Correction to yesterdays blog: Turns out that Nathan Fillion did NOT say "You f*cked up." He said, "That's f*cked up." So it was more an observation than a threat.
With Kathleen taking Caroline out early to visit her folks and go to church, Ariel and I wound up sleeping in and not waking up until 9:40. Tossing down an invigorating breakfast consisting of poptarts, we went downstairs and I took my first cruise around the dealer's room. Came out with a new "Nightmare Before Christmas" wristwatch for Kath, an animated heart watch for Ariel, and a replica of Excalibur from "Holy Grail" made by the fine folks at Museum Replicas (no clue how I'm getting it home yet.)
So the day started out nicely enough. Little did I suspect the disaster in the making.
My morning panel was a solo one called "Stump Peter David." The notion was that fans were supposed to submit trivia questions about my work. It could have been a fiasco, but was saved by the fact that they forgot to let the fans know about it and thus there were almost no questions. Ariel was with me as well, but the star of the panel was Caroline. She was in rare form, and even did her fun party tricks such as bouncing up and down and dancing exuberantly when I hum MC Hammer's "Hammer Time." Why the song has that effect on her, I couldn't say, but it does.
I worked my table in the afternoon, saw the rest of the dealer's room after that, and then at 7 was on a panel about "The Hulk" with Paul Jenkins and Bruce Jones. It went perfectly smoothly. I was bracing myself the entire time, waiting for someone to ask Bruce (or me) about my on line comments about his run on the series. No one did. So it was never addressed, and the sparks I thought would fly never did. Oh well.
So I head over to the Hyatt where Harlan and I are supposed to do our cabaret. The moment I get there, I'm hit with the news that Harlan has blown out his voice. He's sick as a dog with laryngitis. Harlan, whose idea this whole thing was, is out of it. I'm MCing the thing on my own.
I'm in near-panic mode. Sure, I've MC'd things on my own countless times, but never when the audience was there expecting Harlan instead. I'm convinced that the moment I get up there and announce that Harlan is out of it, the crowd will get up and leave.
Ariel, meantime, is participating in the masquerade, part of a group presentation. She's playing the Angel of Healing. The competition is stiff and her group doesn't win, but she has a good time.
Meanwhile, her father announces that Harlan won't be joining us, and that I'm winging this on my own...and the audience, to my surprise, seems supportive. I open with a couple of Tom Lehrer songs (The Elements, Poisoning Pigeons, and Vatican Rag) then invite the audience to sing along to Rainbow Connection (with me using my Kermit voice) and then go with a couple of showtunes: Rich Man, followed by Sit Down You're Rocking the Boat. Then, with Kathleen aiding me, I closed out with a Young Frankenstein-inspired version of "Puttin' on the Ritz."
With Anne McCaffery, who was supposed to sing opera, a no-show, the other act was Matt Robinson of TV's "The Tribe." He did one rock cover and a number of original songs (to find out more about his band, check out www.lastpictureshow.net.) A really nice young man, and now I'll have to start watching the show. Last I saw him, he was up in the hospitality room where a very interested young lady was aggressively hitting on him.
So I got through it, but it was kind of hairy there for a while. People insisted I did well, although naturally I'm convinced they were just being polite.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 6, 2004 01:59 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPeter,
Kudos on the winning way of winging it.
I had to MC a con event earlier this year and it was the most nerve-wracking thing I'd done in years, totally different from being on a stage for any other reason. However, the rule I'd mentioned to con-guests over the years proved true. Simply: 'It's easy to forget people's default mode at conventions is to support the guests.' You have to screw up pretty badly for them to turn on you. The fact that you got up there when others failed to show puts you instantly ahead on points.
Not sure the Kermit voice would have helped, but... :)
John M
Uh, what does the * mean? Is the letter u broken in your computer?
PAD:
>I worked my table in the afternoon, saw the rest of the dealer's room after that, and then at 7 was on a panel about "The Hulk" with Paul Jenkins and Bruce Jones. It went perfectly smoothly. I was bracing myself the entire time, waiting for someone to ask Bruce (or me) about my on line comments about his run on the series. No one did. So it was never addressed, and the sparks I thought would fly never did. Oh well.
