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. ;)

Why Is My Confidence Lacking?

Green Arrow has a pilot in production for The CW, per The Hollywood Reporter:

Arrow, based on DC Comics' long-running Green Arrow, revolves around the hooded super hero, a wealthy playboy by day who secretly saves the city by night using his enhanced arrows.

The hourlong drama is a modern retelling of the legendary comics character and hails from Green Lantern duoGreg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim, who will executive produce and pen the project alongside Fringe co-EPAndrew Kreisberg, with whom they worked on Eli Stone.

1. I'd probably have preferred that SuperMax movie that was running around the 'net awhile back. This most likely means the chances are even slimmer.
1a. I'd like to remind you that "preferred" is relative. As in I might prefer to be punched in the gut than kicked in the junk...
2. The team that brought you Green Lantern? Obviously, this amazing project can't come soon enough.
3. Kreisberg? Really? And, again, this team all worked together on that bastion of TV success, ELI STONE?

I wish them well, but the track record is distinctly lacking.

JMS, Guggenheim & Acton Comics

Death: What Happens To Some Pitches

Rich Johnston did a little interview with Marc Guggenheim to help promote his new book, Halycon. In it, he addressed some of the rumors that had surrounded his leaving Action Comics before he really got started.

A few interesting notes:

1. Guggenheim, like JMS before him, stresses in his response that the two never talked about the situation. This is arguing against a straw man: no part of the rumors have anything to do with the two parties having words at all. When you refute an accusation that isn't being made, it implies you're doing so because you can't directly refute what's actually being said.
2. In not being able to personally attest that no mandate was requested that Superman not appear elsewhere, he basically indicates that the pitch JMS made more or less requires Joe getting Kal-El all to himself. It's almost as if Guggenheim is saying, "I'm sure JMS is telling the truth when he says he never specifically asked for control of Superman...he let his pitch do the asking."
3. The official version of Guggenheim leaving Action Comics said his pitch turned into something that he felt he wasn't the best writer for. Guggenheim's answer seems to suggest that Superman being out of Action happened sometime between his being picked for Action and JMS being announced on Superman. So HIS pitch was something else before editorial informed him that Superman would be confined to his self-titled monthly. 
4. The pitch that he wound up not fitting was what was a mix of him trying to make lemonade out of the situation and taking editorial direction. "In fact, I'd worked out a whole story that would lead up to Superman's triumphant return to Metropolis -- in it's darkest hour, natch -- that turned his absence into a virtue. But then, as these things often happen, discussions ensued and ideas evolved and the focus started to fall more on Lex and the story started to become more about Lex's quest for a Black Ring... and I realized that while the story had become extremely cool, it had also evolved itself out of my wheelhouse." See right there? His own pitch, even after the JMS developments, was to focus on setting up Metropolis's darkest hour, not so much Luthor's jaunt across the globe and universe trying to find a black ring. Writers don't generally pitch something out of their own wheelhouse, but have feedback from above that steadily pushes it out. 
5. It would seem that what led Guggenheim to not be a part of Action Comics was a combination of JMS taking advantage of his position in pitching an angle that required his owning Superman and editorial having strong feelings about what they wanted the title to be used for after the Kryptonian was subtracted from the mix. Which, when you boil things down, just reduces to Guggenheim being off the title because DC Comics kept changing the circumstances around the assignment until he was no longer comfortable with it. The discussion of the rumors have always seemed to center around it being JMS's fault, but that's ignoring that he only has the power to make a pitch, not accept the pitch and, by doing so, put limitations on the work of others. When you factor into it that Guggenheim seems to have been happy enough to stay on the title without Kal-El, the driving factor in his leaving would seem to be editorial taking even more of the freedom to tell his story away. 

But what's the point of the rumors if there's no malice behind the story?

It looks to me like Straczynski had a genuine idea that he wanted to execute. DC had an earnest desire to let him take a crack at it in hopes that it would move units. Guggenheim was still able to have enough enthusiasm to keep bouncing around ideas on where to go. Then DC seemed to want to hedge their bets by using Action to accomplish some other goal besides just telling interesting stories. 

