Recent discussions I've been having on the internet have really brought into stark relief for me how my participation can be a perpetual lose/lose proposition. Why? Because literally no matter what I do--indeed, what any creator can do--it can and often will be construed in the most negative light possible. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it, or that I'm upset about it. It's kind of fascinating, actually, in the way that any no-win scenario can be.
What truly underscored it for me was a comment made by one reviewer over on the silverbullet website. I'm not going to respond to the reviews themselves because, hey, opinions are opinions. At least they read the book. But he led off comments about ASM by saying:
"I’ve seen a surprising amount of defensiveness on the part of Peter David regarding this storyline. He’s popped up in numerous interviews and on more than one comics message board to counter those who accuse Marvel of scuppering the first three issues of his Spider-Man run with editorial constraints..."
This comment provides a distorted picture, as if I'm Paul Revere on my cyberhorse, galloping around willy nilly to sound alarms over impending disaster. Except it's not true.
Interviewers have been coming to me, at the rate of one a week for the last three months, asking for comments and responses to questions. It's not like I'm seeking them out. And all I'm doing is replying, to the best of my ability, to the things they want to know. As for message boards, I've been participating regularly in exactly three for years: Comicon, Newsarama, and comicboards.com (with a VERY occasional swing by Joe Q's board.) And I've always participated in various discussions, both about my work and other topics. The single change in my habits is that I've switched from the Hulk board to the Spidey board on the comicboards.com site since I'm writing the latter and not the former. Otherwise I'm doing nothing different than I always have. It's just that "The Other" is garnering far more discussion than anything else I'm involved in, so the perception is that I'm being more aggressive in discussing the work. Except I'm not.
Should I stonewall the interviewers? When fans pose questions to me on boards, should I ignore them? After all, in responding to them, I get pegged as "popping up" places and being "defensive." So certainly going in the opposite direction is the answer, right?
Except if I don't reply to questions that fans pose, then they repost them. And if I still don't answer, or if I don't reply fast enough, they complain that I'm ignoring them. One fan who posted a negative review of my work, to which I did not respond, then started a separate thread complaining that I didn't care about fan opinions because I did NOT provide rebuttal. And if I said "no" to all the interviews, then you just know that THAT would be remarked upon as well. "When approached for responses, Peter David had no comment" or "Peter David refused to discuss the subject."
So let's say that I restricted my internet activities to this weblog alone. Well, that's what John Byrne does, right? And how many times have we seen fans make snarky comments about how Byrne won't wander outside of a cyber realm where he totally controls the rules. Even I used to think it was a tad cowardly. More and more, I'm starting to see it now as simple common sense, because I do go other places and witness the result.
For that matter, if I DO get into an extended discussion about my work and keep at it and keep at it, then what do I inevitably hear? "Boy, you're sure being defensive." "Boy, you sure can't take criticism." "Boy, you'd think Peter David would have something better to do than keep arguing with someone who doesn't like his work." On the other hand, if I realized that the discussion is pointless and I say I'm done with it, what's the response? "A-ha! You're running away!" When I formally withdrew from commenting on rec.arts.comics, most posters snippily said, "Bull. He'll be back. They always come back." That was years ago. I wonder if they still claim I'll be back.
Now, of course, I could just ditch the internet entirely. What happens then? Fan discussion of how certain creators never participate in the internet. How they're relics or antiques or hostile to fans or don't give a damn about the fans or are missing out on the vast opportunities for marketing their work.
And there's no disputing that the internet CAN be a powerful marketing force. Orders for "Fallen Angel #1" are higher than the numbers it was drawing for the last several months of the DC run, and I attribute that in part to its internet presence.
But on-line participation, like anything else, is a double-edged sword.
So let's summarize. If I stick only to this board, I'm a control freak. If I participate on other boards or respond to interviewers, I'm popping up and being defensive. If I discuss my work at length, I can't take criticism. If I cease discussing it, I'm a coward. If I don't discuss it at all, I don't care about the fans. If I bail on the internet altogether, then I'm distant. James Kirk, who thwarted the Kobayashi Maru, would take one look at the internet and say, "You're on your own."
