Editor Antics

A certain Marvel has been trolling the interwebs of late. If you mention his name (once, not even three times), he seems to appear...and trolls.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around it a bit.

Forgetting the right/wrong of the debate, I'm trying to think about ramifications of it and, indeed, the thought process behind it.

There are few people more critical of that editor's behavior than me. Yet I don't find myself moved to take action on it beyond a few responses on message boards. I couldn't blame someone else for dropping a book he edits as a statement on how they feel about his behavior.

But for as much as his performance is based on the success of the book, his contribution to the actual end-product is minimal when compared to the writer and artists. On this more than other potential boycotts, I'd be ever aware that dropping the book would hurt innocents. I feel like publishers would take a loss of sales on a title as far more reflective of interest in a character or creator than ever pin it on the staff.

But, again, I'm not moved to boycott. Which is odd, because I'm normally one to take a principled stand over things that even friends of mine would call trivial. Quite honestly, if this was the talent on the book, I'd probably be telling my retailer, on every trip to the counter, "I'm not buying _____ because _____ is being a flaming asshole."

The flip side, though, is that I don't see what positive development this behavior brings. It's a shock jock angle, but, with the individual keeping the antics to the free internet and only contributing a tame column to his books, where does it benefit the company or the product? If you've ever watched Howard Stern's biopic, they boil down the commercial viability of the shock jock approach by going over the survey results that show haters tune in even more faithfully than the fans, because they need to hear what outrageous thing is said next. But, again, this absurd behavior isn't happening where he'd be rewarded for bringing the extra attention and it doesn't seem to translate to that much additional attention to the good product his office is generating.

I think the net results of his performance art, if anything, will lead to a slight decline in his readership, but not so much as to be a major concern. But I could be wrong...

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.

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.

My Bendis Reaction

I've seen some criticism of my reaction to Bendis calling Dirk Deppey's claims about blackballing "paranoia".

The most common complaint isn't that I said he was lying (which, I guess, is tacit approval of calling it such). No, it is the complaint that I said he needs to put "more of an effort into his work than it appears he currently is" if his true issue is that he wants more in-depth/long-form reviewing of his work. This has been labeled a personal attack and that I have an ax to grind.

I don't know Bendis. I don't have any web cams set up in his residence to see how much he is applying himself or a chip in his head to feed me data about the effort he is making.

What I do know is that the type of reviewing he was suggesting didn't exist is out there already and much easier to find than he's suggesting, if you're not just looking via Google alerts set for your name and the projects you're working on. He couldn't have spent as much time ever looking for such work as he spends discussing and dissecting a Howard Stern show. But he wanted to state to the world that the comic book industry is nigh perfect but for the lacking of deeper reviews and real journalism.

What I do know is that the current output coming from Bendis gives the appearance that he's not challenging himself. He looks like he has fallen into formula and into pushing out mediocre work to satisfy demand. The work gives the appearance that he's not challenging himself, not even with Scarlet. Maybe I have a higher opinion of his talents, but even with trying to write a book where he's breaking the fourth wall (admittedly not in his comfort zone), he doesn't seem to be applying himself to the best of his abilities. His work isn't reflecting the talent he has proven himself to have in the past, so I'd chalk that up to a lack of effort.

Whether you consider me to be a legitimate critic or not (I don't really care to argue for or against the label), you're kidding yourself if you think that critics don't point out a perceived lack of effort from an artist. An Ebert or Travers will certainly point out if they feel like an actor sleepwalked through their role or a director didn't bring their "A" game. If you want to take exception with the phrasing, that's fine...but with the type of observation tucked away in that phrasing? You're wrong.

As far as a personal ax to grind? I don't have one. There are several ways Bendis conducts himself that I don't like or admire. I think the way he handles his forum stunts his growth, because it surrounds him with far too many people who will blindly praise him and stroke his ego (and, as it appears to be part of an attempt to model himself after Stern, this may be intentional). Knowing what I've heard through back channels about his reaction to criticism of his work from outlets (be it their writers or just reader comments), I get the impression that he can be petty, which doesn't endear him to me.

But when he comes out with broad generalizations about coverage of his industry? When there are a ton of people I respect and/or am friendly with that he painted with that broad brush? When I know he's aware of the ways his employer stunts the growth of the legitimate journalism side of things? I get livid.

