(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.)
Originally ran on 3/23/2008.
Dan Slott appeared over on a Blog@Newsarama comment thread. A few comments said that the Val vs. Huxford vs. Slott thing was distracting from the actual topic...and I agree. That's why we're here, ladies and gents.
On that thread, he tries to twist a few things that I've done or said in relation to what some have called a cold war between myself and Valerie D'Orazio. I'm going to endeavor to make this blog a place where I can counter his imagination with reality.
- Valerie had started taking thinly-veiled shots at me before I ever ran a negative blog about her. She was dismissing everyone she found to be a troll by telling them to go argue with a creator on Newsarama, which more than a few friends pointed out to me as a perceived dig. I do believe she's a card-carrying F.O.S. (Friend Of Slott), but I can't confirm since I've been banned from the Bendis Boards due to my off-board conflict with Slott. I think that's where they keep the list.
- My first blog criticizing her was done about a blog where she was not only making illogical arguments, but irrationally shut it down in a declaration that everyone disagreeing was just a bunch of rabble rousers. If she had left things open for discussion, I'd have gladly posted my opinion there. But when one acts like a child that is taking their ball and going home because the other children don't agree with her...well...one is going to take a lumping.
- When I did attempt to post on her blog, prior to the joke involving the nearly-decade-old Grayson rumor, she would only respond with snarky dismissal.
- In hindsight, I have posted many times that I regret making the joke the way I did. But I regret more that Valerie decided to spin what I said into something worse by her deleting all of my attempts to clarify and post a reaction that made it look worse.
- Though it might seem like splitting hairs to some, I think there is a world of difference between saying someone got a job because of who they were sleeping with versus saying that their pitches had a better chance to be looked at via their boyfriend-as-networking-contact.
- As far as taking time off from Newsarama, I closed my account there because I had stopped officially working for them awhile ago, but still wound up associated directly with them when that wasn't the case. With my account closed there, that seemed like a pretty good step to get the point across that I don't work for them.
- When it was clear that my reporting Guggenheim might cause Newsarama problems, I told Matt I was willing to do whatever necessary to distance myself from the site so that my actions wouldn't be attributed to them improperly.
- At no time was I told by anyone at Newsarama that I'd no longer be welcome there in any way.
- Blog@Newsarama has long been treated as a completely different animal than the mothership. This is a point I tried to make to Dan Slott when he was expecting Graeme to do fact checking and run things past legal before he did A LINK BLOG OF ALL THINGS!!
- Over in my WGBGB: Support For My Valerie Situation comments, I have a very slotty anonymous commenter that assails the veracity of the idea that dating Waid might have helped pitches get seen, leading me put up a fairly accurate timeline that shows Grayson was getting uncommon help from editors and appeared to start dating Waid before she made it in the industry. I did this less because I care HOW she got in the industry than because I care when people try to tell me something is factually impossible when it isn't.
- I didn't make "sexual comments" about Valerie D'Orazio. When she decided to hold her little blog bashfest with me as the person to be bashed, she accused me of having had an argument with Slott and Guggenheim in order to make myself famous. I responded to deny that and then point out the irony of her accusation, given that she made her name by anonymously dishing dirt on DC Comics editorial (without naming names, so many innocents might be presumed guilty) and talking about her ripped vagina. That's being unfair to her? She made a three parter called THE BROKEN VAGINA MONOLOGUES. She has a label called Broken Hoohah that doesn't even link to every single time she drops a reference to the broken vag. I don't think pointing out that she played up her ripped vagina for fame is a cheap shot. It certainly isn't a SEXUAL comment, regardless of the fact that it involves a sex organ.
- Dan Slott still has way too much time on his hands to go chasing me around, creating aliases, and sending unsolicited e-mails to those who don't agree with him.
Posts
I'm sure you have addressed this at some point in th past, but what exactly made you feel the need to report Guggenheim to the WGA? (Not in terms of what he supposedly did, but in terms of what made you feel like you should be the one reporting it?)
ReplyDeleteForget it. I found you other blog post(s) that explained your background with unions.
ReplyDeleteThat still doesn't fully explain it to me, but I get the general picture.
I have no problem addressing it again, Mr. Callahan.
ReplyDeleteWhen Guggenheim had exhausted all attempts of how one union member could be justified in publicly supporting anyone crossing a picket line, he decided to indicate that my opinion and facts were misguided because only a person in a Hollywood union could understand the nuances he was talking about.
He was indicating that anyone actually in the WGA would have enough knowledge of the particulars to know that his stance and actions were perfectly fine for a member to publicly espouse. I felt like that was an invitation to call him on it.
Since I had been to the WGA site many times over the length of the strike to keep abreast of what I could do to support the strike, I was well aware that they make the reporting feature available to the public.
That still might not get to the answer of why I should be the one. That's just part of why I felt justified and that I did nothing wrong.