All I'm saying is, keep that in mind next time you're viewing how various creators interact or don't interact with the net, and realize the formidable odds that we can face.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 9, 2005 08:04 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWell, I appreciate your taking the time to post on the Newsarama boards. Your posts are always interesting and I enjoy reading your discussions. I still think we should have found out what the disease was by the end of your arc on the Other, and I disagree with your reasoning, but that may be due to the fact I'm not picking up the next 9 issues since I can't stand Hudlin and JMS.
I hope you continue posting over at those boards.
Greg
Keep on doing what you're doing.
You'll definitely want to pick up part 10 (issue 4 of FNSM). It's really nifty.
PAD
Well,
life's lessons produce some interesting sweet and sour food so to type... I don't expect 9 out of 10 of my posts to get a response for many of the reasons you mentioned. Plus, its not like you owe me anything and the politics of this biz tends to kill whatever truth I was expecting. After all, you all have jobs to cultivate. I continue to hope, against reality, that us posters arent lumped together and you pros arent too thin skinned to know to pick your battles wisely...
The Internet has also given birth to a new breed of cowards. People think they can say things without consequences.
"The Internet has also given birth to a new breed of cowards. People think they can say things without consequences."
Which is an illusion, more or less. It's just that the consequences are not as personal as they would otherwise be. But the things people post often stick with them...once a troll, always a troll, so to speak. People get put on ignore lists, virtual an actual, or can get banned, shunned, or disemvoweled. Sure, that's a far cry from risking inciting someone to physical violence, which some internet discussions could surely lead to. But the feeling of invulnerability the internet provides people is just that...a feeling, and it's an illusion. With the ability to track ISPs, it's even difficult for someone to change tags in an effort to avoid retribution.
The unfortunate thing that I see is that the lack of respect exhibited by some on the internet seems to be bleeding over into other forms of communication.
PAD,
We love having you over at the Joe Q boards. You're right, there are always going to be the haters who will give you a damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario, but you can't let that govern your interactions. You're one of the most fan-responsive creators around, and I can't see that as anything but a good thing.
"It doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it..."
[*sigh* of relief]
"James Kirk, who thwarted the Kobayashi Maru, would take one look at the internet and say, 'You're on your own.'"
But I'll bet Cmdr Stone would figure something out. If he cared to. ;-)
"The unfortunate thing that I see is that the lack of respect exhibited by some on the internet seems to be bleeding over into other forms of communication."
More people don't have Internet than do. On the other paw, media in general - responsible for spreading such annoyances as the cheeky 'no problem' instead of the more polite/respectful 'you're welcome' - is everywhere as, increasingly, are cell phones and the bad habits they've helped engender.
I think you're always going to get negative criticism no matter what you do. The internet just gives everyone a billboard. Some people will always see that as a license to just make snarky comments anonymously.
I guess the only solution is just ignore the trolls and focus on the people who try to give you intelligent criticism and discussion.
Having worked in the higher ed field and directly with students for 10 years now, I've made observations like those stated above. Bobb, were it as simple as perceived lack of consequences online, I'd be relieved. The trend that I've noticed is that much of their social skills, or lack thereof, are learned through online interactions and are carried over to daily interactions with peers, faculty, employers, etc. I have witnessed too many college-aged people responding with genuine shock and outrage at a negaitive consequence to their inappropriate or irresponsible behavior to believe that it is simply a fluck. I don't believe that there is active thinking involved here, but underlying expectations that one can voice whatever one chooses to without a consideration of consequences. They honestly don't understand the concept because they have rarely been exposed to lasting ones.
Fred
I should clarify that I am speaking specifically about adolescents and early twentysomethings, not the older group online who make outrageous comments online because they feel they have no real influence in their daily lives. Repressed anger is a sad thing.
