WGBGB: Val's House Has No Mirrors?

(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.)

Wow. Now this is ridiculous. OK, it passed that point long ago. Now that Val has put all comments into moderation, she's actually going on a crusade against me.

She used my CIVIL DISCUSSION with Marc Guggenheim (one that he didn't express having a problem with at all) where I reported him to the WGA and equates it to the possibility of comic fans stalking and/or physically harming comic book professionals.

You know...taking Guggenheim's own public words on the same message board we were having the conversation on and then debate him on it...that's just like a stalker.

When called on it, here are the examples she gave in order to try to justify the extreme she was taking it to:

Example 1:

I find the fact that Kevin Huxford got involved with the personal life of a comic book professional absolutely chilling.

This is the same person who wrote on my blog alleged personal details of another freelancer's life. Ugly stuff, and rather sexist.

There seems to be a pattern, here.

These are things that are scary and cross the line. It is the job of moderators on boards and blogs to monitor this behavior.

These are the things that make me research security options for conventions and libel laws governing the Internet, and I feel 100% comfortable doing so.

The fact that I had to even say the previous sentence pretty much sums it all up.

Sub-topic closed.

By the way: she doesn't allow any comments from me on her page, while she continues (from the Devin Grayson thing) to try to smear my name through the mud.

Example 2:

Juan, say you run into somebody in your community and you two have a discussion about community policy or recycling or whatever. The other person violently disagrees with you, and insists that you admit he is right.

When you do not admit that he is right, he secretly follows you home and goes through your garbage to see if you were recycling properly or if your lawn adhered to the community codes. When he found something to pin on you, he goes to the sanitation department or the community board and reports you.

Now, the worst that could happen in this instance is that you would pay a fine. Certainly not on the level of "Taxi Driver," right?

But who does something like that to a stranger who happened to not share the same views as himself? What is the mental process behind a such a decision?

I've disagreed with you on this board before, Juan, but I do not go online looking for dirt on you to get you in some sort of trouble as the result of our online disagreement. It would never occur to me as something that people do.

And when things go from "conversation about comics" to "contacting the IRS or employer or WGA or whatever," when the fan in question is now an element in this freelancer's personal life -- there is a serious problem.

And in that case, the moderator of the board should have stepped in as soon as those things were mentioned.

Oh, now she's continuing the slamming of Newsarama that she claims she's not doing. For the record, people did step up as soon as they were aware of it (the reporting to WGA). That's part of how I realized my actions were causing problems for others and then decided to now PUBLICLY leave Newsarama (as I had already cut ties before that) and ShotgunReviews.

Example 3:

And I must say, this moderation feature is awesome!

Oh...I personally take that as her glee in deleting my one attempted post to call her on the twist and any others she might have deleted.

Example 4:

Juan,

A fan contacting someplace related to a freelancer's job or other related personal life issues -- no matter what the circumstances -- is crossing the line.

It's not motivated by a positive impulse. It seems to be more motivated from wanting to make an impact on this public figure's life -- and, in that way, becoming a public figure himself.

And it worked, didn't it?

And now we get to what she really thinks is going on, eh?

I didn't do this to create a name for myself. When I quit Newsarama and Shotgun, I had no idea what else I was going to do. I had just recently started blogging more at Shotgun (a site I miss being a part of). I knew I'd continue reviewing books on my own, because I believed a majority of the views I received on YouTube were still going to be there. I didn't expect any kind of bump from what happened...not positive, anyway. When Rich covered it, I was just glad that there'd be enough attention to insure that no one blamed Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield for anything I said or did.

I haven't actually become much of a public figure. I have a blog. A BLOG. Do THAT many people know my name? Please.

The accusation is extremely ironic, given that it is coming from you, the woman who made herself a public figure by savaging DC Comics due to what she perceived as misogyny with their books and stories of a ripped vagina. If only you had worked at Marvel Comics when it was a boys club (as Gail Simone described it), your fame would be due to savaging Marvel...and your ripped vagina.

