.com>, Bart Gerardi
><Ger...@mail.dec.com> writes:

>>Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic
>>integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.

>As news editor of WIZARD, I read this as a complete falsehood. CBG often


>prints press releases from publishers verbatim or virtually so. WIZARD

>does not and will not. CBG often publishes (without adequate


>identification) material that in any other publication would be called an
>"advertorial"--an article that looks like it was prepared by the editorial
>staff of the publication but was actually supplied (and run with little or
>no editing) by the subjects of the article.

You're the Wizard News Editor? Oh neat... We have to talk.

Okay, I'm sorry, but you have no right to go after anyone or anything about
"Advertorials". Journalistic Integrity would imply that you treat each
story fairly, exploring both sides of the story. Why no industry reaction
to the Heroes Reborn deal? Why do you never-ever show opposing reactions in
the same article? If you do ever print opposing points of view to an event
or events, it's usually months after the original article runs.

Case in point, the Spide-Clone saga. You guys hyped this thing to death in
the "News" Section, and now because reader reaction is so bad there is at
least one slam against the whole thing for every 50 pages that see print.
You don't print news, you print Hype. It doesn't really MATTER whether or
not your writers write it, it's still hype.

I've been reading Wizard since Issue #4. I stopped buying it at 50 though,
because I was finally fed up. Examining only the last 4 issues of News that
I have, I've made some interesting observations.

47:
Your first news article is Alan Moore writing Wildcats. News, to be sure,
but we get a Truman article, A Thor and Iron Man ReVamp before:
- Claremont's sovereign Seven. First time in DC history they're allowing
outsourcing their characters and it comes in after an Iron Man re-vamp?
But, at least before:
- A Hulk vs. Prime crossover? Yeah, this is much more important than the
story two pages later where the largest Canadian distributor goes Bankrupt,
months after it happened. Uh-huh.
- We get a story aboyt Space Bannanas, a small-press publisher (points for
that) but ends up getting more page space than mention of the Neil Gaiman
readings tour, raising money for the CLBDF. Huh.
-After that, we get Stan Lee writing a book, and all of the Malibu books
having black covers.
- And then we FINALLY get to the most important News Article in the whole
magazine, and perhaps of 1996. DC comics going exclusive with Diamond
Distribution. This is buried how many pages back? 11. In the rest of the
world this was huge news, and has greatly affected every element of the
industry. To which we get a very light article, not discussing any of the
ramifications that this event could have on the industry.
- After that, there's an article about Stewart getting promoted at Marvel,
and the Small Press Swimsuit Spectacular (points again, but on the last
page...)

Um, the sheer travesty that the possible negative and detrimental effects
that DC's move could have had on the industry is not mentioned at all.
Write all the excuses you want to, but the piece was fluff.

48:
-Well, the largest news this month is apperantly that JURGENS will be on
New SPIDEY TITLE. Bone's moving to Image (with no industry comment), The
Hildebrant's first creator-owned character, and your own "Wizard Special
Report" on paper price increases are all less important than that little
tidbit.
- Over half a page on Adam Huges reducing his workload on Ghost?
- Danzig hosting an MTV show from the inside of a comic store is a great
article, and one that should have been expanded a bit, as well as been
moved up. But oh well.
- Took enough time to pat yourself on the back for your design award
though, which came again before:
- Diamond and Dc's exclusivity agreement part 2! Wow, only 6 pages back
this time, but again with no industry reaction and one paragraph about the
Capital lawsuit. With no quote from capital.
- Good article about Eisner joining Kitchen Sink Press's Board of
Directors.
- Advertorial by you about Giffen's PUNX. Read that article and tell me
it's not a blatent advertisment for PUNX. There's barely an interview with
Giffen, or why he chose to publish it through Aclaim. It's not a news
article.

Again, slip-shod journalism, and you _personally_ succumbing to
advertorials.

49:
- Wow! A ballsy article that presents every side of the story and actually
qualifies as news! FabNic leaving the X-Books! Excellent article!
- Another good article about inter-company crossovers, with plenty of
information from all sides of the project, reffering to the
Batman/Daredevil article.
-Advertorial on Batman: Man-Bat. On the second page no less. Wow.
- Advertorial for Wildstar, series Two.
- The Pro Reaction piece to Batman Forever was good. You're 3/5 this issue.
- The ROn Marz story is fine, again. Same thing with the Gi Joe one. there
is a huge change in the news this issue, but unfortunatly it is one that
you didn't maintain.
- The Sam & Max story is again one that is of great importance, because the
Marlowe&Company bookshelf editons mean that comic books are being
distributed to bookstores. This was an important article, that didn't get
the attention it deserved.
- And 7 pages in you publish an obituary of Friz Freleng. I really don't
understand your sense of importance, you know that?
- EXTREME Advertorial.
- Great article on WIndsor-Smith returning to Conan. could have been an
advertorial, but instead you get a lot of perspectives on the thing, and it
ends up seeming real.

Anyway, something ended up very good this issue for some reason. I'd like
to know what went right, but it doesn't matter because it's gone wrong by
the newest issue.

50:
- Pitt vs. Hulk as the biggest article of the month. Remains to be seen
huh?
- Spider Man and Scarlet Spider get an Advertorial! Wow, none of the jabs
against the series....
- Gaiman Vess project that's not coming out until 1998? Very important.
Deserves to be on the 2nd page for sure.
- Advertorial For Hulk.
- Good Loebs article. One of the busiest and best in comics, and one who
rarely gets his due.
- Sigh. Peter David advertorial (Wow, you run into David at a con and write
3 articles about him?). Slightly better because it provides some insight
into the origin and history of the series, although it is heavily biased
towards David. Surprise.
- Interesting article about Malibu. No marvel reaction to the resignations?
- Advertorial for silversurfer? How does a re-launch for Silver Surfer that
is barely even a re-launch classify as "News"?
- Fantastic Four article is adiquate, the little corner about the suicide
of George Carragonne is just disrespectful, and in the "the industry is
doing really wierd stuff but we're not paing attention" department, another
little corner about Image, Dark Horse, and Acclaim's exclusivity deal.
Great.
- Look! Another marvel house ad about Dr. Strange!
- Bonafide news article about Mirage abandoning the turtles comics and it
gets buried 13 pages back.
- Mark Article is an advert. The Boris article is fine. I think it's sort
of pathetic that 14 pages into the magazine you announce the Eisner award
winners. These are important awards. More important than the Hulk
Advertorials.

Allright, so this issue we have out of 16 articles, 8 about marvel, with
maybe 3 actually being news. Well, I must say, for a 50th issue spectacular
issue, this was anything but in the news department. possibly the worst
news section of any issue to date, filled with Marvel Ads and THREE Peter
David articles.

Just so I'm clear on advertorials, what's the difference between you, a
friend of David writing three articles about his work and him writing them
himself?

>You won't ever see that in WIZARD. All of WIZARD's news stories and
>articles are written by WIZARD staffers or free-lancers unaffiliated with
>the publishers or creators about whom they are writing.

Un-affiliated in a professional or personal manner? Not that it matters. I
don't know J.M. DeMatteis personally, or professionally, yet I can still
write mind-numbing pablum about his work on Dr. Strange. So could Ruth
Morrison (re: Wizard #50's "Back to Basics for Sorcerer Supreme").