"You'll definitely want to pick up part 10 (issue 4 of FNSM). It's really nifty.
PAD"
Okay, I'll pick up FNS #4. Thanks for the heads up.
The few times we've corresponded, PAD, you've always been considerate enough to answer. That's something I appreciate, given that you have many projects to write and deadlines to meet. Its too bad that too many people do not take this factor into account.
PAD, I think the work you do is great, some better than others, but mostly quality stuff.
I'm betting you don't get to be a good writer or a successful writer without being able to take criticism. Isn't that what writers have to do to get to be successful? There aren't very many writers that don't get to publish themselves. You've had to work through editors and editors are never critical are they? ;)
Which is an illusion, more or less.
Not entirely.
If you're on a forum that is not moderated, or not moderated fairly (ie, a forum where trolling is allowed by supposedly respectable long-time members) there is little recourse save to quit the forum.
Keep doing what you are doing Peter...the Internet is always going to have CyberThugs that have something negative to say.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
I personally feel the internet is a good way for fans to talk to the creator of their comics when otherwise would never be able to. Take John Ostranders site which is set up slightly different to yours where more often that not you get a personal reply-which I think is fantastic. Where else would I be able to ask why he does a certain thing a certain way and know I'll get an answer?
Ian
Fred, I think you're spot on. My dad has commented on how his generation, and those that closely followed him, raised a bunch of spoiled brats. I don't think he's talking about me, or maybe I hope he's not, but in general, parents of late have worked so hard to insulate, protect, and cater to their children, that we have a generation that is largely composed of people that have: never really had to work for or earn anything of value; never faced true consequences; largely been free of reprimand or discipline. The extreme cases are when parents actively work to deflect blame and responsiblity onto others, rather than forcing their children to learn the hard lessons their actions can bring about.
Bobb, add to that the fact that many parents have become so uncomfortable with the idea of their children being angry with them and I agree with you 100%.
Fred
Fred, I think you're spot on. My dad has commented on how his generation, and those that closely followed him, raised a bunch of spoiled brats. I don't think he's talking about me, or maybe I hope he's not, but in general, parents of late have worked so hard to insulate, protect, and cater to their children, that we have a generation that is largely composed of people that have: never really had to work for or earn anything of value; never faced true consequences; largely been free of reprimand or discipline.
Think you can spot this pretty easily; often, when an obnoxious person gets called on it, they'll whine about censorship and freedom of speech.
Sometimes the fans, and even the creators, all take this biz too seriously.
It almost always makes a writer look weak when they speak out to clarify points of a story. If the printed story itself wasn't clear or specific or didn't convey the message the writer is speaking on message boards to inform about, then said writer didn't do a good job in the first place.
I'm not saying that's exactly what PAD's been saying, but I have definitely noticed his comments falling into a similar category.
One not-so-small correction. John Byrne doesn't restrict himself to his own board. In his recent public spat with Wikipedia, he was generally disruptive, wiping out the page he claimed contained errors without identifying the mistakes. Some of us don't think it was a coincidence that Byrne starting complaining about the page shortly after it was expanded (in accordance with Wikipedia policy calling for presenting all sides of contested questions) to include responses from guys Byrne complained about and even a few of Byrne's admissions that some of his unflattering public comments about other figures in the industry weren't very accurate.
Peter, I think you're reading selectively.
I'm a tech support rep for an ISP, and I frequently find myself thinking people are stupid because of he kinds of calls I get. But the reality is, I'm only getting calls from people who are anable to work out these relatively simple problems for themselves, because the others are taking care of their problems themselves.
So you only hear the complaints of people who are unsatisfied with their interactions with you, simply because those who are fine with you aren't out there bitching.
hdefined :
>It almost always makes a writer look weak when they speak out to clarify points of a story. If the printed story itself wasn't clear or specific or didn't convey the message the writer is speaking on message boards to inform about, then said writer didn't do a good job in the first place.