Given the sales on the traditional Superman titles in the recent past when they didn't have Superman in them, you can't blame them for possibly having thought, "if we're going to risk pissing away money on the book, we can at least do so in a way that maybe helps re-establish a historically important supporting cast member while hopefully telling good stories." It's obviously a shitty spot for Guggenheim to have been caught up in, but the kind of bad situation that happens to good creators all the time. Tough decisions are made every day that pull sweet gigs out from under freelancers. I guess you could say the silver lining here is that it happened to a creator that is so successful in other avenues that he could afford to bow out of the project, rather than suffer from working on stories he had no interest in or having his reputation tainted by such stories that he felt ill-suited for. 

The surprise for me is that Cornell seems to have been given so much of the direction he's working on. He's still executing it in a very entertaining fashion, as even Guggenheim seems to agree. But I was more inclined to think he came up with much closer to 100% than it turns out. 

The way that both JMS and Guggenheim devote so much energy to denying that they ever talked about this leads me to feel that there may have been some degree of a debate or power struggle...SOMETHING that would explain their need to create a straw man here. But there's no way of confirming that happened right now and it's not likely to be a "sexy" enough story to encourage the effort it would take to dig it up. 

Is This Hollywood's Green Lantern?

Bradley Cooper is rumored to be a strong candidate to play Green Lantern in the upcoming (Marc Guggenheim scripted) Green Lantern movie.

I think it would be great casting. The guy is charismatic. I can honestly see him able to pull off all the facets of Hal we'd need to see in a movie with mainstream appeal.

Tonight in Los Angeles: Comic Film Nerds & Comics On Comics

In a communique from Chris Mancini (of Comedy Film Nerds):

Exult in the glory of live comedy! Comedy Film Nerds and Comics on Comics will engage in a symphony of hilarity for your pleasure, this Wednesday (November 19), at Dream World Comics.

And it's free! What's not to love about film nerds Jackie Kashian, Chris Mancini, and Mike Schmidt appearing with Marc Guggenheim (Amazing Spider-Man, Young X-Men, Eli Stone, the upcoming Green Lantern movie) with host Juan-Manuel Rocha? Especially when it's free.

Dream World Comics is located at 12400 W. Washington Blvd. in Los Angeles. The show begins at 8 p.m.

and admission is free, so show up early to grab a good seat!

www.comicsoncomics.com

Chris Mancini

As someone who's enjoyed several video podcasts by Comics On Comics and Chris Mancini's short film work, I highly recommend getting out to attend if you're in the area.

Color Kid Says: Don't Forget To Vote No On Anti-Gay Marriage Propositions

Did you support Superman's right to marry Lois Lane?
Did you support Vision's right to marry the Scarlet Witch?
Did you support Starfire's relationship with Nightwing (or secretly wish you were him during that time)?

Well, to borrow Marc Guggenheim's logic, that means you don't think marriage has to even be between human beings, let alone the "traditional" combo.

So:

• Vote NO on Proposition 8 in California.
• Vote NO on Proposition 2 in Florida.
• Vote NO on Proposition 102 in Arizona.

Be someone's hero on Tuesday: help save their right to marry the one they love. Or, alternatively, do it to piss off Orson Scott Card. Whichever motivates you more.

(I'll be bumping this from time to time between now and the polls closing Tuesday night)

How NOT To Relate To The Public

Steve Wacker on fan reaction to Guggenheim's Spidey/gay marriage comment:

Not to stop the clutching or pearls and the dizzy spells of strained outrage, but is it possible that anyone out there’s getting a little too worked up? Is it possible that Marc just said something screwy and is still a smart guy? I can vouch for him being both, if it matters.

“The argument isn’t valid!” Ha! No kidding!

Guy says something goofy on internet…Film at 11! (To the younger ones out there, back in the 80s we used to watch those network newscasts that are on during the Seinfeld reruns)

Okay, gotta get back to ruining your childhoods! ALL YOUR POGS ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!

Love, Steve.

You know...I can understand some of the nose-thumbing about fan reaction to One More Day/Brand New Day. But trivializing this issue? Ugh.

For what it's worth, I'm sure that Guggenheim is a screwy and smart guy. But that Wacker response can't help make things better...likely only worse...

Was that ACTUALLY Wacker stepping in just to defend a non-sensical statement? Seriously?

Because nothing’s more pathetic than someone making a stupid statement via the internet… unless it’s people wasting their time griping about it… UNLESS someone else actually goes even further to take those statements seriously and deride the people who make them while at the same time defending the original statement that was so stupid in the first place.

If that’s actually Wacker, then screw him, I’ll drop Amazing Spider-Man, which I was just starting to get into, and excited about, especially the upcoming Dematteis, Waid, and Stern issues. Although I seriously doubt that was actually him.

