Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Do Comic Creators Need Security? Sure...Not From Me, Though

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

I know I've already dealt with what Valerie is doing in her column that was largely a vehicle to label me a scary stalker.

But some of the people over there are being just as nonsensical.

I can get the idea that it might be smart to have more security around comic book creators. For instance, at panels where everyone attending knows where a creator is going to be ahead of time, I've never seen any security at NYCC or Wizard World Chicago. If lucky, there's a sound guy at the back of the room to record the event for posterity, which could involve physical harm coming to the creator for all that's worth.

But the idea that anyone expressing dissatisfaction with a creator for any reason is a potential violent stalker is ridiculous. Faur points to someone by the name of kelvingreen commenting on Paul O'Brien's blog, indicating that he doubts that Bendis planned out the Secret Invasion stuff as long ago as he says (he's wrong, of course) and is annoying in his attempt to be cute by calling the New Avengers the NOT Avengers (get it? because they're...never mind).

But nothing I've read there ever boils over into anger or hate, even. He seems to just think that Bendis is an over-rated hack, to some extent. While I might not agree with that, I don't think it is cause for a restraining order, either.

There are FAAAAAAAAAAAAR better examples of why creators might need or desire security. I get why Val didn't use any...because she just wants to find a way to attack me without making it crystal clear that it's a response to all my criticism of her blog. But others?

Does no one remember the few extreme members of H.E.A.T. that allegedly sent death threats to Ron Marz and Kevin Dooley? Did no one pick up on any of the threatening statements made about Quesada after One More Day? People were saying that they wished acid was used in the dunk tank he participated in instead of water.

There are plenty of decent examples to use in making a pro-security argument. None involve reporting a potential violation or thinking less of a creator you like.


  1. I’d be interested in seeing why you think Bendis isn’t an overrated hack, given the problems with his “Avengers” stories. If you read the stories for plot content and writing techniques, you might have noticed that his writing has grammatical errors that rarely, if ever, occur in commercial fiction published elsewhere, and he mishandles scientific topics (see MIGHTY AVENGERS) so consistently that he could be described as scientifically illiterate. Now, Brevoort and his assistants can be blamed for letting stories be published with those errors present, but a professional writer shouldn’t have made the various mistakes anyway. If you want an informal list of Bendis’s various mistakes over the years, do a Google search on “Stahl,” “Bendis,” “Avengers,” and “SRS.”


  2. See, calling his New Avengers stories hack jobs is different from calling him a hack in general. I'm not saying I exactly agree with the former, even...but there's a distinct difference.

    I've read Torso and...what was it...Fame and Glory? Power & Glory? I could find the copy or Google for it, but eh. They were both very enjoyable in different ways. I know Andreyko was on Torso, too...but there are many other Bendis comics I've enjoyed.

    In fairness, I've probably been guilty of calling Bruce Jones a hack, even though I've never read one of his prose novels.

    My point, though, wasn't to discuss the merits of kelvingreen calling Bendis a hack...but that even in doing so, he's no threat to a creator's safey.

  3. "Scientifically illiterate." Now THERE'S a valid criticism.

    Personally, I demand the utmost realism in my superhero comics. When they show red kryptonite taking away the alien's ability to fly and talk in outer space, I demand accuracy.

    You cant allow that shit to be mishandled by scinetific illiterates. It's just wrong.

  4. Holy shit! Duckula chimes in and goes after someone other than Kevin. A new day dawns! :D

  5. LOL! Duckula that was gold man!

  6. I have to totally disagree... a LARGE chunk of excellent writers I have worked with in the publishing world are NOTORIOUS for grammatical errors. It's the editor's job to fix them. Bar none. You also have to consider that many grammatical errors are results of typos... not because the writer does not know the rules of grammer (or spelling).

    Also when it comes to scientific topics... if you can suspend your belief when it comes to things like I guy being bitten by a radioactive spider or a guy not being ripped to shreds by a gamma explosion... well... what's so hard about the stuff that Bendis comes up with? What examples do you have to show his "scientific illiteratcy"?

    I'm not a huge Bendis fan or a Bendis hater. I like some of his work and dislike other parts of it. I DO think he was a bit of a tool in his online "arguement" with Gail Simone a few weeks back... especially since he reacted so heavily to Morrison's smack talk after years of sitting side by side with the KING of arrogant smack talk in Joe Qusada.

  7. In the case of Bendis’s scientific illiteracy, examples are Pym’s mistaken reference to Newton’s Third Law of Motion in HOUSE OF M #8, the mishandling of electromagnetic pulses in NA #23 and MIGHTY AVENGERS, the botched treatment of the (nonfunctional) computer virus in MA #6, the inaccurate depiction of launch control centers in MA #5 and #6, the botched treatment of virology in MA #8, etc. If you’ll look at his issues of NA and MA, you’ll find that whenever he uses technical terms, he uses them incorrectly, as well as generating nonsensical phrases such as “homeopathic enchantment spells” (NA #28), “biological reverse engineering” (MA #6), “counteragent antibiotic antidote” (MA #8) and “backwards code it” (MA #8). If Bendis wants to use real-world plot elements in stories, he has an obligation to use them correctly.

    If anyone wants further evidence, do some research online.


  8. Steve,

    I took a look and googled the words you suggested and found some interesting stuff.

    Ok, you have presented some pretty good evidence, so I'll nod in your direction that you seem to be correct in your assertation that Bendis might be... shall we say... "scientifically challenged".

    However, as I said before... I do manged to work up a decent amount of lee-way for this sort of things... seeing as how I need to suspend my disbelief anyway.

    I enjoy Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man more than any of his other work. I do like the fact that my three favorite Marvel characters are in New Avengers (Spidey, Luke Cage and Iron Fist).

    I can take or leave the rest.

    I can understand you feeling so strongley about the situation... sometimes a particular creator (artist or writer) just sticks in your craw... like Qusada does with me.


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.