You've fallen into the trap of overgeneralization. If a story point is missed due to a child being below the target audience, there was intentional ambiguity that was missed, the artist failed to clearly depict it, a group of individuals have fallen into a mob mentality and no longer think for themselves or simply enjoy pissing, or a person is a moron.... does that mean that the writer "didn't do a good job"?
*By the way, I've seen plenty of examples of all of the above on message boards. One needn't look far online to find it.*
Fred
PAD,
As a regular Newsamrama poster I have to say that I believe you have the respect of most of the members there. Of course a writer will always have his critics but you always do a fine job answering them.
I too go to comicboards.com and I've always been very happy to see you post in the Captain Marvel and Hulk boards. It made me as a reader feel that you as the writer actually gave a crap about the character you were writing and that character's fans.
Thank you for being an active poster on the web and I know many fans really do appreciate the your interviews and posts.
Hi, PAD.
I have found that there is really only one way to handle those that mischaracterize ones actions: Screw 'em.
What I mean by that is that once a point has been reached where history has shown that a person will take me out of context even after I've explained myself I just choose to invest my time elsewhere (though I still remain cordial).
I know it is not that simple in your profession, which sucks, but a modification of that tactic may be at least a little helpfull.
Re Fred and Bobb's discussion about parents and the general lack of a sense of consequense:
Parents also have to be carefull about punishing their kids. At some point a good old-fashioned 'spankin' might be warranted, but that is now widely regarded as abuse no matter the circumstances. Please note I'm not a particular fan of such action except as a VERY last resort and the logic behind it had best be sound.
The public has gotten to be quite a bit to handle. That's why I can't watch much reality TV. People have become so self-involved that it has crossed the border into The Land of Ridiculous. When the smallest thing goes wrong many people behave as though the ground is crumbling beneath their feet.
And I think I know why.
TV comercials (just one example). Every advertisement implies that the product is better than it is. Then when the prodect doesn't perform to expectations the customer is mollified and coddled and even given free stuff. So now people complain just for the freebies and get defensive when called on it.
I believe this inflated expectation has crossed over into other aspects of life thus creating a Me Me Me mentality in the general population.
Then someone like myself will come along with a needle to burst that bubble and then the drama starts.
Yeah, ok, it's just one theory. But I think it has at least some validity.
Many regards,
Mitch
Mitch:
>Re Fred and Bobb's discussion about parents and the general lack of a sense of consequense:
>Parents also have to be carefull about punishing their kids. At some point a good old-fashioned 'spankin' might be warranted, but that is now widely regarded as abuse no matter the circumstances. Please note I'm not a particular fan of such action except as a VERY last resort and the logic behind it had best be sound.
I understand your point, but refuse to believe that there is not an incredibly large middle ground between spankings and advocating/reinforcing inapproriate behavior. Parents who continually take the side of their children without gathering information regarding an evey or exploring the possibility of their child's behavior being in the wrong are doing a disservice to their children. That isn't my concern. My concern is that they are doing a disservice to society, by sending the product of their irresponsibility and selfishness out into the world.
Fred
*This may sound harsher and more blunt than I would otherwise intend it to. I'm having a challenging couple of weeks.*
Well, Peter... you've replied to some of my posts. We've had minor discussions once or twice. When you don't reply to what I say I'm not thinking 'Peter doesn't care about the fans?' I'm thinking: 'Okay... right now there are nineteen posts up now that make a lot more sense than mine. My questions aren't important. Or maybe I've hit a spoiler on the head and he doesn't want anyone to know. It has happened twice. Or maybe he's working. You know he doesn't talk to the fans cause he gets paid for it. Maybe he's doing something with his friends and family. Come to thing of it... I should call Joe and Liz. Play a little DCU RPG or maybe watch Meaning of Life for 15th time..." Then invariably wander off and do something and the Baltimore County PD go on high alert.