Oh well...

Curses, Foiled Again!

My plot to end the career of Marc Guggenheim (if you believe everything Dan Slott says) has been an utter failure.

I mean...what else can you qualify it as when his ELI STONE has been renewed for next season?

Self, what are we going to do tonight?

The same thing we do every night, self: attempt to to take over the...I mean...ruin Guggenheim's career!

If I had only grown out my mustache, I'd be able to twirl it and laugh fiendishly as I plot. Or would that be too over the top?

Dammit, this has been a rough day.

See? He's Still Working!

Guggenheim works with Hugh Jackman on the new Virgin Comics project, Nowhere Man.

So there's evidence that I didn't ruin his career. ;)

Oh yeah...and I'm pretty sure Jackman is participating in something like this with an eye towards getting his idea into TV or film, not because he has some burning love for comics. Maybe a respect for comics, since they helped launch his career into the stratosphere, but not a burning love/need to create comics.

Fourthman Reviews: Zorro/Amazing Spider-Man/Hulk

By Lee Newman

Zorro #1
Published by Dynamite
Written by Matt Wagner
Art by Francesco Francavilla
Zorro is one of those vague memories from my childhood. I remember digging a couple of movies and a television show, but not much more. I know the mask, the hat, the cape, the sword and his trademark, but origin? Yeah, not so much. So unlike The Lone Ranger, I was excited about this book, but had very little preconception.

Wagner takes a very pulpy approach to the story. It is a discussion on the nature of a legend, not too dissimilar from Ditko’s similar discussion in Mysterious Suspense. This is interweaved into an origin story as well as soldiers account of the first activity of a vigilante. It is an exemplary work, almost immediately you have real concern for Diego and Bernado. There is also a clever twist in the origin which takes you down a somewhat unexpected path.

With the moral play (again referencing Ditko) that is presented, Wagner is a perfect fit for the book. What is most notable about this particular work is that he does not fall into the trap of just writing Hunter Rose in a different costume. This is the problem which has plagued his work on Batman.

Francavilla...I’m gonna have to punch that name into Wikipedia or Google. Before Left On Mission, I had never heard the name, but now I need more. His layouts are amazing with a variety that gives an added energy to his already lively pages. His detail work is just as impressive. When the boys are in the cave, the torchlight seems to actually flicker on the page. This achieved by painstaking attention to the shadows and the use of a heat glare effect. Wagner is credited as the art director on the book, but I don’t see how this art is different from Left On Mission. It makes me wonder what the title means.

I was excited by this book the second I heard about it and I was not let down in the least. With this and his new Grendel book, I think Wagner, a noted master comic writer, may be at the top of his game.

"Ultimate Comics, we have more comics then your shop has!"

Amazing Spider-Man #551
Published by Marvel
Written by Marc Guggenheim
Art by Salvador Larroca

Spider-Man has not been this good in a very long time. Dan Slott knocked the first three issues of “Brand New Day” out of the park and while Guggenheim’s run was not as good, it somehow manages to finish stronger. Part of this lies in the mystery re-established in the last three pages. Most of it has to do with the mistake that Jackpot makes in the issue. It is one of those perfect Spidey moments that harkens back to the death of the Stacys or the Goblin saga. I will be honest: I am not spending much time trying to figure out the mysteries. I am going to let the answers come in their own time. There is still much that doesn’t make sense from the “One More Day” fallout, but, as long as the stories remain on this level, I will hang around.

There are other inspired moments. The fact that Peter seems to be constantly out of fluid is a nice touch. The new publisher of the renamed “DB” is a winner and shows his heart in this issue. With the revelation of the identity of Mr. Negative, you have to wonder if this guy doesn’t have some ulterior motive.

The problems that I had with the coloring in issue 549 seem to be resolved her. Spidey seems to reside in his surroundings now. There are a couple of issues with some faces particularly with Jackpot and Mr. Bennet, but overall the art is very nice. You do have to wonder if Larroca felt a little rushed though as there is a distinct lack of backgrounds in much of the book.

"Ultimate Comics, we have more comics then your shop has!"

HULK #2
Published by Marvel
Written by Jeph Loeb
Pencils by Ed McGuinness

THIS WEEK IN CSI: S.H.I.E.L.D....

I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist, especially after page 6.