You do understand that telling the world about what you perceive to be an environment that encouraged misogyny is impacting the personal lives of multiple people there? Just because you see a faceless target of a corporation doesn't mean that there are no faces behind it to be impacted. And when you keep it anonymous, you cause rampant speculation where even the innocent are thought to be guilty.

That ignores the point that it seems more likely that your difficulties at DC were caused by your incompetency, when you, an ex-DC assistant editor, couldn't tell the difference between Jefferson Pierce and John Henry Irons, despite the book referring to the character by name several times.

There's the additional irony that you deciding to try to drag me through the mud with your exaggerations is just serving to extend what ever 15 minutes of fame I might have gotten from having that talk with Guggenheim.

And to think...when you didn't agree with my comments on Devin Grayson (which weren't nearly as bad as you tried to make them out to be), you cautioned me to fear legal repercussions. I guess that's because she's a public figure and I'm not a...wait a minute. ;)

Not To Be A Naysayer...

A lot of hay is being made out of May 2012 outperforming May 2011 by about 40% in comic sales.

May 2011? Four Wednesdays.
May 2012? Five Wednesdays.

May 2011? Fear Itself (built off of Captain America & Thor) and Flashpoint, two underwhelming and underperforming "events in name only".
May 2012? Sure, the renewed DC...but, also, the bi-weekly shipping AvX event, plus a fight book spinoff.

Are we really thrilled by a 40% jump, when nearly 20% should have simply come from the calendar (5th week) and a good deal of the rest seems to come from the "let them eat cake" event from Marvel and the remnants of DC's "hail mary" relaunch?

The Avengers Movie For Kirby Fans

There's a lot of talk about boycotting The Avengers movie by comic book fans, out of respect for how Jack THE KING Kirby wasn't treated/compensated/credited fairly by Marvel.

Let's all be honest with each other...

Comic book fans are a small subset of the audience for this movie.
Fans that have declared they will boycott are a small subset of that small subset.
Fans that will actually follow through are a small subset of a small subset of that small subset.

How badly will this really punish Marvel? I mean, if you're dedicated to it, I doff my cap to you and admire you. If you're honest, you'll know you're really accomplishing little more than making sure to put your principles in action, which is a worthwhile goal on its own.

Wouldn't it be great, though, if all the people that find it difficult to resist summer blockbuster crack had an option?

Is there no one that can arrange for some sort of donation vehicle that can funnel money directly to the Kirby family? Perhaps a "sin tax" of a few dollars per ticket or DVD bought, which would be more than the average per ticket compensation they'd have seen if Marvel and Stan Lee didn't wrong The King?

Barring that, I'd encourage all those that love Kirby's contributions but can't resist the siren's call of the movies to at least make a donation to The Hero Initiative to help other creators still with us that might not have been compensated properly in their career or, for some other reason, have fallen on hard times now.

Even if you just contribute $2 per ticket and $5 per DVD/Blu-Ray/permanent digital copy, you'd be making a difference and, maybe, help assuage a bit of your feeling dirty.

Victor Von Dammit!

I think someone pulled a Brevoort here.

To the right, you see a story, as it ran on BleedingCool.com before Rich Johnston was swamped with complaints about questionable reporting on it (Rich committed the error of putting too much faith in his original sources, it seems).

The story he was fed? The real story behind cancellation of the Victor Von Doom mini wasn't lack of orders, a shift in Marvel strategy or because the original editor (the witty & well-liked Alejandro Arbona) was shit-canned, but that the artist (Becky Cloonan) had personal emergencies that led her to not have finished ANY of the artwork for the mini. Marvel claimed to not have received a single, solitary page.

Sources came to Rich almost immediately upon publication of the article, telling him Marvel's story was patently false and that they had seen the completed pages for the entire first issue.

Which brings me to "The Brevoort"...

Most folks probably don't remember this to the point of obsession like I do, but when Civil War delays led to delaying a bunch of titles that tied into it, Tom Brevoort tried to cover for the fact that Marvel only owned up to it the afternoon before it was supposed to be on shelves because, FOR THE SAKE OF RETAILERS, they needed to hold off on announcing it until they had a plan in place for "fixing" it. I'm in good company thinking that the whole move screwed over retailers, seeing as how that was Tom Spurgeon's opinion at the time. Going toe to toe with Brevoort over how asinine his claim was wound up being the first time I recall Marvel complaining to Newsarama about me (expecting an unpaid reviewer to have his opinion kept in check by the site).