Just a not-so-small correction on the not-so-small correction about John Byrne. Byrne has said that he doesn't participate comic book related boards other than his own. AFAIK, he's never said that he doesn't participate in a board on WWII vintage aircraft or any other hobby/interest he might have.
The entire Wikipedia mess was from him trying to correct the entry about him (something he might have more knowledge about than anybody else), but the "editors" felt the need to leave up lies, rumors and other crap.
The entire Wikipedia mess was from him trying to correct the entry about him (something he might have more knowledge about than anybody else), but the "editors" felt the need to leave up lies, rumors and other crap.
So... the debate here is whether John Byrne can be objective and truthful about John Byrne, or whether others can be objective and truthful, apparently.
How does one "literally" misconstrue something? (Sorry, just joshin' ya; this "literally" business is one of my hot buttons, like "it's" and "its"...)
Peter, its the old saying about not being able to please everyone. No matter what you do, someone somewhere is going to be displeased, and its usually those people who shout louder. I lurk on a million message boards, but very rarely post anything, just because a million people will then have an opinion not on what I said, but on me. And the first thing people will say to me is: oh you dont post very often, so what do you know. And people who post too often are usually just considered "griefing" other people. Its ridiculous.
Mike
No, no, no! You're going about it all wrong, PAD! You've got to demand obedience from your fans, and never let them off that hook. Like the example you wrote about in your last post: show up to all your interviews dressed as Tim the Enchanter, and demand that all questioners open with some statement dripping in wordy flattery. If you make them work for their answers, they'll stop seeing you as 'defensive guy'. True, you might become known as 'balls-out insano-man', but hey, omelets and eggs, right?
Like the people before me were saying, people today are too spoiled... if you're not giving them enough piss with their lemonade, they think you're a lightweight and start taking potshots at you. Bottom line: you're too nice to your fans. Maybe you should be meaner to them?
Okay, time for my medicine.
PAD, you should just require that any question directed to you begin with "Oh, Mighty Peter," before you even consider answering.
Hey PAD,
Keep on truckin' on the other sites. I enjoyed your comments about "the Other" on Newsarama. They actually got me to start checking back with your site---which I had gotten out of the habit of doing.
Chris
"Balls-Out Insano-Man," now THAT is a truly intimidating Super Hero title!
You don't have such a bad moniker there yourself, Chad. ;)
Calhoun would probably track down whoever was making comments about him, and beat the crap out of them, Jay and Silent Bob style.
Honestly PAD, I enjoy your work and I enjoy this board and I'm glad at your participation... but I can sympathize with statements from people that you seem defensive. You often DO seem defensive to me, and I have lost count of the number of critical comments about your work that you've replied to here with a tone that I thought was dismissive. Responses along the line of "that's not what I was saying there" or ones that seemed to question the reader's attentiveness.
Perhaps it's just a limitation of the medium or a way some of us interpret your statements, but I think you come across that way on a comparitively regular basis.
PAD,
You're going to visit us occasionally on the Hulk Comicboards, right?
Come on! You can help us gang up on Daniel Way and this Planet Hulk thing...
>Come on! You can help us gang up on Daniel Way and this Planet Hulk thing...
That sounds like behavior Peter would be totally into... um.
This all rather reminds me of a "Meanwhile..." in Squeee! #4, by Jhonen Vasquez, about dealing with the unpleasantly obssessive sort of fans ("You didn't sign all 50 copies of my book when your hands were cut! How dare you be human!"). All Peter needs now is a space station and a death ray...
"Hellfans! Unite and form - OBSSESSOR!!"
I only read and purchase your Arthur, Apropos and ST books so the entire comic book discussion is not relevant to me.
What I REALLY LIKE about THIS website is your occasional comments about politics/current events/etc in which you are usually able to distill what I am thinking into a few extremely well written paragraphs. Few other commentators write as well about such a wide variety of topics as you do and your posts are a pleasure to read.
I recall your "Dah-It's the moon" piece. Just a wonderful piece of writing and it alone, as well as similar pieces, make it worthwhile dropping by the site.