Alright, here’s the deal: this is not, by any strech of the imagination, a GREAT comic book. Loeb has written a couple of those. They star Batman. There is one with Superman. I hear there is a good one with Spider-Man. This comic is fun, though. A heckuva lot of fun. It really doesn’t make one lick of sense, but a team of Iron Men carrying a golden helicarrier will make up for a lot of stupid. That AND Tony contemplating the wisdom of staying dry are worth the price of admission alone. There are a few twists here. Some people are wrong about identities and the last page was STUPID with a ten story tall capital S.

McGuinness is McGuinness. Either you love him or you hate him. I fall closer to the former, but this is not his best work. The spread on pages two and three is five different kinds of fugly, but at least She-Hulk doesn’t look like a passenger on the short bus any more.

This book makes me laugh. That will keep me reading, even if it is pretty dumb.

Can't Be Mad At Guggenheim

Something that gets lost in my vociferously defending my action of reporting Guggenheim is that I don't think he is a terrible guy. I strongly disagree with his stance on strike-time behavior, but I think he is a good guy who, until just before the end, was engaging me in a great discussion/debate. I didn't like being dismissed with the "you're not in my union" deal and stand by the contention that it is the sign of failure in a debate. But that don't make Guggenheim a bad person. I think everyone's tried to finagle a way out of a debate without admitting that they have no answer or no way out of a corner they've painted themselves into.

Before having my Newsarama account closed, I had sent Mr. Guggenheim a PM saying that, if I had it to do all over again, I don't know if I still would have reported him. I felt pretty confident, actually, that I wouldn't have if a certain writer didn't show up to carry over frustrations he has with me on other issues. I don't know if Mr. Guggenheim received the message before my account closed or if the message would still be in his box if my account closed.

What I do know is, despite it all, he came back to the thread with a pretty funny post:

Originally Posted by ERoy

Learning about this thread certainly makes me want to check out Eli Stone, since I really didn't know anything about it before. So, at least for me, the thread did what it was supposed to do.

Mission accomplished! Thanks, Kevin! The check is in the mail, buddy.

Now, that can be with full "I can't be bothered to hold a grudge" humor or that can be more of a "how do you like dem apples" crack. Either way, I don't care who you are...that's funny.

Maybe I have to give that Eli Stone show a shot, after all...

Mark Waid Is All Class

Further evidence that people need to bring their problems with me TO ME, instead of messing up other sites with their ignorance and frustration.

I simply said the following in a Blog@Newsarama listing many creators remembering Steve Gerber on his passing:

I know more of the manner in which Steve Gerber carried himself during his failing health than I do about him as a creator. In that time, I saw greatness.

Comment by Kevin Huxford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Mark Waid followed up shortly after with the following:

Jim Shooter’s work taught me how to write, but Steve Gerber is the one and only person who made me WANT to be a writer. The inventiveness and courage of his work was jaw-dropping to me when I was a teenager and still holds up for me to this day. Without Steve, literally, I wouldn’t be in comics.

And it moves me deeply to read so many similar tributes to the man and his work from so many who cared equally. Even Kevin Huxford, who’s no doubt pissed that Steve passed before Kevin could rat him out to the WGA for some perceived sin.

Comment by Mark Waid — February 12, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Mark Waid: It speaks to your (lack of) class that you'd sully a place of remembering the dead with taking a lowly cheap shot at me. You want to take shots at me? You can certainly find a better place than the comments section regarding the death of someone you hold in high regard. I imagine that you'd have started an argument or taken a swing at me had we actually been at a wake at the same time?

Kevin Huxford Is A Big Fat Snitch

I've been reading responses to my reporting Marc Guggenheim to the WGA and publicizing Dan Slott's private e-mails asking me to call him so he could tell me how I got my review of his Brand New Day work so wrong. I've had a fair share of supporters, but I've clearly had more detractors.

They're bringing their frustration (some eloquent, some idiotic, some ignorant) to Newsarama, Shotgun Reviews, YouTube, and even here.

Being that I'd at least like for my actions to not be a headache for Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield, I'd like to create a place for you to bash me to your heart's content where it really should be: DIRECTLY SAID TO ME, WHERE I'M AVAILABLE TO BE BASHED AND RESPOND, WITHOUT IT IMPACTING INNOCENTS.

You can come with the ridiculous commentary, like Kirk Warren who compared my reporting Marc Guggenheim to a student accusing a college professor of rape (and other extreme and inappropriate examples), as it could ruin their career, regardless of the veracity of the accusation.