Fast forward to today, with the product being much lower profile, but the overall issue of cancelled Marvel product being a little more embarrassing and the delay in announcing it being, once again, unprofessional. So they leak that it is because a freelancer had personal life get in the way of their professional commitments and, though they still love her and no one is mad at her, it caused the series to currently be cancelled...even if that might not be the real explanation.

While everyone is mad at Rich Johnston for having reported this, the real focus of the ire should be his source. Really...even if true...they wanted so badly to take the heat off of Marvel's decision to cancel by taking a swing at the professionalism of a freelancer that, by their own explanation, seemed to be going through some trying times?

Johnston's reporting here speaks to the larger problem with the state of comics journalism. Due to so few sites being willing to potentially frustrate their meal ticket, the publishers, there aren't many outlets for news stories that might cast anyone in a negative light. Yet a significant number of the audience eats up those stories, making the race to be the one who puts out the few bits of real news that ever trickle out a cutthroat one.

So, Johnston trusts his source. His source places the blame as politely as possible on a freelancer. He makes at least a token effort to reach out to the freelancer, but doesn't hear back soon enough for his comfort. Why the discomfort? It's Friday afternoon and he's losing his most valued readership time. Weekends are generally more dead than weekdays on comic book sites. If he doesn't get this up before the end of the business day, he will have to debate saving it for Monday.

Meanwhile, every moment he holds on to it, there's a chance the story will leak out to someone else who will run it without further confirmation without having nearly the same relationship with the source that he might have. And then what happens next time? Will the source bypass Johnston for the person willing to run the story immediately on their word next time? Maybe he crassly does the math that the source who gave him this story will be in a better position to give him future stories than the freelancer he'd be respecting by waiting for their response or eating the story altogether.

But here we stand: at last check, there were a lot of people who screamed "FUCK RICH JOHNSTON", but I didn't notice anyone adding "...AND FUCK WHOEVER GAVE HIM THIS 'STORY', TOO!"

Of Spoilers & Setups

Ed Brubaker (gentleman on the left in the picture to the right) put forth a Twitter tirade about his Fear Itself 7.1 story getting spoiled on comic book news websites (mostly directed at BleedingCool.com, I believe).

But he misdirects his anger...and I think even he might admit by now that he overreacted a bit.

No way to discuss this without acknowledging the spoiler, so, out of respect for his frustration, I'm putting the rest of the talk on a click-through after showing a few of Brubaker's initial tweets on this subject:

More...

Out Of Context Theater

I guess we all have our price.

Uncanny X-Men #1

That Old Captain America/Wizard Magazine Controversy

Warning: nothing new to see here. If you want timely observations, you'll need to check back at a later date (or, some would suggest, peruse a better site). This here be history.

I was looking over site stats and saw that Johanna over at Comics Worth Reading had linked to my article about the declining popularity of Newsarama. She mentioned how their doing away with forums irritated her for a reason other than what I was pointing out in my post: links to old 'Rama articles were now dead, since the forums had been wiped from existence.

After thanking her for the link in her comments section, it hit me: one of the few original articles I had done for Newsarama (not counting convention coverage) may have been lost to the ages. Googling it confirmed that it was one of the things that had all traces deleted off the 'Rama website. What a kick square to the nuts.

While I was able to dig up the original Word doc I sent for publishing, I'll never be able to locate the conversation it generated and the give and take. I know from my notes that it was the first interview Drew Seldin had given on the subject, even if it was one of the last to get posted on the sites. For instance, Rich Johnston had a brief bit published about it in his Lying in the Gutters over at CBR, but I had talked to him before that call took place, which is partially evidenced by the message not being quite so well-formed from Wizard yet. There are some similarities in answer, but the longer form of our discussion revealed some stumbling blocks.