Glad you dodged that bullet. Is it possible that one factor is that, while there are some, most fans tend to be more aware of consequences to inappropriate questions, statements, etc when face-to-face, rather than being online and throwing away discretion to develop the pushy, obnoxious persona that all too many develop while in front of their keyboard and comfy? Transference and displacement play a role wayyyy to often online.
By the way, congrats on the choice of and performance of Puttin' on the Ritz. Have a safe trip home!
I was at the Hulk panel and it was fantastic. Despite the number of years I have lived in the Atlanta area this is only the second DragonCon I have been able to attend. This was also the first panel that I have attended that you were a part of, Peter and I have to say that it was a hoot. I especially enjoyed your answer to the question I asked regarding your favorite Hulk story that you didn't write.
Hulk #6. You should do a dramatic reading sometime.
I would also like the thank you for letting my wife take a picture of us. I know you were in a hurry, but you were very gracious and I appreciate it.
>
That immediately reminded me of the Friends episode where Ross would sing "baby got back" to his daughter.
"the star of the panel was Caroline. She was in rare form, and even did her fun party tricks such as bouncing up and down and dancing exuberantly when I hum MC Hammer's "Hammer Time." Why the song has that effect on her, I couldn't say, but it does."
My eighteen-month-old niece loves the song "Hey Ya" by OutKast. She'll point to the iPod (imagine! A whole generation now that is growing up with MP3s!) and look imploringly at you until you play it. Then she'll bounce around happily. "Thank God for Mom and Dad," indeed.
The "Hammer Time" made me laugh. For all three of my children, "Diaper Time" whenever changing diapers (as you know, about 200 per day). It mean that they danced while being diapered, but they were always happy about it. The cool part is that months before they could speak, they were able to sing that "doo do do doot" piece whenever appropriate.
a replica of Excalibur from "Holy Grail" made by the fine folks at Museum Replicas (no clue how I'm getting it home yet.)
Send it home via UPS. I've been told that it may be against the rules to bring something like that on an airplane, even as checked baggage (and there's a pretty good chance of it being damaged that way).
Peter! It sounds like you had a great time and I'm sorry I missed D*C this year. I'm one of your biggest fangirls and would have been there to show extra support...just like a victoria secret's bra.
So glad that D*C was a success this year. I hope to see you next year!
Reason
Send it home via UPS. I've been told that it may be against the rules to bring something like that on an airplane, even as checked baggage (and there's a pretty good chance of it being damaged that way).
I was gonna suggest stopping by Kinko's and shipping via FedEx, but I concur.
Fred,
Why in heaven's name would questions to PAD and/or Jones be "inappropriate". It's a panel for asking questions, right? I do not know which statements PAD made that he was "bracing" himself for, but I am certain his statements were professional and critical of the work, not the man, so what's the problem?
Actually, I would find it far more likely (and interesting) if both PAD and Jones - and Jenkins, for that matter - used the question to not only set the record straight and smooth out any ruffled feathers (if there were/are any) but to have an intertesting discussion on their vision and interpretation of the Hulk. But the question was never raised, so the opportunity there was lost (for that question).
And since PAD was talking about online comments he made - not fans' online comments - then you obviously are accusing PAD of "being online and throwing away discretion to develop the pushy, obnoxious persona that all too many develop while in front of their keyboard and comfy."
Yep, that must be it.
Jerome (Once again twisting intent to pick a fight and stand righteous):
>Why in heaven's name would questions to PAD and/or Jones be "inappropriate". It's a panel for asking questions, right? I do not know which statements PAD made that he was "bracing" himself for, but I am certain his statements were professional and critical of the work, not the man, so what's the problem?
I am certain of the same thing. I speak of the pushy, socially inept fans who have no problem twisting online statements in order to provoke a reaction. To twist PAD's statements at a public forum that both he and the current writer are participating in would be bad form to say the least. This was my point as it seemed that PAD was prepared for it to happen as well.
>Actually, I would find it far more likely (and interesting) if both PAD and Jones - and Jenkins, for that matter - used the question to not only set the record straight and smooth out any ruffled feathers (if there were/are any) but to have an intertesting discussion on their vision and interpretation of the Hulk. But the question was never raised, so the opportunity there was lost (for that question).