Problem is: I reported Marg Guggenheim's public support for Joe Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show and declaration that it is OK to watch a strike show as long as you don't DVR it or have a Nielsen box. There is no question as to whether he did it or not. There was only question whether it was wrong of him, as a WGA member, to publicly state such an opinion. He claimed that it wasn't and that my stance on the whole issue was merely because I wasn't aware of all the nuances of the issue. I merely directed the issue to people who WOULD be aware of the nuances: WGA leadership.

Call me a snitch. That's fine. Accuse me of trying to hurt someone's career maliciously? Suggest I'm libeling or slandering someone? You're way off on the facts. I never made anything up. At one point, I misinterpreted Marc's statement as being that he went so far as to give Joe the thumbs up BEFORE his Colbert appearance. I acknowledged that mistake and it was NOT part of anything stated to the WGA.

I'll be your snitch. In societies with a rule of law, there is a fine line between public service and snitching. Same goes for organizations, especially those centered around the ability of all to come together in unity so that they may collectively bargain as one. I'm pretty sure most of you calling me a snitch here have never had to worry about some weak link in your group's chain fucking things up for you.

It happens in union and non-union work. I've had co-workers nearly lose a contract I was working on, because they didn't care what they said in the presence of the client. Whether publicly proclaiming that he'd be able to do his job better if he actually knew what he was doing and got some training to unprofessionally insulting another contractor present on a conference call, my ability to be gainfully employed was out of my hands to some extent. The same can be said for a WGA member (and, let's not forget, PRODUCER with a possible conflict of interests) who tells the public that it is OK for you to keep watching struck shows or become a part of struck shows.

Let's not forget that Guggenheim and I were having a fairly productive discussion until another party showed up. I had actually missed Guggenheim dismissing my opinion out of hand at the end due to my not being in a Hollywood union until Slott had to chime in during his chasing me around (more on that in a separate blog).

After my post pointing out Slott's questionable actions of late (like e-mailing me repeatedly to have a phone conversation about my "wrong" review of his work), I was bowing out. There was nothing to be gained. I had received e-mails from friends that confirmed the wisdom of my decision to bow out, but they were after the fact.

Then, it would appear, someone decided to bring the attention of others into the mix. They did this quietly, while scurrying through the shadows. How could they publicly admit to doing so when they'd lose any mistaken shred of moral superiority on the issue? Forget that the act was pretty much transparent, despite their lack of owning up to it. Forget that an astute observer can pretty much tell who went crying to daddy when they felt I crossed the line. They didn't go to an organization I was a part of, either.

I'm not saying it was Guggenheim. I know it wasn't me. Hmmmmm.

I found it hilarious (and tacky) that the next interview that ran with Guggenheim at the 'Rama was done via a phone call while he was on the picket line. Screamed of damage control to me, but then the interview might have already been conducted before his error in judgment where he supported Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show. With a week between his gaffe and his picket line interview, pardon me for being suspicious.

Brand New Day? Totally Whelming.

Over at the ComicBookBin.com, Geoff Hope had the following to say about Marc Guggenheim's first issue in the BRAND NEW DAY event:

It’s not that Amazing Spider-Man #549 is bad…it’s just completely unimpressive. There are several exciting things-- a last-minute rescue, a foiled mugging, an escape from a subway train-- but Guggenheim and Larroca somehow make these adventures as provocative as an unfurnished room.

Ironically, I think that is probably the worst review a writer can get. Though I'm refusing to buy BND for several reasons (including some issues with the writer outside of comic books), I was a bit hopeful for Guggenheim that he'd capture something special here. But I know of no writer that wouldn't prefer a passionate response, good or bad, to their work rather than suggesting it merely exists.

In fairness, I've always said that it is hard to judge single issues these days. A ho-hum issue can be redeemed by how it ties into the rest of an arc. That might very well wind up the case here.

Happy Birthday...and Hello To My New Blog

Below is my Shotgun Reviews goodbye, copied in full. I'll be hosting my vlogs here and will probably let myself be even more opinionated now that no one can possibly be caught in the crossfire.

By the time any of you read this, it will be February 5th. My 33rd birthday and a bittersweet one. Why?

Because I am taking a sabbatical from Shotgun Reviews and have asked that my account at Newsarama.com be closed (which was honored by the site administrator).

Why did I resign? I'd like to think it is because I have principles, while others would probably suggest I just have a big mouth and don't know when to shut it.