As I conducted the whole interview on my own (from tracking down Seldin, to developing the questions and recording the phone conversation), never received any compensation and now the article is no longer even published on Newarama, I'm going to repost it here for posterity's sake.

Oh...and for the record? Drew Seldin was a pleasure to talk to. He's a great guy who had nothing to do with the decisions Wizard made, just was in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath.

Original article (with "Newarama" now edited out) follows after the break.

(full article...)

Why $1 Extra For Digital Is Better For Retailers

Much is being made of the Avenging Spider-Man free digital copy with every print copy. Great for customers, to some extent, but shitty for retailers.

Why?

With the extra dollar charged for the JUSTICE LEAGUE copies that have a digital code, the retailer at least knows they're sending their customer to a competing delivery service and is getting their money up front.

With Marvel's plan, the retailer gets a $.50 credit somewhere down the line for every redeemed code.

But how do they track that?

Is it reliant upon the customer filling out a referral field that says they bought the book at BOB'S BIG COMICS? Or is it reliant upon Diamond records having the right batch assigned as being shipped to the right store and that batch matching up with all the proper codes?

And what system could possibly be in place for a retailer to be assured that they're getting the full credit they earned? Seems like it comes down to "hey, trust us, we're Marvel...have we EVER done you wrong?"

Reason #18373 I'm Not A Brevoort Fan

When DC hit with their 20 pages for $2.99 move, Marvel hit with all kinds of spin.

Brevoort indicated DC could make the cut because they didn't need to make a profit directly off publishing, but Marvel needed the $3.99. This despite someone from Marvel corporate already having told shareholders that they initially raised prices on their titles to see how inelastic they were.

The prices went up on their most popular titles first, not the books that were less popular but having hardcore audiences (like his suggestion that the same folks buying DC's Booster Gold at $2.99 would buy it at $3.99).

But what brings us here today is the sentiment expressed first, I believe, by CB Cebulski and echoed by Brevoort: DC's $2.99 move would hurt the talent, because they'd be getting their rate on 20 pages instead of 22.

Brevoort has, also, defended Marvel's raising prices to $3.99, despite the recession concerns of the retailers and their customers.

Yet Marvel has slowly but surely moved more books to 20 pages, while still charging $3.99 for a lot of them.

That's not the real impetus for this post, though. This is...

According to Richard Pace, he's "been told Marvel cut everyone but the top names' page rates and dropped two pages as well."

So, now the high and mighty Marvel gives less work per issue for their contractors to earn from AND pays less per page?

If there was any doubt that their claims to the moral high ground were false and full of spin, let this put an end to it.

Note: my problems with Brevoort started with his lying on behalf of Marvel to claim that refusing to tell retailers about the massive Civil War delays until Monday or Tuesday of the week the latest issue was supposed to hit was done "for the retailers". That was the first incident where my outspokenness resulted in Marvel's ire being directed at Newsarama. I went back and forth at Brevoort as a fan, since my Newsarama work involved no pay at the time and left me feeling that it would be unfair for Marvel to hold my opinion against them (I was not their employee) or for the 'Rama to feel I should bite my tongue on their behalf.

Remember Mr. Anonymous?

Don't get too excited: this isn't new, but a callback.

Remember when Mr. Anonymous was putting out the warning...no, rallying cry...to keep Loeb from being handed the cosmic characters, as Marvel thought he could increase their sales, despite the critical acclaim DNA were getting on them?

A few people used that and the odd Secret Invasion change to try to say he was full of it. Sure, this is far later than when he was warning us, but that's part due to feedback and part because, well, this is Jeph Loeb. Aren't there some projects previously announced as coming from him years ago that we still have yet to see completed?

Mr. Anonymous No More!

Don't get excited. I mean that in the "Spider-Man No More" way, not as an indication that the formerly anonymous source stands revealed.

My insider has indicated that, for reasons I won't share for fear they might lead him to be identified, they will no longer be able to provide SCHWAPP!!! with privileged info. They may have told me this today, the last time I ran info from them or at any time in between.