>Like to see anybody actually try to prove this one. I once went through
>six months worth of WIZARD, counting ad pages and editorial space, to show
>that there was no such bias, when this same accusation was made in a
>discussion on CI$.

The fact that you rarely print negative news articles? In fact, so
downplayed was the fact that Liefeld was the reason Silvestri left and
non-payment was the reason he was booted that the stuff coming up on
Usenet, from _reliable_ sources came off very differently than your
article. You printed the truth, you just overshadowed it with other stuff.

If you really want the best, for us as fans, for yourself as a professional
and for Wizard by having the best and most reliable news out there, treat
the news section with some Journalistic integrity. Practice what you preach
with these editorials, and don't be afraid to take a stand or say something
negative. That's what integrity is all about. If fans felt you had some,
you wouldn't get comments like "the news coverage is directly relational to
how many adds a publisher has per issue".

The Enigmatic C.

I can't say that I love Jesus, That would be a hollow claim.
He did make some observations, and I'm quoting them today;
"Judge not lest ye be judged.", What a beautiful refrain.
- rem; new test lepper; new adventures in hi-fi.


Aaron S. Veenstra

unread,
Sep 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/26/96
to

> To me, this started with the covers. As far as I'm concerned,
> cover space is the only thing that really matters. And the hype
> to cover space seems to have a correlation. This might be due to my
> albeit faulty memory, but that is the way it seems.

It seems that it would make sense for the inside contents to relate to
what's on the cover, don't you think? I see what you're getting at here,
but I think you misworded it a bit.

Aaron

Jay Hosler

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

In article <52a3ck$2...@gateway.simons-rock.edu>,
ora...@news.simons-rock.edu (Adam Hardy) wrote:

> Bart Gerardi (Ger...@mail.dec.com) wrote:
> : Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
> : good to begin with.
>

> How many people actually agree with this? I love everything that Jeff's
> done with Bone.

>Does anyone else think that Bone has been "ruined"...?

I don't. A little darker but still one of my favorites.

Jay

Martin Wisse

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

The comics journal (fgra...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Hi:
:
: >>>Well, usually they say they are rumors, but their news and journalistic

: >>>integrity is pretty low. For Comics news CBG is much better.
:
: I read both magazines as often as copies cross my desk. I'm obviously

: working for a magazine and a company that has had acrimonious relations
: (and some friendly ones!) with staffers at both magazines, but from my
: reading of the magazine I would have to say that Wizard uses legitimate
: news gathering methods in preparing those parts of their magazine labeled
: as news. If anything, they're limited by space which means that some of
: their articles will sometimes contain no more information than the average
: press release. But that's understandable in the context of their editorial
: mission. And sometimes that can't be helped: we have a subsection of the
: news part of our magazine which is also brief and sometimes comes across
: as a re-hash. But with someone's name on it, as it is in Wizard, I think
: you can count on the very least that someone is checking out and verifying
: those facts as initially given to the magazine. I'm not aware of, and I
: don't think there should be according to what I know, an issue of news and
: journalistic integrity regarding the news sections of Wizard Magazine.


The main problem with Wizard, as i see it, is that they're just *not*
critical of the industry. When they report things like DC gone exclusive
with Diamond, they just come across as paraphrasing DC/Diamond's press
releases with *no* discusion of the ramifications of this move.
Perhaps it's too much to ask from Wizard, which seems to aim at the younger
comics reader, but i would like to see more critical reporting and longer,
in-depth articles from them, like ,e.g., Hero used to do.

In short: while it isn't possible for Wizard to be the Comics Journal, they
could at least try to be more like Amazing Heroes.

Martin Wisse

The comics journal

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

>>>In short: while it isn't possible for Wizard to be the Comics Journal, they
>>>could at least try to be more like Amazing Heroes.

I don't disagree with anything that you say nor do I necessarily disagree
with any of these criticisms other than the initial one regarding
journalistic integrity. Journalistic integrity regarding the willful
misreporting of the news or the allowance of non-verified press releases
is a completely different issue than journalistic integrity regarding poor
reporting, poor editorial judgment or soft peddling the news.

Tom Spurgeon/TCJ

David W. Stepp

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

The expectations of some people never cease to amaze me. Wizard (or CBG
or OF) will never be truly objective. It is not in their best interests to
take a hardline about any aspect of the business. If they routinely
reported that speculators books that they had hyped 6 months ago had
crashed and burned, that title X was running out of ideas and that
storyline/arc X had been a tactical over-hyped blunder they would face two
problems: 1) they wouldn't be very interesting to read and 2) they would
risk losing their advertising support. In very short order, they would be
out of business. If you need news, read it with a grain of salt. You
should know the title well enough if you're a reader to know whether
development X is logical or not. If I read somewhere reliable that Jim
Corrigan was going to be offed and the Spectre placed into the body of
Pauly Shore, I would not be very enthusiastic about continuing my support
of the book. No hype or lack of hype would influence that decision. If
you're not reading the book and you think this sounds really cool, buy it
and see if you like it. If you don't. drop it before you're out 30-40
bucks with a year's worth of issues. Buy with precision. Sadly, this
advice will fall on deaf ears I would imagine. In my prime at 18 years of
age, I bought $100/month when they only cost 40 or 50 cents a pop. It's a
compulsion.

D.

Ian Finnesey

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

Bart Gerardi (Ger...@mail.dec.com) wrote:
: Ian Finnesey wrote:
: >

: >
: > : Actually Jeff Smith ruined Bone. And Ghost in Shell wasn't that
: > : good to begin with.

: >
: > Did you READ the entire series? (and did you do it TWICE? you really


: > have to... it's an intricate, and coherent plot, and funnier than some
: > "humor" comics.) If you only got the first issue, you're missing out.
: >

: I read the Cartoon Books issues 1-11. They were awesome. What I meant
: to say was, "If Bone has been ruined, it was by Jeff Smith, not Wizard."
: I wasn't really saying that Bone had been ruined, although one could
: infer that from my statement.

I was talking about Ghost in the Shell...but I suppose the same could be
said for Bone (I don't think you'll catch everything the first time
through in Bone, either... (G)...though it is much more clearly humorous
than GiTS...)
--
Let's play pretend. You just pretend this isn't happening.


PatDOneill

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

n article <DyAv0...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (The Pulse) writes:

>Are you sure about that? The smaller articles in the news section read to

>me like they are press releases. IIRC the Friends of Lulu press
release[1]
>about the pie in the face contest was used almost verbatimly in the
>Wizard article about it.
>
>
>

I'm the editor; I know what runs. Every press release is edited--at
least--for style and space. We may not do a complete rewrite--especially
for something like the FOL story--but we don't just send the release to
typesetting, either.

>To me, this could also describe a lot of Wizard articles, again mostly
>those in the news section.

Want to point out an example of WIZARD using a news story written and
supplied by the news source? All our news stories--except the little bites
in the "Company Updates" column--carry by-lines at the end.

>Most interviews tend to ask only the most superficial questions, never
digging >deep enough for the more interesting subjects.

If you mean we're not interested in our subjects' private lives, or their
industry feuds, or the like, guilty as charged. In general, our feature
articles are tied to specific projects, so that the questions are tied to
those projects, not to the creators' entire careers. WIZARD is, for the
most part, a news magazine--we publish timely articles about people and
projects that are current at the time of publication.