...and he said that he was spared a potentially uncomfortable moment. Setting any record straight wouldn't necessarily even involve an audience, muchless writers waiting to document it. PAD and Jones, had they any problems, could deal with this on their own without the helpful people posing said question.
>And since PAD was talking about online comments he made - not fans' online comments - then you obviously are accusing PAD of "being online and throwing away discretion to develop the pushy, obnoxious persona that all too many develop while in front of their keyboard and comfy."
Yep, that must be it.
Not at all. I was responding to PAD's post. He stated that he was glad that he was spared an uncomfortable moment. I replied that many who would pose such a question woulddo so online, since they can invent themselves in anyway they choose. You'd certainly understand that one. Do you actually read the statements before rolling up your sleeves and responding?
Fred,
Nice to see I can't challenge your statements without you insulting me.
First, I am not and did not "twist" your intent. You made statements and I responded to them. PAD said he was "bracing" himself for questions from people in the audience regarding statements HE made online. YOU were the one who then "responded" by painting internet posters with a broad brush.
As for reading the statements I respond to (yet another cheap shot by yourself), yeah. Do you? You say something and then when I call you on it, you get defensive To wit:
"I speak of the pushy, socially inept fans who have no problem twisting online statements in order to provoke a reaction."
Yeah, and PAD did not once refer to them. He seemed uncomfortable about the subject being broached at all. For you to go on an illogical rant on internet posters when someone who asked a perfectly reasoned, legitimate question on the subject at the panel as well may have still made PAD uneasy, is either you being self-righteous, or "above it all".
"To twist PAD's statements at a public forum that both he and the current writer are participating in would be bad form to say the least."
I agree, although I do feel there is a huge difference between "What did you mean when you said Bruce Jones' Hulk run.." and "I read somewhere that you think Bruce Jones' Hulk run sucks." Even with the latter, I feel, at worst, the writers in attendance would be able to answer the question in a professional manner and at best, would be able to come up with a witty retort to defuse the situation or even make people laugh about it.
"This was my point as it seemed that PAD was prepared for it to happen as well."
Seeing as how all PAD said was he was nervous about the subject being broached at all, for you to A.) Assume what he "meant" and B.) Go on a rant on what kind of people would pose such a question makes you A.) Psychic, which I doubt and B.) A snob, which I don't.
"Setting any record straight wouldn't necessarily involve an audience, much less writers waiting to document it. PAD and Jones, had they any problems, could deal with this on their own without the helpful people posing said question."
And PAD's opinion of Jones' run arguably did not have to involve an audience either. So what you're saying is is that it is okay for PAD to publicly voice his opinion on Jones' run, but it is not okay for people to ask his opinion about it in a public setting? I realize you are constantly trying to speak for PAD,("I think what PAD was trying to say was....YEESH! As if a writer of his caliber needs you to defend him or explain his motives or words) to the point of kissing his ass, but this is too much.
Frankly, I can picture PAD handling a panel on a project if he was working with John Byrne - and responding to people who would question why he would do so with the same answer he gave on this board. So, I really don't see how answering professional criticism he publicly made of a fellow writer he does not have bad history with is somehow "inapropriate".
As for your last paragraph, I don't see how you can object. You talked about the "pushy, arrogant" online users and went on to say that he reason many fans are "more aware of the consequences of inappropriate questions when face-to-face" than online, and that's why they may be quiet as opposed to those who spout off from the comfort of their computer. And I was being sarcastic, if you would, regarding PAD, but was drawing an analogy. Using your logic, PAD felt comfortable saying his statements publicly online but then grew nervous with the possibility he may have to say them in a public face-to-face setting with Jones. So he was just like these fans you denigrate so much.
"They can invent themselves anyway they choose. You'd certainly understand that one."
