Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Brand New Slott

Back in March, Dan Slott said the following over on Spider-Man Crawlspace:

On a personal note, I want to profusely thank jeffgamer for his support around the net. Back in December, jeffgamer's internet-wide dissent of OMD got the notice of NEW YORK POST writer Dareh Gregorian, who wrote an online piece about it: "Spidey Swings". http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292007/news/nationalnews/spidey_swings__153114.htm The article even wrapped up with a quote by jeffgamer: "jeffgamer, wrote: 'The Spider-Man I've loved and read about for 34 years is dead now. No matter how well written or well drawn what comes next may or may not be, it is being built upon the corpse of something that I, and many other readers, cared about deeply.'" That put this phenomenon on Mr. Gregorian's radar. And on January 7th, Mr. Gregorian wrote a follow up story which appeared on PAGE 3 of the actual NEW YORK POST, "Spidey's Smooch Scandal", which showcased the cover to the first BND issue, #546, and plugged it two days before its release! You can't BUY publicity like that! The next day USA TODAY, the wire, and, in turn, local papers around the country picked up the story. The USA TODAY piece was what caught the attention of Howard Stern. The buzz from there grew and led to BND stories on ABC, CBS, CNN, NEWSWEEK, and local evening news shows around the country. So to jeffgamer I say "THANK YOU!". You might just be the butterfly who flapped his wings on the internet, caused a hurricane in the real world, and gave ASM #546 the attention it needed to spike and reach the #1 spot in January! You might just be the guy who brought new readers in off the street, helped major retail chains sell out, and made us go back to press for a second printing on #546! Keep up the good work!

After some negative reactions from posters on the board (which really wasn't worse than anything Joe Quesada used to say on New Joe Fridays), he followed it up a week later by deleting that message and replacing it with the following:

It's been pointed out to me how "snarky" my original post sounded. And if that's the case, then I'm sorry. At the same time, I'd also ask for a little understanding and for you to try to imagine how things look from this side of the equation. After a few months of being on a book like ASM , I'm starting to understand how this works. Passions are always going to run high with fans-- both for & against. Here on the internet it can get pretty vocal. And in the past, I've seen myself as a fan too-- able to spout off just as much as any of you guys. I think I get it now-- that's NOT the case. I get paid to do this. I get the privilege of working in this industry. And part of being a "professional" is that you have to act like one. You guys can say whatever you want and goof up from time to time-- and no one's going to shine a light on it. The trade off is-- I don't get to do that anymore. I think I can live with that. So again... Sorry for being a little too "human" back there. It won't happen again. In the future, when posting here and around the net, I'll strive to take a more professional attitude-- one that you, as consumers, deserve from the people whose work you support.
In another thread on that board, he doesn't seem to deal well with a BND colleague getting praise where he isn't receiving the same:


Seriously? If you liked Zeb's issues of ASM (which kicked much ass), something to keep in mind, was that Zeb got to play with BND when all the pieces on the board were already set up.

Funny that backhanded compliment thing there. Or, if you prefer, trying to make an excuse as for why people might think Zeb's arc kicked more
ass. There is the fact that, from what I'm aware of, the arc didn't really have anything that would make it stand out as being a BRAND NEW DAY story versus a plain ol' Spidey story.

Shame that Zeb wound up off the book and never seemed to have been highlight in the promotions for BRAND NEW DAY as much as the others involved in the book.

I think that comment came before Slott's epiphany about watching his words over the internet. Of course, I have documented irrational behavior from him directed at me after his supposedly coming to the understanding of how a professional is supposed to act. Professional or not, he does slyly try to invite people from that board to come over to his spot on 606studios.com (where he can, you know, delete or edit anything he doesn't like).

This ain't exactly bitching and moaning with fans, but it's a bit unprofessional to try to defend your own work from poor reviews that you suggest came from people just flipping through in the store and then slide a few digs in at a competitor's book and the creators involved.

From his message board on 606studios.com:

Thought for the day...

Reading a comic in the store is like trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at Blockbusters. Reading a comic in the store on Comic Day is like trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at a crowded and noisy Blockbusters. Reading a comic in the store when the store owner or manager is there... (Because you KNOW they don't like you doing it. And NO, you're not their favorite customer that they have a "special relationship" with. And No, they're not cool with it. That's an urban myth. Like your girlfriend from... Canada.) ...well, reading it like that means that you're reading it as quickly as humanly possible. Wonderful. Now you're the guy who's not only trying to watch an entire movie on the display monitor at Blockbusters, you're also the guy who's flipped open the control panel, hit the FAST FORWARD button and is watching that movie at 16X speed. Awesome. I'm sure you're totally following the plot, the snappy dialogue, and all of the extra little touches. Meanwhile... On the same trip, you've purchased a copy of ALL-STAR SUPERMAN #whenever-Grant-Morrison-and-Frank-Quitely-felt-like-finishing-it. But with this book you've cradled it in your arms all the way home, read it in your Queen Anne chair in front of a roaring fire, and all while enjoying your snifter of port. Jeepers, I really wonder which comic you're going to like more?
Yeah...people enjoy someone else's work more than yours because of the ambiance. Right.