I have no personal experience with Bendis to have an ax to grind because of. If there were reason for anyone to have an ax, it would be from Bendis towards me for the Secret Invasion spoilers, which probably played some role in my rarely-used BenBo account being banned and his eventually blocking me from following his Twitter account. Which, for the record, don't generate an ax for me to grind: both steps just make it slightly more difficult to grab news generated from either.

For the record, I've had some sincere regret for the SI spoilers. As marvel_b0y faded from faded from memory, I lamented that sharing that information may have significantly reduced the impact of the first issue of the event for many readers. As wrong as I felt Marvel's viral marketing attempt was (whether they started or merely co-opted marvel_b0y), I didn't feel good about the possibility that some readers didn't enjoy the issue as intended and that Bendis might not have gotten the exact credit he deserved from the readership for it. That's why it was relatively easy for a third party to convince me to not directly run the next batch of SI spoilers and why I didn't run the Secret Avengers lineup months before the first issue hit, much to the chagrin of some spoiler-starved readers.

But I have no regrets due to any burning or blackballing. Not that it didn't have either of those effects on me; I just couldn't care less if it did. My problem with the way publishers lord access over the sites covering them is how they punish large groups rather than individuals. There was a time where people would watch 60 MINUTES on CBS and wonder, "damn, why'd they even agree to interview with Morley Safer/Mike Wallace/Ed Bradley? Haven't they watched the show before?" The guilty sat down to interviews they probably shouldn't have agreed to do. But no one expected that should mean the company would drop CBS from their press release list, ban them from their press conference or never advertise with them again. Or cut off all media completely.

But that's what Marvel did with review PDF access when someone leaked ads for Secret Avengers and OMIT on to the internet. They shut down the review PDF system for everyone. They didn't just limit it to more trusted sources (though there was no way of knowing whether the leak came from a retailer or a reviewer). They didn't decide to make PDFs without ads available (which, personally speaking, should have been the norm to begin with). An advertisement from a book was shared publicly a day or two early, so they pulled all access to reviewable product from all outlets.

It was fear of Newsarama receiving unjust punishment from Marvel for my disagreement with two of their writers that led me to quit working for the site for a long period of time. I was an unpaid contributor who had a personal disagreement, but Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield were going to suffer for my free expression? Someone's actual livelihood might be impacted because Marvel might be less friendly with access as long as I was there? Fuck that.

Bendis knows that is the reality and he should damn well know that the industry isn't so big that you'll always be able to find a publisher for your news article if it is good enough. Hell, the comic book industry isn't even big enough that insiders feel they can feed much information without it tracking back to them and hurting their career. Then again, he made such vague statements (that he says detractors misread, while supporters are adding all kinds of non-existent detail to) that one wonders if his point wasn't just to create a shitstorm that his name was at the center of. Scour his Twitter and message boards as I have, there doesn't seem to be an indication of what type of journalism he's looking for. A retrospective on an artist's career? That's the hard/long-form journalism we're missing? C'mon, that can't be it.

I'm interested to hear what some of you readers/lurkers think. Was pointing out a perceived lack of effort and desire to see more praise on Bendis' part truly a "personal attack" that "you wouldn't see a real critic make"? I don't care if you have to reply on a borrowed computer using your worst enemy's severed hand, I'd like to hear what you think. Hell, it doesn't even have to be in this comments section. Just work my name or the site name into the discussion so I have a hope of pulling it up through a Google alert to get the feedback.

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. ;)

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. 

You Know, I Half Expected Them To ARMAGEDDON 2001 It

Mr. Anonymous had it right way back when I reported his spoilers about who the Red Hulk was. After they dragged it out and even had a scene or two meant to throw you off from thinking it was him, they actually stuck to it. That, in itself, is a bit shocking.

The Answer? About 20 Days

On April 3rd, I asked How Long Until This Gets Shut The Fuck Down about HTML Comics, a site making whole comics available for viewing in your web browser for free.

Then Rich Johnston covered it several days later.

Of course, Lucas Siegel covered it over a year before either of us.

But, according to a press release, it was only shut down on April 22.

I know a lot of you out there are pro-torrents and other illegal methods of reading comics free on the 'net and just think those of us who get outraged at this stuff are just tools of our corporate masters, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan. But as much as the profits lost for the corporations are the bigger numbers, the complete denial of possible royalties to the creators would be the more important factor involved. I know it is why this stuff bothers me, personally, when I see it happen in such ridiculous fashion.