The Internet Is A Powerful Tool

You should always be careful what you ask for.

The other day, I linked to where Marvel Editor Axel Alonso compared Age of X to Curse of the Mutants, rather than Second Coming. In the comments/board section of that same article, I found the following request by a fan:

On a more constructive note have you guys at Marvel ever though about doing something similar to what Top Cow did and let the fans vote on what ongoing series they would like to see.

Now, keep in mind, this is the thread born from a regular feature that interviews Alonso and Tom Brevoort. In the thread itself, someone using the account "stephen wacker" is seen participating.

And around noon on Monday? We get a poll asking readers to decide which of two Deadpool series survives. When Rob Liefeld indicates one of them was already scheduled to end at its twelfth issue. Meaning there could be such a quick turnaround time of Saturday to noon Monday, seeing as how the poll was folly, as its results aren't public and it is tied to a decision already made.

Or, of course, it could have been an idea earlier than that. But you never know. So be careful out there...

Damnable Comparisons

So, over in the T&A column on CBR, Axel Alonso said the following about the new AGE OF X event:

This is an instance where a writer – Mike Carey – had an idea big enough that his editor – Daniel Ketchum – thought we should huddle up to discuss it. Upon review, David Gabriel and I realized we were looking at a tight and focused event, more along the lines of "Curse of the Mutants" than, say, "Second Coming." It's a big story, but it doesn't cut across lot of titles and it definitely won't outstay its welcome.

Aside from the big numbers on the X-Men #1 issue, has Curse of the Mutants been that strong in sales that you'd want to compare a new project to it? I don't know and can't be arsed to look it up. I just know everything I heard about no one wanting to be involved in that top-down project. If I were Carey, I'd be a bit offended to have my idea compared to Curse of the Mutants. Wouldn't you?

JMS: The Half-Term Governor Of Monthly Comics

So...anyone else embarrassed at this point to have rallied to JMS's side in the One More Day fiasco?

After publicly stating that he nearly requested his name be removed from OMD, it seemed the reaction from a lot of fans was "fuck yeah, JMS, you tell 'em!" Who knew it was more about being a prima donna or diva?

Since that, he left Thor because, after asking for and getting 6 issues without tying into a Big Event (TM), Marvel eventually needed the series to tie-in. And that was just too much to ask of JMS...and he blew that popsicle stand.

Leaving his last ongoing Marvel title made him pretty much full-time DC. That led to some more fun.

After the decision to relaunch the Red Circle characters in the Brave And The Bold title, going so far as several completed scripts and, apparently, completed artwork, he told DC Comics he couldn't do it and that he needed to do it as a separate event. He no longer wanted to do it that way, so he pretty much unilaterally decided it wouldn't be done that way. That is, if you believe his version of the story.

He gets put on Superman. BleedingCool.com has some really interesting rumors about it. Ones that, despite JMS protesting, appear to be quite nearly spot-on. This involves the idea that he required control of Superman, pulling him from his second monthly title and other regular books. This effectively ran Marc Guggenheim off the book. Given that the Superman books without Superman for a year had significantly dropped in sales, I really don't buy that DC Comics decided on their own that a pitch to have Action Comics star Lex Luthor with no Superman was the way to go (note: I'm glad that it worked out this way, because I'm loving Paul Cornell's run).

No, it seems much more likely that DC Comics was so excited about the idea of JMS bringing attention and sales to the Superman title that they were willing to give him control of the character and try out a creative pitch for a Superman-less Action. Even if it meant pulling the rug out from under a previously committed writer (Guggenheim) and replacing him with another (Cornell).

JMS was, also, put on Wonder Woman. While there are no rumors about the circumstances around that and no second series to be intruded upon, it does seem like he was given just as absolute control over her. One can't say that her lack of appearances elsewhere are a result of a requirement on the writer's part, it does present itself as a possibility, based on the rumored issues with Superman.

Then came the reader reaction to the directions JMS took two of DC's flagship characters. It wasn't good, but DC had committed themselves firmly to the story arcs that JMS laid out. I mean a serious deluge of PR. Pushing for coverage in major news outlets. With Superman, apparent attempts to coordinate with areas of the country that he'd be walking through for additional press. It'd be extremely difficult to extricate themselves from that without it being a major embarrassment.