I've heard about a little bit that will be appearing on the last page of tomorrow's Amazing Spider-Man. It comes off as a dig at JMS's recounting of how Quesada said OMD made sense (it's magic), from what my sources say. This points out that either the full script went in after a certain date or scripting was done after the finished art.

That's important because I thought for a second the following panel was taken from my interaction with Slott...then I said, "nah...the script had to have been in long before that!" Maybe not...

That's something that was expressed to me by Dan several times. Like when he was stalking me for a phone call and I indicated I'd only call him if I could record it and put it up on the blog (because he was trying to twist anything he could to attack Newsarama at the time and continues to try to twist facts in any argument). But maybe there are other people he had a mad-on for that he said the same to...given how far gone he was for a month or so there.

54 comments:

  1. You know, the more I read of internet Slott, the more I don't care to read his published work. He's an American version of Warren Ellis. I bought his She-Hulk run in the trades around Christmas, and thought they were a blast. But his Initiative and other odds and ends left me going "meh"

    And Zeb Wells has always been a treat with Spidey. His two part arc with Jim Mahfood on PP:SM was one of the funniest two parters I've read, and his later work on that title to finish off the series was good, clean Spidey fun.

    Slott can say whatever he wants online, I don't care. Just don't get upset when your snarkiness doesn't have people running to kiss your ass or someone calls you on it. Does no one remember Chuck Austen?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow...just wow. Get over it Huxford!

    You are the one stalking Slott. You go from board to board checking his posts? You have stuff cited from 6-7 months ago!

    And then you think that a line in his comic is about you??? Hahahahaha! I am more likely to be in a Slott comic than you! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Slott is kind of a baby, I don't think that can be denied. I remember when Brevoort gave him a public dressing down in a Newsarama interview a while back. While that's a horribly unprofessional thing to do, he did basically make it sound like Slott was a flake.

    All that said, Mr. Huxford here is probably being more than a little OCD about the whole thing. I doubt very much that Spidey was referring to him. Actually, judging without foreknowledge on the scene here, I would say that Spidey saying something like that would amount to basically a stock line. An internet age variation on the "I wouldn't want to give so-and-so the free publicity."

    Just my two cents anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frag: Your math is terrible. BND debuted in January and I had my initial run-in with Slott in late January. Four months...refreshed by the dust-up I had with him in late March when he deleted my favorable posts from his forum and got my Bendis Board account banned because he didn't trust my pledge to stay out of his forum (made as soon as I saw him start to delete my posts).

    And Frag? He has more of a chance at including an allusion to someone that is on his radar for a negative reason than someone he doesn't even know exists.

    Anonymous: it isn't an OCD thing. I'm not saying it was definitely something that sprung to his mind due to our internet jousting. This is just something that struck me as possible, then I dismissed due to turn around times on scripts, only to think was possible again when he slipped his JMS dig into tomorrow's issue.

    I honestly wouldn't have even brought this up if not for what is coming in the next issue (or if I even just had a scan of that page to blog about directly right now).

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's next? Are you going to correct my grammar?

    That was my point, that Slott wouldn't add you to a comic. You aren't on his radar dude. He couldn't give two shits about you. It's time to realize that you aren't as important as you think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would like to point out that Tony Bedard named the President of Lallor "President Khuxford" during his run on "Legion of Super-Heroes". That's not a coincidence.

    It's entirely possible that the joke in Spidey fits both purposes. Slott could have included it for the comment that it is, but probably also got a personal laugh out of it for the same reasons that Kevin notes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frag: I'm sorry, next time I'll just let you exaggerate things way past the reality of the situation. Correcting you from 6-7 months down to less than 4 isn't the same as calling out your grammar.

    You have an odd idea of what being off someone's radar is. Slott created a thread all about his arguments with me (where he wouldn't name me, since he [gasp] didn't want to bring attention [i.e. hits] to my blog).

    You can argue that his dialog there had nothing to do with our squabble, but you'll lose any argument that I wasn't on his radar when that would have been scripted. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Honestly, I just don't know what else to say. You are obsessed with Dan Slott. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah...that's it. I'm obsessed.