Best, Pat

PatDOneill

unread,
Sep 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/27/96
to

In article <DyDwp...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:

>The main problem with Wizard, as i see it, is that they're just *not*
>critical of the industry. When they report things like DC gone exclusive
>with Diamond, they just come across as paraphrasing DC/Diamond's press
>releases with *no* discusion of the ramifications of this move.
>Perhaps it's too much to ask from Wizard, which seems to aim at the
younger
>comics reader, but i would like to see more critical reporting and
longer,
>in-depth articles from them, like ,e.g., Hero used to do.
>
>

Every magazine must choose its "editorial mission," as it were. WIZARD
chose, long ago, to concentrate on its features and not the news. And the
news we DO carry and focus on will tend to be creator- and
project-related, not business-related. Our coverage of business news will
tend, therefore, to be brief and strictly "the facts": Diamond acquired
Capital, etc. We have a basic question we use to determine how deep to go
into a business story in our pages: "How will this affect the ability of
our readers to get the comics they want?"

With Diamond pledging to honor all orders made with Capital, with most
comics shops already having Diamond accounts, it seemed to me (and the
other editors) that the answer to that question was (for the moment), "Not
much."

Should the situation change, we can look at the question again in light of
news events as they occur.

Best, Pat

Mike Chary

unread,
Sep 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/28/96
to

Pat "Mr. Irony" O'Neill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Every magazine must choose its "editorial mission," as it were. WIZARD
>chose, long ago, to concentrate on its features and not the news. And the
>news we DO carry and focus on will tend to be creator- and
>project-related, not business-related. Our coverage of business news will
>tend, therefore, to be brief and strictly "the facts": Diamond acquired
>Capital, etc. We have a basic question we use to determine how deep to go
>into a business story in our pages: "How will this affect the ability of
>our readers to get the comics they want?"

So business material is off-topic in "Wizard?" That doesn't make any
sense? What sort of bizarre system are you running there?

--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now I have
the South fight the Klingons." -- Dave Spensley "The best argument against
democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

David W. Stepp

unread,
Sep 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/28/96
to

> Pat "Mr. Irony" O'Neill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Every magazine must choose its "editorial mission," as it were. WIZARD
> >chose, long ago, to concentrate on its features and not the news. And the
> >news we DO carry and focus on will tend to be creator- and
> >project-related, not business-related. Our coverage of business news will
> >tend, therefore, to be brief and strictly "the facts": Diamond acquired
> >Capital, etc. We have a basic question we use to determine how deep to go
> >into a business story in our pages: "How will this affect the ability of
> >our readers to get the comics they want?"

That is particularly odd since you started a minor flame war in
racdu in an attempt to discuss the Diamond/Capital acquisition. Your
rationale at the time was that this was a key event in DC Comics history
or some such. I think what you mean to say it that you cater to
impressional fanboys who buy hyped-up comics at egregious prices in vain
attempts to profit in the speculator market. Such gullible children are
unlikely to take much interest in the corporate maneuverings of comic
publishers and distributors and therefore you don't want to waste valuable
page space on something that your readers won't find interesting.


D.

PatDOneill

unread,
Sep 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/29/96
to

In article <52crs6$8...@post.servtech.com>, cr...@servtech.com (The
Enigmatic "C.") writes:

> Why no industry reaction
>to the Heroes Reborn deal? Why do you never-ever show opposing reactions
in
>the same article? If you do ever print opposing points of view to an
event
>or events, it's usually months after the original article runs.

Because that's not the kind of articles we do. How could there be
"industry reaction" to something that only saw print this month? Feature
articles aren't for "opposing reactions"--they are for "featuring" the
project or person being presented. The kind of thing you want only works
on "historical" stuff, where there can be an "opposing reaction." What
opposing reaction could there be, for instance, to Fabian Nicieza and his
staff discussing their plans for the Acclaim revamp? Or to Peter David's
plans for Supergirl?

> News, to be sure,
>but we get a Truman article, A Thor and Iron Man ReVamp before:
>- Claremont's sovereign Seven. First time in DC history they're allowing
>outsourcing their characters and it comes in after an Iron Man re-vamp?

Location of an article is not necessarily a function of our opinion as to
its importance--it can be a function of where it fits in page layout.

>- A Hulk vs. Prime crossover? Yeah, this is much more important than the
>story two pages later where the largest Canadian distributor goes
Bankrupt,
>months after it happened. Uh-huh.

As I tire of pointing out, WIZARD is not a business magazine and stories
about disributors are, primarily, business stories.

>- We get a story aboyt Space Bannanas, a small-press publisher (points
for
>that) but ends up getting more page space than mention of the Neil Gaiman
>readings tour, raising money for the CLBDF. Huh.

Alloted space can also be a function of the information available. Once
it's said that Gaiman is doing a reading tour, with money to go to CBLDF,
what more is there to say? How much more information is there?

>- And then we FINALLY get to the most important News Article in the whole
>magazine, and perhaps of 1996. DC comics going exclusive with Diamond
>Distribution. This is buried how many pages back? 11. In the rest of the
>world this was huge news, and has greatly affected every element of the
>industry. To which we get a very light article, not discussing any of the
>ramifications that this event could have on the industry.

Let's remember something about publishing schedules--WIZARD is a monthly.
By the time we had the story in print (although we published it as soon as
we knew about it, there's about a six-week delay between assigning a story
and it's appearing on the stands), it was really old news in the industry.
Diamond and DC announced the deal at the very end of our production
cycle--the Friday before the book closed. Most of the news section was
already laid out and at the printer--we pulled the last page back and
squeezed in what we knew of the deal.

>- Diamond and Dc's exclusivity agreement part 2! Wow, only 6 pages back
>this time, but again with no industry reaction and one paragraph about
the
>Capital lawsuit. With no quote from capital.

Again, it's a follow-up story: It doesn't belong on the front page.
Capital was in litigation; it's lawyers had told them not to say anything.

>- Advertorial by you about Giffen's PUNX. Read that article and tell me
>it's not a blatent advertisment for PUNX. There's barely an interview
with
>Giffen, or why he chose to publish it through Aclaim. It's not a news
>article.

NOT an advertorial. I don't work for Giffen or Acclaim. I did the work as
a reporter working for WIZARD. It IS a news article--the news is the intro
of a new title at Acclaim by a major creator.

>Just so I'm clear on advertorials, what's the difference between you, a
>friend of David writing three articles about his work and him writing
them
>himself?

He didn't pay me for them. I wrote on assignment from WIZARD. I didn't
even pitch them to WIZARD, the story ideas came from the managing editor.
That I did all three was merely a question of efficiency and
convenience--I was calling him for one, I might as well call him for all
of them; and because we're friendly, I could be assured of getting through
with the least hassle.

I'm not going to go through your post point-by-point. Suffice to say you
don't know the meaning of an advertorial, that not every article that
presents the info on a new project is an advertorial, and that decisions
on what goes into a magazine and where are determined by more than just
what you --or I--think is important.