What adds insult to injury? That JMS don't work cheap, as far as I can tell, and the books ain't selling.

But the news isn't all dire. The Superman: Earth One project debuts to a lot of press coverage and...shock...sales to match.

Enter the reality: the best way to get through this is to have talented, more affordable talent finish out the directions of Superman & Wonder Woman, while moving JMS over to a property that might just sell enough to justify his pay rate: his Superman: Earth One project. Seems like an excellent job of making the best of a bad situation.

But, you may ask, how does this cast JMS in a prima-donna/diva light?

Well, I believe he leaked the move to BleedingCool.com to try to get ahead of the news. Why do I think he leaked it? I love Rich Johnston as much as the next guy (or probably more, given how many bash him), but the fact that JMS chose BC.com and only BC.com to give a statement to regarding the move seems like one hand washing the other: Rich runs his leak (that frames the move to be about the future of publishing and NOT about sales not meriting his pay rate on the monthlies) and JMS will give him an exclusive statement on the issue later (one where he frames himself as it all being about the craft, indicating he's leaving substantial money on the table).

(Update: Rich Johnston, in the comments below, refutes my theory that JMS leaked the info to him and gave him the exclusive response afterward as part of a quid pro quo. It doesn't negate the overall idea that JMS, to some extent, used his statement to BleedingCool.com to spin the news.)

Just to be clear: I don't posit that theory in any way to knock Rich for it. Johnston often cries the loudest that he's not a journalist. There's been evidence of posting rumors/scoops on his site that were actually PR folks using him to generate buzz. He's there to generate hits and disseminate info that his audience wants to read. So I wouldn't fault him for agreeing to such an arrangement. I, also, don't doubt that he approached DC for a reaction, with both he and JMS being reasonably certain they wouldn't have an official one.

In JMS's official statement, he even appears to manage to blame his artist, Chris Weston, for the delays regarding The Twelve. But, you know, that's almost not worth noting, given all of his other incidents.

God help DC Comics if the future installments of Superman: Earth One don't sell similarly to the first one.

"We Thought, 'Why Does Every Indy Book Have To Be Rated R?'"

Yes.





All indie books are rated R, just like there is no long form, thoughtful criticism of deserving comic books or graphic novels out there.

None of these exist.








They are like the Easter Bunny.








Or like Santa Claus.






(I know a male-friendly lesbian, so it doesn't fit here)







They are figments of your fucking imagination.

Pay no attention to the links to purchase below.

Perhaps Bendis is just shocked that no one has been brave or pioneering enough to do an all ages indie book with such a small company like Marvel supporting them?

All ball busting aside, it is great that two big name professionals are directing some attention to all ages work. If I were a bigger fan of POWERS, I might be pissed that the team is putting another project in the way of what was supposed to be an ongoing series they relaunched together. But it's still nice that they're doing this.

A friend of mine pointed out that the quote referenced in the title of this entry rubbed him the wrong way. It seemed to him that Bendis was trying to claim that they were working in uncharted territory here. Perhaps that colored the way I read the quote, as well.

If Bendis was thinking more along the lines of "why does every indy book from best selling creators" or "...from my circle of friends", he might be more accurate (even though MICE TEMPLAR is probably as all ages as MOUSE GUARD). But then his answer might be that all ages books are more often a labor of love than a financially successful endeavor, at least or especially in the direct market. 

I'm sure he's hopeful that it sells really well on the strength of the names involved, but will still be content if the project doesn't succeed financially, as long as he feels it succeeded creatively. If that's the case, I really do applaud him for it, despite what you may think from the tone of most of this entry.

Did I Say Dishonest?

So, Dirk Deppey had the following to say regarding Brian Michael Bendis' call to hard comic book journalism:

As anyone who’s ever worked for The Comics Journal will tell you, practicing real journalism will get you blackballed in no time. Specifically: It will get you blackballed by Brian Michael Bendis’ employer in no time.