    Or it could be that someone e-mailed me about his behavior on Spider-Man Crawlspace last week but I resisted blogging about it. Then someone with a snail-mail subscription to Amazing IMed me to tell me about the last page dig and I decided, "what the heck, I'll blog about both now!"

    You know...it could really be either one of those things. But you're probably right, because you're an unbiased source with such keen insight into my thought processes, Frag. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous: it isn't an OCD thing. I'm not saying it was definitely something that sprung to his mind due to our internet jousting. This is just something that struck me as possible, then I dismissed due to turn around times on scripts, only to think was possible again when he slipped his JMS dig into tomorrow's issue.


    It's not outrageously implausible, I imagine if you have to write dialogue, you will remember certain things you said or someone else said that you personally liked and look for somewhere to slide it into a character's convo. I confess that I don't know what the JMS thing has to do with you and Dan Slott's rivalry. I am not even sure if it is mean-spirited in any way, to be honest.
    I would have to read the rest of the issue to see if there is any context, which I more than likely won't do. I haven't much cared about Spidey in a long time, and Dan Slott is not one of my favorite writers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you write a huge post on those two topics and feel the need to chronicle the history of Dan Slott?

    You go back to January to dig up some of his old posts but that isn't obsession?

    You talk about being added to a panel that has nothing to do with you.

    You don't see any problems with this? What percentage of your posts are about or mention Dan Slott? Either you are obsessed with him or you know that is what most people want to read on your blog.

    If the latter is the reason, then I applaud you because you are smarter than I give you credit for. If it's the former, that's sad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon: Wait...sorry...I think I gave the wrong impression by bringing up the JMS thing.

    Any dig at JMS has nothing to do with any slipping in a line that might have anything to do with Slott's beef with me.

    What the JMS dig did, though, was make me realize that he had to have scripted the dialog sometime after mid-January. If he was able to script that in, then it is possible that he scripted the dialog to last issue recently enough for our brouhaha to have inspired it slightly.

    Bringing up JMS was only about the timing of the production making it plausible that the dialog could have been inspired by our fight.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Frag, what Dan Slott post did I bring up from January? I bring up March and May posts. Really, man, if you want to troll me, at least pay proper attention. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. You brought up your "dust up" from January.

    Now respond. Are you doing this for the hits?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frag: you said I dug up old posts from January. Don't try to pretend like you were paying attention now. And all I refer to from anything I discussed with Slott in late January/early February (the recorded call talk was via e-mail) is in reference to the line of dialog from an issue that hit the stands 5/14/08.

    And I'm not going to answer a question that is tantamount to asking someone if they still beat their wife.

    PS - I'm flattered by all of your attention, Frag...it's almost as if you are obsessed...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And I'm not going to answer a question that is tantamount to asking someone if they still beat their wife."

    Well that's my answer right there. This was all a ratings ploy. Bravo Hux.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Casual observer guy says- I like Slott's work but I think it's incredibly stupid of him to A)get in an internet slapfight with you (i'm embarrassed by his fanboyness) and B) make a backhanded comment against one of his peers. As for the line in Spidey i don't think it was pointed at you, it was a byproduct of having a villain based on the internet- I'd say its more likely he based the whole character on you- Must be the Huxford Luck- oh and far as the video reviews go try writing them, your way too incoherent live. Digging the countdown rants too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I bet you Frag It is Dan Slott.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, I'm much better looking. ;)

    I'd like to add Dan Slott to my list of aliases. I've been called Joe Quesada and David Mack before.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The irony is that I never would have found this blog if it were not for Dan Slott.

    I read Slott's rant against Kevin, though I had no idea who he was ranting against. I did a google blog search on Dan Slott and voila. I've been checking in here every so often ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Heh...I guess I owe him thanks for that, Azor.

    But, then again, there were people asking for Dan to give them a list of bad bloggers so they could go on the attack for him in order to let him relax and work, I probably have gotten more anonymous naysayers from his rant than casual readers. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon: Wait...sorry...I think I gave the wrong impression by bringing up the JMS thing.

    Any dig at JMS has nothing to do with any slipping in a line that might have anything to do with Slott's beef with me.

    What the JMS dig did, though, was make me realize that he had to have scripted the dialog sometime after mid-January. If he was able to script that in, then it is possible that he scripted the dialog to last issue recently enough for our brouhaha to have inspired it slightly.

    Bringing up JMS was only about the timing of the production making it plausible that the dialog could have been inspired by our fight.