Johanna Draper Carlson's angle seems to suggest that the publishers targeting such sites is a pathetic alternative to coming out with their own competing offering. Seems off the mark to me. If I were a publisher, I'd want to try to clear as much of the illegal competition out before ramping up my version.

Just So You Know...

I'm glad a lot of you are continuing to hit the site since the latest Mr. Anonymous bit of news. I do plan on trying to get back to regular blogging. The last few days have reignited things for me.

But Mr. Anonymous developments aren't a daily thing. They're not a weekly thing. They're not a monthly thing.

When he has something, he comes to me. That almost stopped because I kinda indicated that I wanted to layoff a bit. I didn't really feel passionate enough about things to stir shit up by spoiling the launch line-up of the Secret Avengers. In order to avoid Mr. Anonymous tips going to waste, I did try to pass it along to someone who might have felt more of a desire to spoil things, but they ultimately had some concern about the resulting blowback because it could effect access necessary for some of what they cover.

If there were another Secret Invasion situation without a horrible viral marketing campaign called marvel_b0y to expose, I might still try to pass on directly sharing the info. I'd like to avoid a situation where fans might unjustly judge the work of a creator because they know what is lurking around every corner, like what happened with Secret Invasion #1.

But stuff that just effects whether you're all buzzing about who might be in a teased project that doesn't give away plot points? Stuff that has to do with potential creative team or direction changes that, also, don't really spoil what is on the written page and, in some cases, might give fans a chance to express their displeasure before it is too late?

That stuff will generally get directly transcribed from my IM window or received text messages into a blog as soon as it comes in from Mr. A.

And just to make this perfectly clear: even though my contact information has been readily available to them (e-mail is listed on the front page and other contact info is available to them through third parties), I have never received a direct request from Marvel Comics to cease and desist. During the Secret Invasion reveals, I even directly stated that I would honor any official communication received that asked me to pull down the info and refrain from further postings of such details. Nothing ever came.

Mr. Anonymous Reveals The 2010 Winner Of The EPIC FAIL Award

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: Nothing below is meant to suggest that XMEN: LEGACY is ending. The teasers implied to me that there wold be a new X-MEN title, which is what I was going on. Mr. Anonymous has just reached out to me to clarify Carey's book and his run on it are not being ended. Also, I may have been too cute in saying "when you're the ArchAngel". Some are thinking this is editorially mandated; no, it is from David Gabriel (get it? archangel?). 

You know what rarely works out well? When the business-minded folks at the company force their "creative ideas" on their employees.

That's what is happening at Marvel.

When you're the Archangel at Marvel, there aren't a lot of people who can say no to you. When you decide that vampires are soooooooooooooooooooo "in", you can tell your people you have an idea that they just need to do and, well, who is going to tell the boss it sucks?

I speak of X-MEN. The adjective-free X-MEN book. The main focus of that book? Everyone's favorite mutants versus vampires. That's why there is blood dripping on the teasers. That's why you've seen Blade in one.

No one wants to be the one to edit it. The only creative team that would touch it is Victor Gischler and Paco Medina.

The next teaser? I'll have Nate Grey and Jubilee in it. Now, I don't know about Nate, but Ms. Lee?

Total bloodsucker.

That's right...Jubilee is being made into a vampire. The vocal minority that has lamented Marvel's handling (or lack of handling) of the character has GOTTA love that.

Oh...and all of the above? Brought to you by Mr. Anonymous. He, also, posted the first group shot of the Secret Avengers up on 4chan today. He wanted to be able to post it anonymously and thought I was still in my "I don't know that I want to catch shit from Marvel" phase. Lately? In the words of Mr. Mathers: I just don't give a fuck.

Now, word is that Marvel has completely rescinded advance review PDFs due to the Secret Avengers image getting out. As far as I know, Mr. Anonymous didn't get his stuff from PDFs dispersed to comic book "news" and review sites. So, their decision to shit on the people that more or less give them free advertisement? Not going to have an effect on keeping this shit locked down.

Mind you: if Marvel didn't insist on giving reviewers PDF copies that contain all of the ads that will run in the print version of the book, their wouldn't be spoilery house ads for them to worry about. Of course, the lineup was leaked long before this house ad, but don't expect facts and logic to get in the way of the Mighty Marvel Spiteful Brigade.

Offered Without Comment

How Long Until This Gets Shut The Fuck Down?

http://www.htmlcomics.com

This should make for interesting news over the next week or two...