The response from Bendis? "Paranoia. another excuse."

Really? C'mon. Someone from Marvel's offices have called to threaten sites over bad reviews, let alone unflattering reporting. Rumors say a well-known weekly feature (in a Cup) switched sites in part because they got mad that a creator independently offered up info in an interview (that was run) that the publisher had supplied previously under terms of an embargo.

Thing is: I'm 99.99% certain Bendis knows enough about the stuff that goes on between Marvel & the sites that profit from covering Marvel to know that what Deppey says is NOT paranoia. So he's crossed over into flat out lying.

He could have left it alone, but insisted on addressing it with a false accusation of paranoia. It just gives further support to this being about Bendis wanting long form praise of his work and less instances of snark about it. The way to go about it is putting more of an effort into his work than it appears he currently is, not decrying the work ethic and integrity of everyone else and supporting it with bullshit.

Mini Mr. Anonymous Update

Mr. A hit me with two quick things:

1. Assuming his TV development gig doesn't get in the way, Jeph Loeb is STILL set to take over the Marvel cosmic books. I know: folks thought that was just completely bad info and I thought that things must have changed. But, no, things were just delayed for some reason.

And a reminder: Mr. A's whole point of getting the news out on the cosmic takeover was in hopes that fan response might kill it before it got started. While to some that might just sound like a convenient method to explain it away if it never comes to pass, I assure you that it's his honest position. If he wasn't spoiling out of frustration with bad decisions and moves, he'd have been trying to get something from me out of the deal and/or hitting me with spoilers on a much more frequent basis.

2. Completely unsolicited (I swear!), he offered up: JMS is childish and unprofessional. He had more specific comments about him shared in our conversation, but he didn't specify those having his blessing for publication. I'd e-mail JMS to confirm that he is childish and unprofessional, but I don't have his e-mail and, well, his reaction to being in the news recently might be all the confirmation we here at SCHWAPP!!! need. ;)

Mr. Anonymous, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?

Rich Johnston has word that Wolverine is being made into a vampire in this X-Men vs vampires storyline.

And I have...





...yeah...nothing. ;)

I guess Mr. Anonymous just wasn't really moved enough by the story element to feel the need to share about it. But if I did anything to upset him, I hope he'll let me know. ;)

Tue Reviews

Originally run as part of the Best Shots column at Newsarama.


Justice League of America #46 
Published by DC Comics
Written by James "hey, wasn't my Starman run great" Robinson
Art by Mark "I'm not gonna blame anyone" Bagley, Rob "I don't even want to comment" Hunter, Norm "ditto" Rapmund and Ulises "aren't the Northern Lights purty" Arreola
Edited by Rex "don't blame me, I was writing a 'Second Feature' elsewhere" Ogle, Adam "don't blame me, Eddie's the boss" Schlagman & Eddie "it's totally the fault of my subordinates that this had three editors and still sucked" Berganza


I'm a sucker for the JLA/JSA crossovers, so I picked up this issue despite feeling Robinson's run thus far has been a major disappointment. While hoping that this may have been an example where he stepped his game up for a special event, I was confronted with a book where the severity of the writer's flaws were multiplied instead.

One of the major problems is Robinson's insistence on attempting multiple character narration. Switching back and forth as often and as rapidly as he does is jarring on its own, but his tendency towards maximum verbosity sets him up to fail. The brain-numbing amount of exposition used to spoon feed everything to the reader is clunky and serves to frustrate/insult the reader at every turn. The dialogue suffers for reasons beyond that, though.

Robinson writes a scene where Jesse Quick seems like she just stepped out of Gone With The Wind and leaves me expecting Hourman to step in and say, "frankly, Jesse, I don't give a damn!" Towards the end, he writes Mikaal's narration as if this Starman is trying to channel the worst William Shatner delivery into something that fits a tweet.

The art is NOT strong. Bagley looks rushed and his pages with many costumed heroes shoehorned in (read: much of the book) look terrible. He's not helped by his inkers or a colorist that decides to have the JLA & JSA discussing tactics inside the Aurora Borealis (judging by the background they created). Issues like this will no doubt lead readers to look back and say, "you know, JL Detroit wasn't so bad."