    OK, that actually makes sense, perhaps this calls for an experiment. If his writing was influenced by you guys' dustup, you should try to see what else you can make him do.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And I'm not going to answer a question that is tantamount to asking someone if they still beat their wife.

    talk about twisting someone's words. oh, and if you respond to this post, it's tantamount to you admitting that you once kidnapped a human baby, sacrificed it to the devil, used the magic powers given in exchange for the sacrifice to kill whales, taken the whale fat and used it to set fire to vintage care bears. and then spit on the ashes.

    Funny how you equate blogwhoring with spousal/significant other abuse. Guilty of one, maybe guilty of both?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'll explain this to anonymous, slowly, so that Kevin doesn't have to kill a baby.

    Kevin's not equating a situation to wife-beating. He's talking about the thing known in journalism as "the wife beating question".

    What that means is that if someone were to ask, "Senator, do you still beat your wife?", then there is no presupposition of the ability to answer simply "Yes" or "No". It's a sucker's bet, an interrogative gambit that nearly guarantees a controversial response.

    Perhaps a comics equivalent would be, "Adam Kubert, did you plan to totally wreck the Action Comics shipping schedule, or were you just lazy?" Mind you, I'm not asking that question, I'm just using it as possible example.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey Troy,

    My question wasn't like that though.

    I just asked him if he posts about Dan Slott to increase hits on his page. It doesn't really need to be a yes or no answer. Hux never really answers questions like that anyway.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. frag it: I just asked him if he posts about Dan Slott to increase hits on his page.

    Actually, before you asked that question you framed it with this gem:

    frag it: Either you are obsessed with him or you know that is what most people want to read on your blog. If the latter is the reason, then I applaud you because you are smarter than I give you credit for. If it's the former, that's sad.

    Now taking that into account it the subsequent question implies that were he to say no, it's not for the hits you'll come back with the "Well then you're obsessed." I think that was what Troy was trying to get at. Meanwhile anonymous' response seems to imply that he should have answered regardless of how the question was framed. I don't think I can agree with that given the framing of the scenario by fragit, but I do tend to agree with anonymous' hypothesis that no matter what the answer was it wasn't going to change anyone's opinion.

    Now had fragit not used that "either / or" statement before asking the question I would think he would have a valid point about Kevin not answering. Now personally I think there's a false assumption in fragit's declaration that the reason can only be one or the other, but that's a different debate.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yeah...JamesF and Troy got it. Frag, of course, is still a disingenuous ass, pretending to not understand that I'm referring to how he originally asked the question...not how he phrased it when he said "Now respond". If I answered it when he shortened it to just the "are you doing it for hits", I guarantee he would have said, "so then you're admitting that you're obsessed," or something similar.

    I'm deleting the last anonymous post, because it is mostly filled with personal attacks (not only aimed at me) and has very little to do with the discussion here. What it does have to do with the discussion is kind of rendered moot by JamesF here pointing out the aspects of the question that Frag and Anony were ignoring.

    ReplyDelete
  29. or because it pointed out in detail how the question was not what Troy said it was, and how it was no different than the style of question you prefer to ask.

    Personal attacks were in response to personal attacks (it's ok to attack someone who's anonymous, but not a non anon who's attacking them?)

    But no, keep deleting everyone that disagrees with you, or insisting that everyone that doesn't is an ass, is twisting your words or is secretly Dan Slott.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Yeah...JamesF and Troy got it. Frag, of course, is still a disingenuous ass, pretending to not understand that I'm referring to how he originally asked the question...not how he phrased it when he said "Now respond". If I answered it when he shortened it to just the "are you doing it for hits", I guarantee he would have said, "so then you're admitting that you're obsessed," or something similar."

    Ok, so now answer the question as I reword it. Do you post about Dan Slott so often because you know it brings more hits to your blog?

    I love the namecalling by the way. It makes you look great.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ummm...Anony...are you paying that little attention? JamesF pointed out exactly how Frag's question WAS the old "do you still beat your wife" question. He made it so I had to choose ratings or Slott obsession...then tried to slyly push for me just to answer whether it was the ratings, so he could take my denial as meaning I'm Slott obsessed. The guy took my refusal to answer as confirmation that I do it for the ratings...so it isn't a leap.

    But no, keep deleting everyone that disagrees with you, or insisting that everyone that doesn't is an ass, is twisting your words or is secretly Dan Slott.

    I think you fucked up somewhere in that sentence, but I know what you meant to say.

    I made no claim of anyone here secretly being Dan Slott, Anony

    And really, could you consider even coming up with a consistent fake name so you can at least be differentiated from the other Anonys?