You're so thin-skinned. All you do is spout quasi-philosophical mumbo jumbo, you never cite sources, you regurgitate tired talking points and you never come up with solutions. Yet when somebody calls you on it, you get defensive. Name one thing I said in my previous post was in any way ofensive to you. Yet you began and ended your reply with snide remarks. And I don't have to re-invent myself. I'm quite comfortable with who I am, thank you. Unlike yourself, I don't ahve to tell a whole comic store full of people a cruel "joke" that Bill Mantlo's best stories have been since he lapsed into a coma (yeah, everybody really thought that was funny - NOT!), and I don't continually mock other people's "fashion sense" like you do either. am an optimistic person, and I don't have to tear people down to puff myself up (but I don't let stuff slide either).
The cabaret was fine. That crowd was so jazzed to be there that they'd have applauded Nixon's resignation speech, and you were a lot more fun. :) You know you have a good room when you're singing "Rainbow Connection" and somebody actually starts blowing bubbles from the bubble thing they just happen to have with them and the audience tries to catch them. :)
Next year: Consider "An Ode to Pollution." One of Lehrer's absolute best, and utterly timeless, unfortunately.
The real measure should be that when you finished your part and the guy from "The Tribe" stepped up, THAT'S when the audience started to leave. :)
Jerome:
>You're so thin-skinned. All you do is spout quasi-philosophical mumbo jumbo, you never cite sources, you regurgitate tired talking points and you never come up with solutions. Yet when somebody calls you on it, you get defensive. Name one thing I said in my previous post was in any way ofensive to you. Yet you began and ended your reply with snide remarks. And I don't have to re-invent myself. I'm quite comfortable with who I am, thank you. Unlike yourself, I don't ahve to tell a whole comic store full of people a cruel "joke" that Bill Mantlo's best stories have been since he lapsed into a coma (yeah, everybody really thought that was funny - NOT!), and I don't continually mock other people's "fashion sense" like you do either. am an optimistic person, and I don't have to tear people down to puff myself up (but I don't let stuff slide either).
I'm not about to dig the stuff up as I've allowed enough of my time to be wasted trying to engage you in civil, topic-based conversation. Heck, even responding when you take pokes at me on more than one occassion.
I'm not aware of inciting others here as I've no idea of being the "getting defensive" with others you speak of. I don't cite sources to my own opinions as I tend to form them on my own, along with points for others to read and consider or not, and my thoughts on how one might improve our society. I've done so multiple times.
Four strikes and you're out. I do see that I've allowed myself to become annoyed with your rantings, both on topic occassionally, but mostly off (Your first response to one of my posts included misinformation and insults about my career choices, situations outside of the net, and even motivations.). When I reply to your pointed comments, you *poof* disappear, this having happened on 3 occassions thus far, until the next snipe. That means it is time to simply stop feeding the flames. You have become one with he who has no name. Cya.
Fred,
Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya, you know?
Your idea of a "civil" conversation, is one in where you basically say nothing of significance, refuse to take a stand, are sarcastic as hell and snide. Funny how you didn't care to cite anything I said before my last post that could be construed as insulting, yet you accuse me of "trying to pick a fight" and questioned whether I read thngs before "rolling up my sleeves".
You can dish it out and then you imagine you're "taking it".
This all started because I dared go on what I thought was a humorous, Dennis Miller-like rant on something you said. I was poking fun and said it in ahumorous way, while also poking holes in your argument. You proceeded to accuse me of "stick poking" (your favorite phrase) and go off on how your keyboard wasn't working right and how misconstrued what you meant, etc.
Anyone who reads ths board realizes have strong opinions. They also know have a sense of humor. And I have taken as good as I've gotten.
Yet, if even kiddingly say, "I'm sure you menat to say this instead of this" you get all offended that I was "proofreading".
Agan, as usual, you can be sarcastic about and toward everyone else, but get your panties in a bunch at the slightest criticism.
How sad for you, but it goes a long way toward explaining things.
Mr. David,
I was at the Hulk panel (and missed the "Stump Peter David" panel by dint of requiring sleep - damn the stuff!) and I enjoyed your presentation immensely. Had I known what dreadful secret you and Bruce shared, I should surely have pried into it; instead, I asked you and Bruce and Paul if there were a version of the Hulk that you thought would be untenable.
My wife is STILL laughing at your "Gay Hulk" answer. Thank you so much!
I remain,
Sincerely,
Eric L. Sofer
Board Administrator for the Captain Comics web page
WWW.CAPTAINCOMICS.US/