But why should I be the one? Why shouldn't I? I'm about the most pro-union person you'll ever find. Seeing someone sacrifice his union brothers and sisters for an unnecessary public defense of his boss in a non-union field. Not only was he giving his blessing to what Joe had done, but saying some really successful, anonymous WGA member had given him the blessing before the appearance. Given what I felt that action was (which you indicate you already understand or at least don't need clarified), why should I wait for someone else to report it?
I didn't make anything up in my report. I just pointed them to the actual post where he publicly stated that he felt it was fine for Joe to appear and alluded to the anonymous WGA member. So...if what he did wasn't against the spirit or laws of the union, there'd be no problem. If it was against it, he'd probably get nothing more than a slap on the wrist...but remember that the next time, rather than possibly betraying the brotherhood.
Many said I was trying to ruin his career. Not only is that overestimating how the union would punish him (and betray an ignorance about how unions operate), but it is neglecting the fact that he is a producer. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't fire himself.
I hope I managed to answer the question in there somewhere, but feel free to ask me to finetune it if I was off the mark.
Sorry...just missed your calling off of the explanation. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the extra clarification.
ReplyDeleteNo problem. I hope the tone of my response didn't come across as rude or anything. It was intended as a "just the facts" tone, rather than anything adversarial. I didn't want to be too cute or loose with it and possibly muddy the situation
ReplyDeleteApropos of nothing, clicking back to your blog earlier reminded me that I need to pick up your work on Grant Morrison.
Yes, my book is for you!
ReplyDeleteYour tone hasn't been adversarial at all, although I did think some of your posts came across as aggressive (I wouldn't even say negative) on Valerie's blog. But I know all to well how tone can get misinterpreted online. I had a bitch fight with the Comic Geek Speak crowd last summer, and the tone of my comments back then didn't help calm things down.
Anyway, good luck with your stuff and stay out of trouble.
Here we go again!
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone you haven't fought with or any place you haven't been banned or exiled yourself from?
Dude ... you have a LOT of enemies. That's got to be at least five, right? ;)
ReplyDeleteHere we go again, Frag? There's nothing new going on. I still have left my account closed at the 'Rama and Valerie has made it clear that I'm not welcome there. That's all. :)
ReplyDeleteSpider: I don't know how many I might have. I didn't add any new ones lately. In fact, I don't even consider Frag an enemy, so the number may have shrunk now. ;)
Duckula: Keep it on topic and not so vulgar. If you need me to create another haters' blog, let me know. ;)
Way to moderate my post, Captain Freespeech.
ReplyDeleteDuckula: If you toned down ONE THING in your on-topic post, it would still be up. You're welcome to repost it without being so vulgar/graphic. The other was an off-topic post altogether, which I made a blog for such haterade to go. If you want a new blog dedicated to that which will pop up near the top, I'll be glad to. ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm not an enemy. I'm a concerned citizen.
ReplyDeleteSo, then it is agreed? I have one less enemy. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd Val was taking a shot at me, Frag. It's part of why she was snarkily dismissing anything I said before her and I had our own little dust-up.
This post would probably read more sympathetically if you didn't lead off with a cheap personal attack on Dan Slott.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right, David, but I'm not so much worried about sympathy as I am about getting the facts straight.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll take your advice and change it from "reared his ugly, in-need-of-medication head" to something less inflammatory. I'll keep this post here as record of what was originally said, as I'm not trying to change history, here.
@Timothy Callahan - I remember that dust up with the Comic Geek Speak crew. I bought the first Animal Man trade on your recommendation. I liked it. I meant to order your book, but I never got around to it. I'll have to correct that. :)
ReplyDeleteSounds like from reading Dan Slott's comments that my idea for your regular column was a hit. You can thank me any time, lol.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't come off very well. If I read any of his books I might consider not doing so anymore. Sometimes its best to not know too much about the creators of art you like. I used to read Powers and they had/have a weird letters page where Bendis was pretty much just a dick and joked about every questions and it slightly ruined it for me. You don't really want to imagine the guy writing a cool story to be jerky, you know?
On the other hand Robert Kirkman has one of the few existing letters pages and he is really cool and nice on there, and it makes me want to try out his new books.
Probably won't affect crazy Dan's rep but you never know.
Well for whatever its worth you seem pretty reasonable to me. Most people seem to see the moderation on OS for what it really was too.
For what it's worth, I think Bendis is just a smart ass sometimes, but rarely means it seriously, especially to the fans. But, then again, I haven't read the letter columns you have.
ReplyDeleteHe's nowhere near comparable to Dan Slott, IMO. I did love his work in the past, but I just can't buy it now and certainly wouldn't review it.
Yeah I know Bendis was just joking around on his letter column but it just had a negative impact on me. Mostly I ended up quitting reading Powers because of delays and one arc that just took forever to pay off anywhere.
ReplyDelete