Best, Pat

Martin Wisse

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:

: n article <DyAv0...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (The Pulse) writes:
:
: >Are you sure about that? The smaller articles in the news section read to
:
: >me like they are press releases. IIRC the Friends of Lulu press
: release[1]
: >about the pie in the face contest was used almost verbatimly in the
: >Wizard article about it.
: >
: >
: >
:
: I'm the editor; I know what runs. Every press release is edited--at
: least--for style and space. We may not do a complete rewrite--especially
: for something like the FOL story--but we don't just send the release to
: typesetting, either.
:
: >To me, this could also describe a lot of Wizard articles, again mostly
: >those in the news section.
:
: Want to point out an example of WIZARD using a news story written and
: supplied by the news source? All our news stories--except the little bites
: in the "Company Updates" column--carry by-lines at the end.

Perhaps i haven't made myself clear. While those articles may be written
by Wizard staffers/free-lancers, to me they *read* like press releases.
For better or worse they are written in the same *style* as a lot of
press releases i've seen.

: >Most interviews tend to ask only the most superficial questions, never


: digging >deep enough for the more interesting subjects.
:
: If you mean we're not interested in our subjects' private lives, or their
: industry feuds, or the like, guilty as charged. In general, our feature
: articles are tied to specific projects, so that the questions are tied to
: those projects, not to the creators' entire careers. WIZARD is, for the
: most part, a news magazine--we publish timely articles about people and
: projects that are current at the time of publication.
:
: Best, Pat


That's not what i've meant and you know it. Remember when Claremont left
the X-men? Well, thwe Wizard interviews with him at the time sure didn't
dig deep for the reasons why. The same with the various distrubition woes
going on for more then a year now, of which Wizard has published only the
most superficial stories. And what about the on-going censorship cases
involving comics? I've learned more about them from Usenet then from
Wizard.
To me, Wizard seems to release the same kind of hyped stories that you can
also find in Previews or the publishers own news-zines.

I realize Wizard isn't intended to be as critical as, say the Comics Journal
But the magazine could use a healthy dose of skepticism and try to dig a
little deeper

Martin Wisse

Rich Johnston

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

In article <52lbfc$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com says...

> What
>opposing reaction could there be, for instance, to Fabian Nicieza and his
>staff discussing their plans for the Acclaim revamp?

Shooter's reaction. The original creators' reactions. Reactions of
retailers to what they see as a dead comics line.

>Or to Peter David's
>plans for Supergirl?

Reactions from old-time readers

Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

n article <DyJpz...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:

>For better or worse they are written in the same *style* as a lot of
>press releases i've seen.


Only because a good press release is written like a good news story, in
the hope that a lazy editor will run it verbatim

> Remember when Claremont left
>the X-men? Well, thwe Wizard interviews with him at the time sure didn't
>dig deep for the reasons why.

I did at least one of those interviews, Martin...and I specifically recall
asking Chris and being told he didn't want to talk about it. When a
reporter is faced with that kind of response, he has two options: Keep
pressing and risk having the entire session called off, or move on to
other things and maybe get some important responses to other questions.

I am also the interviewer who later got from Chris the famous line: "17
years of my life and they gut it like a fish in 18 months."

>The same with the various distrubition woes
>going on for more then a year now, of which Wizard has published only the
>most superficial stories.

Business story, as I keep repeating.

>And what about the on-going censorship cases involving comics?

In general, those involved in litigation are advised not to speak for
publication. We report the facts as they are released. Please also
remember the time frame in which we publish--sure you'll learn the facts
on Usenet first, it takes us six weeks (minimum) to go from learning
something to having it show up on the newsstand.


Best, Pat


PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

In article <52o5i4$7...@lex.zippo.com>, Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>
writes:

>In article <52lbfc$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com says...
>> What
>>opposing reaction could there be, for instance, to Fabian Nicieza and
his
>>staff discussing their plans for the Acclaim revamp?
>
>Shooter's reaction. The original creators' reactions. Reactions of
>retailers to what they see as a dead comics line.

It is my experience that creators seldom have anything to say in print
regarding changes made to characters they formally worked on. They've
moved on. In addition, you'd be asking all these people--former creators,
retailers, whoever--to comment on something they haven't even seen. Again,
remember time frames: While the article was published after the ad
campaign for the Valiant relaunch was begun, it was WRITTEN two months
previously.

>>Or to Peter David's
>>plans for Supergirl?
>
>Reactions from old-time readers

One question: Other than the old-time readers, who cares about their
reactions?

Best, Pat

Johanna Draper

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

In article <52quei$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>n article <DyJpz...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
>>The same with the various distrubition woes
>>going on for more then a year now, of which Wizard has published only the
>>most superficial stories.
>
>Business story, as I keep repeating.

You wouldn't shut up about putting business stories on rac.dc.u; why should
we accept this reasoning from you now?

Johanna
--
"But y'know, even with all that, you never tried to change yourself... you
just reached inside until you found a way to make it work.... Damn it, Jan,
I really can't blame you for making your life work, can I? And now... I
guess it's my turn." -- Sean Erin, LSH v4 31

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>n article <DyJpz...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
>
>>For better or worse they are written in the same *style* as a lot of
>>press releases i've seen.
>
>
>Only because a good press release is written like a good news story, in
>the hope that a lazy editor will run it verbatim

What a crock of Wizard.

Pat, your news articles are indistinguishable from press releases except
press releases usually have more information. Your article on the Valiant
relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.

>>The same with the various distrubition woes
>>going on for more then a year now, of which Wizard has published only the
>>most superficial stories.
>
>Business story, as I keep repeating.

Gee, you sure have some bizarre standards for what belongs in your magazine.

>>And what about the on-going censorship cases involving comics?
>
>In general, those involved in litigation are advised not to speak for
>publication. We report the facts as they are released. Please also
>remember the time frame in which we publish--sure you'll learn the facts
>on Usenet first, it takes us six weeks (minimum) to go from learning
>something to having it show up on the newsstand.

What about those people who aren't on Usenet, Pat?

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

Pat O'Neil said.


>>>Or to Peter David's
>>>plans for Supergirl?
>>
>>Reactions from old-time readers
>
>One question: Other than the old-time readers, who cares about their
>reactions?

NFY.

Rich Johnston

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

In article <52qufm$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com says...

>
>It is my experience that creators seldom have anything to say in print
>regarding changes made to characters they formally worked on.

Not with Jim Shooter. He's been quite vocal, but we haven't heard his
reaction to Fabian's work. Are you telling me that you wouldn't like to
hear Shooter's views on this?

> While the article was published after the ad
>campaign for the Valiant relaunch was begun, it was WRITTEN two months
>previously.

The Valiant relaunch has been announced and solicited for the last 6 months.
A reaction would have been available.


>>>Or to Peter David's
>>>plans for Supergirl?
>>
>>Reactions from old-time readers
>
>One question: Other than the old-time readers, who cares about their
>reactions?

Me. I'm not a long-time reader of Supergirl. I'd have liked to hear their
reaction on what I gather is a radical departure.

Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>


>Best, Pat

Martin Wisse

unread,
Oct 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/1/96
to

PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: n article <DyJpz...@cs.vu.nl>, mwi...@cs.vu.nl (Martin Wisse) writes:
:
: >For better or worse they are written in the same *style* as a lot of
: >press releases i've seen.
:
:
: Only because a good press release is written like a good news story, in
: the hope that a lazy editor will run it verbatim

Oh? Then i've never read a good press release...