Death of Dracula #1
Published by Marvel Comics
Written by Victor Gischler
Art by Giuseppe Camuncoli, Onofrio Cattachio, Frank D'Armata
Edited by Daniel Ketcham & Axel Alonso 

There doesn't seem to be a real purpose to this book. It is heralded as the starting point for the new X-Men book debuting Thursday, but has no X-Men present or any mutants. What bits it might help set up about the vampires here is likely to be restated early and often in the actual X-Men series. I mention this not only because it can factor into how much one enjoys the read or feels satisfied in their purchase, but because this lack of point or purpose seems to be reflected in the quality of the story. The story lacks a soul and serves to put forth info about this group of characters as dispassionately as the protagonist reacts to his father's demise. It certainly doesn't bode well for what is to come from Gischler's X-Men vs vampires storyline.

Gotta Say I Disagree

Over on Robot 6, Kiel Phegley answers criticism for not pressing more on the question of royalties in his Cup O' Joe interview with Marvel's Joe Quesada.

Joe Quesada: Going pretty far back, in discussions about electronically/digitally distributed comics, our publisher Dan Buckley stated at several convention panels and in interviews that we would be paying incentives for creators of these books. We just didn't put out a press release about it, and I guess some folks just didn't catch it when he said these things. But there you go, welcome to the world of the Internet.

Kiel Phegley: To clarify the specifics of Marvel's plan a bit more, why did the royalty program take longer to get in place than the digital comics sales platforms?

Joe Quesada: Well, that's just the thing; it hasn't. Like all incentive programs, whether paper or electronic, sales are tabulated, math is done and then, eventually, checks go out. If you want specifics, okay I'll give you one: our first incentive checks for e-comics will be going out sometime right after San Diego Comic-Con. Announcing this, now maybe DC can put out a press release saying that they’re going to pay their incentives the week before San Diego. Cool, if they do that, then they’ll manage to be the first at something in the digital arena.

Phegley cited some fan reaction to the interview being negative about him even bothering to ask questions about the royalties. The idea being: imagine how much more negative reaction there'd be if he pressed with a few more questions. It would have been a waste of everyone's time.

Things I would have pressed on and wouldn't have thought were a waste of time:

1. Sure, Buckley said Marvel intended to pay "incentives". It was first said in reference to Marvel DCU that has been around for years...and still hasn't seen a dime paid out to creators. So, you know, the fact that he said Marvel would be paying incentives is about as meaningful as all of those black and white 1950s serials that said we'd have flying cars in the year 1980. When a statement that hasn't resulted in any action over a period of years is used as defense, it would be smart to politely press on that. Otherwise, you've wasted everyone's time fielding this poor excuse for an answer.
2. All due respect to Joe, but, well, that's just the thing: IT HAS. Marvel first started offering single issues via Comixology back in October 2009, but are PLANNING on paying their first incentive checks "sometime right after SDCC"? That's supposed to refute that their compensation plan has taken longer to figure out than offering their books for individual digital sale? Again, if you let that nonsense pass without a follow up, especially in light of all the "boy who cried wolf" claims about payments from Buckley that passed before, you're wasting everyone's time.

Phegley is a really good writer and, from all accounts I've heard, a great guy. I honestly think he'd be better off having not responded to complaints. Why? Because when tough questions aren't asked or bad answers aren't challenged on comic book news sites, I'm pretty sure the real reason is that freelancers have to fear professionals deciding they want to be interviewed by someone else from now on. 

Access is everything when you make your money covering comic books...and you'd be surprised how publishers and even some creators can be when deciding who to give it to. I know a writer who was pegged to do a running feature on a major comic book event and almost lost the job before it started because he had given the company's writer a negative review on one of his books months ago. 

I can't say it loudly enough: ACCESS IS EVERYTHING. And fans expecting high standards of journalism should stop looking for it from major comic book sites until less fans decide what sites they frequent based on how many exclusive interviews and previews a site gets.