    There's really no need to answer your accusation that I delete posts from everyone who disagrees with me or thinks I'm an ass. One only has to look at how many posts from you and Frag are still up here...or the posts on the DMZ blog...to come to the only reasonable conclusion on that. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. No, I don't, Frag. When is the last time I actually did a blog about Slott?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "No, I don't, Frag. When is the last time I actually did a blog about Slott?"

    I'll take your word on the answer, but if you click on the "Dan Slott" label, there are 15 blog posts that come up. You have only had this blog for 14 weeks. That's more than 1 per week.

    Let's say that some of those blogs aren't directly about Slott, which they aren't. Counting them, I think 10 of them are. That means in 14 weeks of blogging, you have posted about Slott more than once every 2 weeks. That's why I was asking.

    As for when you last posted about him directly, was on March 27.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah, Frag...if you just want to average it out, you can see it as being a lot.

    But when you group them up around when they occurred, it shows that they sprouted out of what was going on. If it was for ratings, there wouldn't have been such a gap between posts. Same goes for if it was an obsession.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Last blog post about Slott? Uhm... this one?

    ReplyDelete
  36. How do I know your ratings haven't been down since then? It is sweeps week. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anony: you can't possibly be that stupid. ;)

    Frag: Actually, there was a lull after my ratings-driving Mr. Anonymous spoilers...but they started picking back up again a few weeks before this blog. Tune in tomorrow, though, where I blog while doing a water-ski jump over a shark. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  38. stupid? seems accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anony: if you insist...that is a perfectly accurate level of stupidity to attribute to you. :D

    ReplyDelete
  40. Has anyone considered that that line (the magic one) was NOT from Slott, but was placed in there by the Editor or even by Joe Q himself who has placed lines in books before (ie: One More Day)?

    Just a thought.

    I do agree that Dan Slott comes across WAY too fanboyish. I eqaute the situation to a professional ballplayer who should always be more professional and stay away from comments like "that team stinks and we're going to sweep them and kick their asses".

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rocky, Quesada was the artist/co-plotter on OMD...so him contributing there is a little more understandable. It is possible, though, that editorial kind of fed the situation to him.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I really don't think it's a swipe at JMS. If anything it's a little nudge nudge wink wink joke.

    Let's not forget that JMS hated the idea and wanted his name pulled. Why would they make fun of him then?

    You are reading too much into this.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Frag: The whole "it's magic" deal about explaining only existed previously in the JMS letter to Newsarama about OMD. So, using it only serves to bring up JMS's reaction. Agree or disagree, it isn't much of a stretch to think it is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  44. No I don't think it's a stretch. But I think it's more of a joke for internet fans to laugh at, not a dig at anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh...OK...gotcha. I think that's fair.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Man, I don't check in for a day and Kevin and frag seem to have come to a civil conclusion of their disagreement. I'm stunned, and not because I think either of you are inherently incapable of it, but rather because this is the internet. Seriously, how often do two people that disagree come to some type of agree to disagree resolution (can you tell I read the newsarama forums too much). This makes me think there might yet be hope for humanity.

    frag it: How do I know your ratings haven't been down since then? It is sweeps week. ;)

    Ok, say what you want, but that was pretty damn funny.

    frag it: I really don't think it's a swipe at JMS. If anything it's a little nudge nudge wink wink joke.

    I'm in complete agreement. Seems like more of look how clever we can be by inserting a commentary on our story with the story itself. If I was cynical I would guess it was probably meant to try and assist in diffusing the situation by poking fun at it themselves. I have to admit that if that's the reason they did it then it was a really good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  47. frag it: How do I know your ratings haven't been down since then? It is sweeps week. ;)

    Ok, say what you want, but that was pretty damn funny.


    Heh...it certainly was. :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. This is awesome. Let's sing "We Are the World" now. I call the Springsteen part.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Maybe if I keep talking about him in my stupid blog, Dan Slott will notice me! I know we could be friends if he'd just give me a chance...maybe he'd even write me into a comic book!

    In case you dont understand sarcasm, Im saying KHUXFORD IS GAY FOR DAN SLOTT. HE WANTS TO HAVE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.

    quack

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hey, Genius Above Me,

    Dan Slott first fell in love with Huxford during the Marc Guggenheim debacle. Huxford doesn't have to ask for all 400 lbs. of Slott's attention. He has it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Actually, Slott was asking me to call him in the wee hours of the morning before the Guggenheim debacle.

    ReplyDelete

It is preferred that you sign some sort of name to your posts, rather than remain completely anonymous. Even if it is just an internet nickname/alias, it makes it easier to get to know the people that post here. I hope you all will give it some consideration. Thank you.