: > Remember when Claremont left


: >the X-men? Well, thwe Wizard interviews with him at the time sure didn't
: >dig deep for the reasons why.
:
: I did at least one of those interviews, Martin...and I specifically recall
: asking Chris and being told he didn't want to talk about it. When a
: reporter is faced with that kind of response, he has two options: Keep
: pressing and risk having the entire session called off, or move on to
: other things and maybe get some important responses to other questions.

Okay, point taken.

: I am also the interviewer who later got from Chris the famous line: "17


: years of my life and they gut it like a fish in 18 months."

Never heard of it...

: >The same with the various distrubition woes


: >going on for more then a year now, of which Wizard has published only the
: >most superficial stories.
:
: Business story, as I keep repeating.

Wizard may be a kiddie magazine, but why the heck shouldn't you run
stories about something with such a huge impact on comics in general?
(BTW, isn't almost any news story a biznis story?)

: >And what about the on-going censorship cases involving comics?


:
: In general, those involved in litigation are advised not to speak for
: publication. We report the facts as they are released. Please also
: remember the time frame in which we publish--sure you'll learn the facts
: on Usenet first, it takes us six weeks (minimum) to go from learning
: something to having it show up on the newsstand.

FYI, i've learned the most about, e.g. the Oklohoma case from the
Comics Journal. Usenet seemed to have discussions about censorship instead
of news.
The people involved in the various cases have spoken with other zines, so
your point is moot.
Perhaps the Mike Daina case isn't suitable for Wizard, but surely other
cases could be reported in greater depth?

My main point is, why must Wizard be so shallow in reporting news and
interviewing people. Okay, you don't want the biznis side being handled
in your magazine, but the *creative* side of comics could be handdled in
greater depth. I also find Wizard not critical enough. You seem to be-
lieve and add to the hype of the comics companies instead of debunking it.

Martin

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52r3fd$e...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:

>Your article on the Valiant
>relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
>failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.

IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
most interest to WIZARD readers.

My, my--I was a reporter and an editor, instead of just a ventriloquist
for Fabian.

>What about those people who aren't on Usenet, Pat?

There are other outlets for news about comics beside the computer nets and
boards and WIZARD--CBG, COMBO, FAN, THE COMICS JOURNAL. Each of those
outlets makes decisions about what to cover and how. Does the NY TIMES
cover every story the DAILY NEWS does, or vice versa? No...nor should it.

Best, Pat

The Enigmatic C.

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:

>Because that's not the kind of articles we do. How could there be
>"industry reaction" to something that only saw print this month? Feature
>articles aren't for "opposing reactions"--they are for "featuring" the
>project or person being presented. The kind of thing you want only works
>on "historical" stuff, where there can be an "opposing reaction." What
>opposing reaction could there be, for instance, to Fabian Nicieza and his
>staff discussing their plans for the Acclaim revamp? Or to Peter David's
>plans for Supergirl?

Pretty easily, because of the six-week lead time you used in your defence
below. You freely admit that you are nowhere near the fastest source for
news, but instead of using the extra time to do an in-depth look at a
subject, or actually do some reporting, you slack off.

>Location of an article is not necessarily a function of our opinion as to
>its importance--it can be a function of where it fits in page layout.

True enough. However, I look at your page layouts... I know Graphic Design,
there is no possible way you couldn't move more important articles around.

>As I tire of pointing out, WIZARD is not a business magazine and stories
>about disributors are, primarily, business stories.

You are creating a magazine for comics FANS. When FANS can't GET their
COMICS THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. This is _important_. I don't
care if you tire of pointing it out; you can scream that the sky is purple
at the top of your lungs for as long as you want and it doesn't make it
right.

>Alloted space can also be a function of the information available. Once
>it's said that Gaiman is doing a reading tour, with money to go to CBLDF,
>what more is there to say? How much more information is there?

If you have to ask that, then why are you a news reporter? How much more
story is there to Neil Gaiman or the CBLDF? Well, a damn sight more than 2
paragraphs.

>Let's remember something about publishing schedules--WIZARD is a monthly.
>By the time we had the story in print (although we published it as soon as
>we knew about it, there's about a six-week delay between assigning a story
>and it's appearing on the stands), it was really old news in the industry.
>Diamond and DC announced the deal at the very end of our production
>cycle--the Friday before the book closed. Most of the news section was
>already laid out and at the printer--we pulled the last page back and
>squeezed in what we knew of the deal.

Exactly. It was an old story, it wasn't fresh at all, which means you did
have more time to write it. If it's worth printing a story, it's worth
printing it right. If you've got the extra time, use it.

>Again, it's a follow-up story: It doesn't belong on the front page.
>Capital was in litigation; it's lawyers had told them not to say anything.

Industry Reaction. I don't care if the kind of magazine you're producing is
not a business one. At the very least you have a responsibility to let the
fans, the people who look to you for insight, know what kind of effects
this will have on them getting their comics. If you aren't doing that, if
they read an article you publish and are left scratching their heads and
going "huh?" then you have simply failed. There is no way around it.

>NOT an advertorial. I don't work for Giffen or Acclaim. I did the work as
>a reporter working for WIZARD. It IS a news article--the news is the intro
>of a new title at Acclaim by a major creator.

Oh get off the high horse. Monetary transactions are NOT the only
conditions for doing blatent company advertising. You wrote a press release
for PUNX. The only difference is who's name was on your paycheck.

>He didn't pay me for them. I wrote on assignment from WIZARD. I didn't
>even pitch them to WIZARD, the story ideas came from the managing editor.

You wrote three press releases. Again, just because David's or Marvel's
name wasn't on your paycheck doesn't mean that they weren't just blatent
advertising. If we're going to use the word Advertorial then I guess it
doesn't fall into your definition. However, I see absoloutly nothing in
those articles that make them reporting, and everything that makes them
paid ad-space.

>I'm not going to go through your post point-by-point. Suffice to say you
>don't know the meaning of an advertorial, that not every article that
>presents the info on a new project is an advertorial, and that decisions
>on what goes into a magazine and where are determined by more than just
>what you --or I--think is important.

You were doing pretty good there for a while. You don't have to respond
point-by-point, I know I'm right. All of my critisism is valid. I have
never read one hard news article in Wizard and I doubt I ever will, you're
too afraid of rocking the boat. I can not in good conscience call what you
produce a news section, simply because it's all press releases. Not every
article that presents info on new projects is an advertorial, and I did
mention quite a few that weren't. However, a hell of a lot of the ones in
that magazine were.

If it isn't me, a fan and aspiring creator, and it isn't you, the
news-editor of the magazine deciding what's important enough to go in an
issue, then who is the magazine being written FOR? Wizard Staff?

C.


>Best, Pat

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52qvpd$1...@lex.zippo.com>, Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>
writes:

>Not with Jim Shooter. He's been quite vocal, but we haven't heard his


>reaction to Fabian's work. Are you telling me that you wouldn't like to
>hear Shooter's views on this?
>
>

Where have you heard or read Shooter being vocal about current treatment
of characters he's worked on in the past? In my experience, he has the
same attitude towards this as most professionals--he does not speak ill of
his colleagues unless there is good reason, such as personal betrayal or
the like.

>The Valiant relaunch has been announced and solicited for the last 6
months.
>A reaction would have been available.

No, it hasn't. It's been bandied about in the industry gossip--such as
this newsgroup--but it was announced and solicited in July. Before that,
any reaction would have been to rumor and gossip, not to fact. Even now,
it would be reaction only to the descriptions and creative teams
announced, not to the actual work.

