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...

Ugh...One Last Time...

Just because I only found this item from Dan Slott that he added into one of my posts as he was working to get me banned from the Bendis Boards:

Edit (by Slott): Kevin's original post pointed out that before I was aware of ICV2.com's corrected estimates for January's sales, that I posted their earlier estimates on another message board. And, in that, he was correct.

I did NOT delete or edit Kevin's ORIGINAL post. What Kevin said was accurate. And I am NOT in the policy of removing a detractor's posts when they ARE accurate. I think that would be a cowardly form of censorship.

In later posts (which I DID delete) Kevin pointed to facts IN my favor. As these helped my cause, the ONLY downside to keeping them on my board was that they GAVE Kevin Huxford a voice ON my message board.

As someone who has watched Kevin hurl personal attacks against people I know and respect-- in one case, trying to hurt a friend's reputation in their union-- and in another case bringing up a woman's sexual history in order to win an internet argument-- I see NO reason for me to give such a person a voice on MY message board.

I won't debate the twists he's doing here, as they've been discussed ad infinitum on this blog already.

But since Dan loves to point to the smallest inconsistency as a lie when it comes to me, I'll point out one for him here.

He deleted a post of mine that, according to his definition, would have been cowardly for him to delete. It was in response to Tom Daylight saying the following:

Both estimates were wrong! Dan has the real numbers, and unless he elects to post them here, I don't think the discussion is particularly appropriate (or even relevant to anyone outside Marvel).

It was in my response to THAT post where I pointed out that Dan used the glitchy sales numbers on the Byrne board, so I believe he doesn't have any more accurate numbers than the rest of us. Kudos to Dan for remembering enough of it to put into his edit of a completely different post and all, but he did (by his definition) cowardly delete a post of mine that wasn't quite in agreement with him. ;)

By the way...it does call something into question: why don't professionals have accurate sales numbers provided to them by their publishers? Why do they have to rely on the same resources that fans on the internet do?

What Wine Goes With Superman Cape, Mr. Millar?

Mark Millar recently stated in an interview (that Kevin Melrose covered over at Blog@Newsarama) that Civil War was the best selling comic in the last 15 years.

When people called him on the hyperbole that ignored the facts, he got cranky. I don't necessarily blame him, because you can't expect him to research everything he might say in an interview. The point that it was an amazing sales success is true. This is the sort of thing that only obsessed comic book fans would gripe about.

But...

In his crankiness, he said the following:

Groan.

If someone can show me another monthly comic series published in the American market that has outsold Civil War then I will eat my Superman cape. You can go all the way back to the collapse in 1994.

This is truly pathetic and pedantic, but typical of some aspects of the Internet, unfortunately.

MM

Oh my. You should really not put a challenge out like that. While you should be able to speak extemporaneously in an interview without being expected to have researched every bit of what you say, there's really no excuse for sitting at your computer and not doing a bit of research before making a bold statement, fueled largely by thin skin and thick ego. Sorry, Mr. Millar, but as much as you can do some great work, you certainly make sure no one forgets it and rail against any who don't tend to agree.

Courtesy of MyComicShop.com:

X-Men (1991-) 42
Published July 1995
Original cover price: $1.95

Deluxe edition on glossy paper. "Heaven Can Wait." Script by Fabian Nicieza, pencils by Paul Smith, inks by Matt Ryan. Statement of ownership--average print run 800,625; average paid circulation 614,075. Andy Kubert/Ryan cover.

Let's see. July 1995 actually came out in May. The statement of ownership would then go back into May of 1994, I believe. (Edit: It has been pointed out to me that the likely period covered by the statement of ownership is January 1994 to December 1994, still within Millar's range)

The lesson today, boys and girls, is to quit while you're behind and just admit a mistake when you make one instead of getting into a pissing match with people that have more free time than you and know how to work a Google search properly.