>Me. I'm not a long-time reader of Supergirl. I'd have liked to hear their
>reaction on what I gather is a radical departure.

What radical departure? The character has never had an ongoing series
before, has never been more than a supporting character in the Superman
stories (not even appearing as often as, say, Bibbo).

Best, Pat

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Pat O'Neill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:

: >Your article on the Valiant
: >relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
: >failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.

: IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
: and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
: most interest to WIZARD readers.

From what I understand, Priest and Bright were the only major creators not
mentioned. Is this true? If so-- and mind you, I'm not accusing you of
anything-- I can see where their omission might be read as racism.

: >What about those people who aren't on Usenet, Pat?

: There are other outlets for news about comics beside the computer nets and
: boards and WIZARD--CBG, COMBO, FAN, THE COMICS JOURNAL. Each of those
: outlets makes decisions about what to cover and how. Does the NY TIMES
: cover every story the DAILY NEWS does, or vice versa? No...nor should it.

Unfortunately, the NY Times still boasts that it contains "all the news
that's fit to print." If it's got that in its masthead, then presumably
*yes*, it *should* cover every story other papers do, and more.

- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for a copy of the final issue of ()~~
the official Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal; ##
it's free! "Yes, that's right-- fair to all, and no fare to ##
anybody!... Join the expectant crowd, gathering now!" _##_

Johanna Draper

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52td4b$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Me. I'm not a long-time reader of Supergirl. I'd have liked to hear their
>>reaction on what I gather is a radical departure.
>
>What radical departure? The character has never had an ongoing series
>before, has never been more than a supporting character in the Superman
>stories (not even appearing as often as, say, Bibbo).

I've got to assume you're talking solely about the Matrix version, since
I'm sure you know of Supergirl's two pre-Crisis series. Even so, there has
been one special and a four-issue miniseries about this character and a
number of Showcase stories. That's more freestanding coverage than Bibbo's
gotten.

Not to mention that the popular opinion doesn't know that this is a
different version, so talking about how she's different from the previous
would be coverage targeted at a wider group than current fans, and thus a
good thing overall.

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>
>>Your article on the Valiant
>>relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
>>failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.
>
>IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
>and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
>most interest to WIZARD readers.

You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?

>My, my--I was a reporter and an editor, instead of just a ventriloquist
>for Fabian.

Yes, Pat, but you see, the discussion of this thread is whether or not
"Wizard" is any *good* at reporting.

>>What about those people who aren't on Usenet, Pat?
>
>There are other outlets for news about comics beside the computer nets and
>boards and WIZARD--CBG, COMBO, FAN, THE COMICS JOURNAL. Each of those
>outlets makes decisions about what to cover and how. Does the NY TIMES
>cover every story the DAILY NEWS does, or vice versa? No...nor should it.

I bet you there's a *WHOLE* lot of crossover. I also bet the reason they
don't cover most of the stories they don't is that they didn't get them.
If someone bought Boston, I bet the New York Times wouldn't say "Oh,
well, that's a Boston story. We're not here to report about Boston."

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:

>Pat O'Neill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
>: fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>
>: >Your article on the Valiant
>: >relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
>: >failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.
>
>: IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
>: and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
>: most interest to WIZARD readers.
>
>From what I understand, Priest and Bright were the only major creators not
>mentioned. Is this true? If so-- and mind you, I'm not accusing you of
>anything-- I can see where their omission might be read as racism.

The article I saw (which was the article, or one of them, that Pat wrote)
omitted only those two of the people that Valiant was pushing. It also
called Tom Peyer, Tom "Legion of Super-Heroes" Peyer, rather than Tom
"X-Nation 2099" Peyer. Tell me again which project the readers of
"Wizard" are more likely to be familiar with? (Okay, that was cheap, I'm
sorry. But not as cheap as this: the advertising copy for "Strangers in
Paradise" contained in KBAC and LitC quotes "Wizard" as stating "one of
the most well-written comics out there today." "Most well-written?" "Most
well?" *BEST* written. :))

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:

: PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
: >fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
: >
: >>Your article on the Valiant
: >>relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
: >>failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.
: >
: >IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
: >and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
: >most interest to WIZARD readers.

: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who

: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?

Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."

Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.

What Pat seems to be saying is that he feels Brian Augustyn has more name
recognition than Priest. Frankly, I don't know that this can be proven.
Name recognition is, after all, one of the functions of the press, and if
the press doesn't talk about someone then I'm sure it makes it that much
harder for their name to be recognized. Kind of a vicious circle, innit?

David L. Eppley

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
>In article <52qvpd$1...@lex.zippo.com>, Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>
>writes:
>>Me. I'm not a long-time reader of Supergirl. I'd have liked to hear their
>>reaction on what I gather is a radical departure.
>
>What radical departure? The character has never had an ongoing series
>before, has never been more than a supporting character in the Superman
>stories (not even appearing as often as, say, Bibbo).

I guess that series from the 1970's and the one from the 1980's must
be figments of my long boxes. :)

Ask the person on the street who Bibbo is and you'll get a blank stare.
Ask them who Supergirl is and, most likely, they'll know of her.
They may know only of the Pre-Crisis version, but that's something you
play up in your article. Believe it or not, the Pre-Crisis Supergirl
was not the merged consciousness of a shape-shifter and a murderess.

Then again, the new Supergirl isn't wearing a thong bikini and she
doesn't have breasts bigger than Cleavland? That's probably the
real reason she'll never appear in an issue of Wizard. Supergirl
readers are not part of their target market.

-Dave Eppley

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>: >fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>: >
>: >>Your article on the Valiant
>: >>relaunch a few months ago, for instance, mention Brian Augustyn but
>: >>failed to Mention Priest or Doc Bright.
>: >
>: >IOW, I made an editorial/reportorial decision as to which names to mention
>: >and which to leave out, based on my estimation of which ones would be of
>: >most interest to WIZARD readers.
>
>: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
>: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
>: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
>: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
>
>Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
>unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."

Oh, what has he written? (Other than Flash which there is no way anyone
other than people who have talked to Waid would know about. When has
Augustyn's name appeared next to "WRITER" in the credit box?)

>Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.

No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.

Augustyn is tiny to microscopic. (Did he write "Black Condor?" Imagine
that: after reading the Wizard article, I still have no idea what
Augustyn has written :))

Steve De Young

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52td4b$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com
(PatDOneill) wrote:

> What radical departure? The character has never had an ongoing series
> before, has never been more than a supporting character in the Superman
> stories (not even appearing as often as, say, Bibbo).
>

How does that shoe taste, you just stuck your foot in it. This seems
to me like arguing, 'Hey, Superboy's only been around since the Return of
Superman'. But, even assuming you were merely referring to this being a
departure for the current Girl of Steel, having her powers radically
changed, being bonded to a psycho-teen, moving to a new town and getting a
new supporting cast, and having a new slate of villains sorta sounds like
a radical departure to me. And I know _alot_ of fans on Usenet and in RL
who are extremely put off by some of the changes.

--
Visit the Mr. Miracle Homepage! http://shell.idt.net/~sjdy
Steve De Young
sj...@mail.idt.net
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
: >: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
: >: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
: >: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
: >
: >Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
: >unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."

: Oh, what has he written? (Other than Flash which there is no way anyone
: other than people who have talked to Waid would know about. When has
: Augustyn's name appeared next to "WRITER" in the credit box?)

Off the top of my head, FIREBRAND and, as you mention below, BLACK CONDOR,
as well as a Batman story in the current CHRONICLES. He's also done stuff
for SHOWCASE Name-That-Year.

: >Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.

: No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.

: Augustyn is tiny to microscopic. (Did he write "Black Condor?" Imagine
: that: after reading the Wizard article, I still have no idea what
: Augustyn has written :))

Tiny is still not "never," Mike. I understand you were speaking
comparatively, but "not much writing to speak of, in my opinion" might
have been a better way of putting it. Augustyn is known more for his
editing than his writing, but by God he's *still* been a published writer,
okay? I'm sorry, as an aspiring comics writer I guess I have a rather
knee-jerk reaction to this. When my first (and second and third) story
is published I really hope people aren't going to go around saying "Elayne
never wrote anything in her life"...

Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
>: >: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
>: >: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
>: >: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
>: >
>: >Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
>: >unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."
>
>: Oh, what has he written? (Other than Flash which there is no way anyone
>: other than people who have talked to Waid would know about. When has
>: Augustyn's name appeared next to "WRITER" in the credit box?)
>
>Off the top of my head, FIREBRAND and, as you mention below, BLACK CONDOR,
>as well as a Batman story in the current CHRONICLES. He's also done stuff
>for SHOWCASE Name-That-Year.

I haven't read the Showcase or Batman stories, but based on Firbrand and
BC I am comfortable saying that he has still never written a story
despite having been published :)

>: >Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.
>
>: No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.
>
>: Augustyn is tiny to microscopic. (Did he write "Black Condor?" Imagine
>: that: after reading the Wizard article, I still have no idea what
>: Augustyn has written :))
>
>Tiny is still not "never," Mike. I understand you were speaking
>comparatively, but "not much writing to speak of, in my opinion" might
>have been a better way of putting it. Augustyn is known more for his

I think I know how to put things quite well :)

>editing than his writing, but by God he's *still* been a published writer,
>okay? I'm sorry, as an aspiring comics writer I guess I have a rather
>knee-jerk reaction to this. When my first (and second and third) story
>is published I really hope people aren't going to go around saying "Elayne
>never wrote anything in her life"...

Okay, fine, what's written that's been any good?

John Kozempel

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:

>>Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.
>
>No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.

While I have to agree with Mike that Brian Augustyn's "writing career"
doesn't ring any bells for me, the idea of Chuck Dixon's resume being
"small" is kinda laughable.

How did Waid put it? Chuck "prints his own money," I think it was. Really,
anyone who can write 806 books a month hardly has a small resume. Whether
you like his work or not (and I happen to like it), you gotta admit the guys
works his ass off every month.

But yes, to mention Augustyn and not Priest is sacrilege <sp?>. Wizard's
obvious prejudice against editors-who-become-writers-and-change-their-names
rears its ugly head.

--
John 305 Warren Square E - (610)758-0846
Hank "I'll see you in hell, candy-boys!"
Whatever - Homer Simpson
* * http://www.lehigh.edu/~jlk2/jlk2.html * *

Elayne Wechsler-Chaput

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Followups set to racdu.

Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:

: >Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: >: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >: >: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
: >: >: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
: >: >: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
: >: >: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
: >: >
: >: >Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
: >: >unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."
: >
: >: Oh, what has he written? (Other than Flash which there is no way anyone
: >: other than people who have talked to Waid would know about. When has
: >: Augustyn's name appeared next to "WRITER" in the credit box?)
: >
: >Off the top of my head, FIREBRAND and, as you mention below, BLACK CONDOR,
: >as well as a Batman story in the current CHRONICLES. He's also done stuff
: >for SHOWCASE Name-That-Year.

: I haven't read the Showcase or Batman stories, but based on Firbrand and
: BC I am comfortable saying that he has still never written a story
: despite having been published :)

You didn't say "he's never written a story." You said he's a guy "who
never wrote anything in his life." I understand your use of hyperbole,
and note the smileys, but there's still a difference between saying the
guy never wrote a story and the guy never wrote a story *you liked*.

I mean, heck, Mike. Even Rob Liefeld has written stories. Just not any I
have a particular burning desire to *read*...

: >: >Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.

: >
: >: No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.

: >
: >: Augustyn is tiny to microscopic. (Did he write "Black Condor?" Imagine

: >: that: after reading the Wizard article, I still have no idea what
: >: Augustyn has written :))
: >
: >Tiny is still not "never," Mike. I understand you were speaking
: >comparatively, but "not much writing to speak of, in my opinion" might
: >have been a better way of putting it.

: I think I know how to put things quite well :)

Great, you can teach me, so I can stay out of all those racdu flamewars.
I hear tell I'm angry and pissy nowadays. :)

: >Augustyn is known more for his
: >editing than his writing, but by God he's *still* been a published writer,


: >okay? I'm sorry, as an aspiring comics writer I guess I have a rather
: >knee-jerk reaction to this. When my first (and second and third) story
: >is published I really hope people aren't going to go around saying "Elayne
: >never wrote anything in her life"...

: Okay, fine, what's [he] written that's been any good?

To you? I have no idea. My opinion? Well, I liked the Firebrand story
in SHOWCASE quite a bit, more than I liked the actual series. The series
wasn't bad, but it wasn't really my kind of thing. Same thing with BLACK
CONDOR, I couldn't get into the series for whatever reason. I like the
co-scripting he's done on the last couple FLASH issues, especially the
one before the FN crossover. And I think he writes good letter columns
and hilarious e-mail and newsgroup posts. :)

Vorp-El Bunny(TM) - The 3rd El Brother

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who
: >: never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
: >: almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
: >: Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
: >
: >Whoa, Mike. You may not care for Augustyn's writing, but it's a bit
: >unfair to say he "never wrote anything in his life."

: Oh, what has he written? (Other than Flash which there is no way anyone
: other than people who have talked to Waid would know about. When has
: Augustyn's name appeared next to "WRITER" in the credit box?)

Didn't Augustyn write FIREBRAND?


--
\\ \\ |_/ "Chary '96! In your heart, you know Mike's Right." \_|
\\-\\ |_\ "Quip _IS_ a valid word in newswriting!" - Me /_|
( X-X) |_/ *Mugger of Troy McNemar* *Mocker of Chris Bird* \_|
{_^_} -|_\ Liberator of Wheeler's Couches! E-Mail:ho...@syr.edu /_|


Mike Chary

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

John Kozempel <jl...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>
>>>Up against Priest's/Owsley's resume, however, Augustyn's is rather small.
>>
>>No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.
>
>While I have to agree with Mike that Brian Augustyn's "writing career"
>doesn't ring any bells for me, the idea of Chuck Dixon's resume being
>"small" is kinda laughable.

Compared to Priest's? Priest has been writing steadily for almost 20
years. Dixon's writing quite a bit at the moment, but he's going to have
to keep going a while to catch up :)

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52tlai$g...@netnews.upenn.edu>, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu
(Johanna Draper) writes:

>I've got to assume you're talking solely about the Matrix version, since
>I'm sure you know of Supergirl's two pre-Crisis series. Even so, there
has
>been one special and a four-issue miniseries about this character and a
>number of Showcase stories. That's more freestanding coverage than
Bibbo's
>gotten.
>
>Not to mention that the popular opinion doesn't know that this is a
>different version, so talking about how she's different from the previous
>would be coverage targeted at a wider group than current fans, and thus a
>good thing overall.
>
>

Yep--know all that. So? How would any of that make "long-time reader
reaction" to Peter's planned changes mean anything?

Best, Pat

Rich Johnston

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52td4b$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com says...

>
>
>Where have you heard or read Shooter being vocal about current treatment
>of characters he's worked on in the past?

CBG on post-Shooter Valiant.


>No, it hasn't. It's been bandied about in the industry gossip--such as
>this newsgroup--but it was announced and solicited in July.

So the adverts, posters and previews I read before July never existed.
Oh, and Pat, July was three months ago.

BTW is the six weeks lead you mentioned, in the context of a monthly
magazine, mean ten to six weeks, six weeks to two weeks, or is it
in the middle, eight to four weeks?

> Even now,
>it would be reaction only to the descriptions and creative teams
>announced, not to the actual work.

Damn! All those ashcans, those convention previews and the comics in
Previews must also be figments of my overactive imagaination.

>What radical departure? The character has never had an ongoing series
>before, has never been more than a supporting character in the Superman
>stories (not even appearing as often as, say, Bibbo).

Bibbo never got a film.

Rich Johnston <rjoh...@ea.com>

Rich Johnston

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

Rich's Revelations October

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of Rich's Revelations. Back for
afurther episode. Before long, you should be able to get
Rich's Revelations whenever you want, from the new Twist
and Shout Comics Web Page. Mike and I are really going to
designthe page as a service to the comic internet as well as
a plug machine. Okay, on with the column, usual plugs at the
bottom.

Titan has bought Manga Mania, firing everybody. With title
likeManga Mania and X-Files, there must be future for the
companybut no one knows what it is yet. Titan's new line
of licensed mags seems a safe bet, but the quality threshold
isn't asguaranteed.

Look's like Scott's denial of X-plotlines (Revelations passim)
may be off the ball. Accordning to Marvel, Scott is the last
person to know what is happening in the X-Men (maybe the
colourist is kept in wait longer.) So look for deaths galore!

Could Lee and Silvestri be moving in to take over Liefled's
roleif his titles fail to cause the correct impact?

Artists to watch: Dave Ross, on Event's Thrax. Maximum's Pop
Mhan,replacing Salvador LaRocca on Ghost Rider, as LaRocca
joins Ben Raab on Excalibur. Twist and Shout's Mark Stafford.
See below.

Hulk/Pitt: Call Out called out in January, by David and Keown!

We've heard about Tony Lobito's new comapany... but what will
happen to Avengelyne? For Kathy Christian, Avengelyne model and
ex-Vampirella model owns half the character. And she is
Lobito'slady. So will Rob lose one of his more popular
characters?

X-Flies Bug Hunt 1 has been spotlighted Diamond. This is the
first X-Flies with an actual plot. Fresh from their appearance
in Topps' X-Files 20, the X-Flies are brimming with action-
adventure potential. This book is a flip book with Mark
Stafford's "Ain't We Got Fun" taking up the back 6 pages.
There's more Dirtbag, more Bebe Williams' Cyber X-Flies, a
vertitable phasmagorical feast. People are saying my art is
getting a lot better, and I've been getting giggles from
people reading advances.

Tell your retailer to get you a copy, 'cos these things fly
off the shelves otherwise.


Rich Johnston

Johanna Draper

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52unkj$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.com> wrote:
>How would any of that make "long-time reader
>reaction" to Peter's planned changes mean anything?

You keep changing what you're arguing, Pat. The original suggestion was
just that the reader reaction would be an interesting story.

As for meaning, I suggest that the changes between the character
versions of Supergirl reflect the changing nature of the comic audience and
industry.

Aaron S. Veenstra

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to

In article <52thds$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:

> Unfortunately, the NY Times still boasts that it contains "all the news
> that's fit to print." If it's got that in its masthead, then presumably
> *yes*, it *should* cover every story other papers do, and more.

Not that this is on-topic, but are you saying that everything printed is
fit to print?

Aaron

Steve De Young

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

In article <52unkj$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, patdo...@aol.com
(PatDOneill) wrote:

> Yep--know all that. So? How would any of that make "long-time reader


> reaction" to Peter's planned changes mean anything?
>

Because we're more interested in what other fans think than what the
Wizard staff thinks, maybe?

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

In article <52tnp0$j...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:

>You felt that the readers of Wizard would be more interested in a guy who

>never wrote anything in his life than a guy who has been writing for
>almost twenty years (including such low profile projects as Batman and
>Spider-Man.) What was your basis for that particular decision?
>
>

What leads you to believe that Brian Augustyn has never written anything?
And, even so, yes--because the titles Augustyn's been editing are among
the most popular and most-often mentioned among our readership. Look
through the letters pages of WIZARD--a pretty good gauge of our readers'
interests--see Priest's name, or anything he's written, come up?

"If someone bought Boston, I bet the New York Times wouldn't say "Oh,
well, that's a Boston story. We're not here to report about Boston." "

The Times wouldn't--but the News would. That's my point.

Best, Pat


PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

In article <52tqju$p...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:

>Name recognition is, after all, one of the functions of the press, and if
>the press doesn't talk about someone then I'm sure it makes it that much
>harder for their name to be recognized.

Name recognition is also a function of the person working on projects that
leave people talking. Priest may have a long career (actually a lot of it
is under the name Owsley, which may be why readers are confused as well),
but his projects have not generally generated word-of-mouth, either
positive or negative. In my impression, Priest's work simply exists--it
sells moderately well, but it garners no excitement in the fan community.

Best, Pat

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

In article <52tumd$o...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:

>No. Chuck Dixon's is rather small. Peyer's is rather small.
>

>Augustyn is tiny to microscopic. (Did he write "Black Condor?" Imagine
>that: after reading the Wizard article, I still have no idea what
>Augustyn has written :))
>
>

Tell me this, Mike. If Valiant had hired Julius Schwartz to write one of
its revamped titles, would you feel the same way had I included him and
left out Priest? After all, Schwartz has to his name--as I recall--exactly
one writing credit, some 45 years ago, I think.

But his reputation in other fields of endeavor makes his participation
notable, right?

So why not with Augustyn?

[Not that I'm comparing Augustyn's editing skills or career with
Schwartz's, mind you: It's just that both are well-known names in the
industry who share the unusual circumstance of being editors without
lengthy resumes as writers or artists.]

Best, Pat

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

In article <52thds$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:

>From what I understand, Priest and Bright were the only major creators
not
>mentioned. Is this true? If so-- and mind you, I'm not accusing you of
>anything-- I can see where their omission might be read as racism.
>
>

Maybe--if I knew Mark Bright was black--which I didn't until you just told
me.

I had X number of words and had to make editorial/reportorial judgments as
to which names to mention--I decided Priest and Bright were the ones least
likely to intrigue our readers. Why? As I recall, it was because all the
others had major projects currently in the works that I could use to
signify them to the reader.

BTW, I also left Len Kaminski out of the list as I recall. And Len's a
friend/acquaintance--we used to live one floor away from each other in the
same apartment building in Brooklyn.

Best, Pat

PatDOneill

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96