Don't let the jerks of the world drag you down. And BTW, quit writing all that comic book crap and write more ST, Arthur and Apropos. {:>)))
Thanks
There's a phrase I've heard time and time again:
"You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't."
No matter what your point is, others will change it to fit their own needs. The press and politics have shown that.
The only thing you can do is keep your voice out there and be truthful to yourself. If others agree, they'll stick with you. If they don't, oh well.
You have been my favourite author for a very long time and not only because I enjoy New Frontier so much. This is one of my favourite places on the net. I often find your comments very interesting and thought provoking.
It is good to read that you intend to stay around although of course, being on the net, meaning in the middle of a large crowd, you also get exposed to people who rank from outright trolls and troublemakers to people who might mean well but lack skills in diplomacy and are just difficult to deal with.
I don`t post much but I like reading a good, intelligent discussion. I have found some here I found very interesting indeed. These are mainly political discussions and about comic books. This is, by the way, the only aspect that could be better: I would love it to also read more input about your books. I can`t remember that there has been a recent discussion dealing with books.
I definitely appreciate the time and effort you invest on the net and in dealing with fans.
Now now now...
In my humble opinion, there are two Kirks: original young Kirk and more mature Kirk. Kirk in Star Trek II was screaming at Khan on the communicator. Kirk in Star Trek VI didn't say a single word to his Klingon adversary while torpedo after torpedo was fired from a cloaked ship at poor Enterprise.
WWKD?
"Classic" Kirk would probably write a letter to every dude that wronged him on-line in a savage attack that would make them print a retraction. "Aged" Kirk would let people spew their venom until they ran out of breath, THEN he would strike one, solid, efficient killer blow.
I don't think Kirk would say, you're on your own. I think "Classic" Kirk would say: "Let's get those bastards!" whereas "Aged Kirk" would say nothing, wait for the storm to die down, then, with a clenched fist, say: "Fire!"
As far as I'm concerned, PAD, I'd follow you into the sun if you led the way. Keep on doing what you're doing, cuz I'm lovin every minute of it.
it's okay, unless you don't respond to my posts. J/K !
I'll be at both PhilCon in December in (surprise) Philly and Farpoint in February in Hunt Valley, MD. On each Saturday, I'll wear my "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER" t-shirt. Step on up and say HI. I'll leave my fretless bass at home.
I just want the return of Cowboy Pete.
Is that so wrong?
PAD, you would be more than welcome over at the Trek Lit board at Trek Today.
Many of the authors and editors post there regularly.
Bobb, Fred, and anyone else talking about those early 20s and teens...
I just attended a business seminar (I'm an Optician at Real Canadian Superstore in Ontario, Canada) for two days and three hours were devoted to the "millenials."
Millenials are those born in 1980 or after, who are not only our consumers but are becoming our workforce, and your comments are spot-on when it comes to describing the majority of them. I say the majority because I was born in 1980...and I don't have most of those charateristics, because I did have to work and wasn't catered to.
Millenials expect work to be easy and fun and to be able to socialize with their friends while working, do and say what they want, and when things get too hard, they quit because they only got the job because Mommy or Daddy told them to. Their parents call in sick for them or complain to their children's supervisors if they are reprimanded or fired. They have very much been catered to and let me tell you, it is very hard work to engage them for long periods of time (very short attention spans!). They tend to have a lot of initial enthusiasm but they also bore easily and once you've lost their attention, it's difficult to get it back. They are very creative, learn quickly, and have about 4000x the computer skills than their parents do. It doesn't really surprise me learning that this age group is trolling around the internet.
RE: Lazy Parenting
It makes me crazy every time I'm in a store and I hear a kid SCREAMING at the top of it's lungs and the parents do NOTHING. Or even worse, they eventually give in and buy whatever, just to get the kid to shut up. If I had pulled a stunt like that, I would have been marched (or carried) out with a hand over my mouth.
If there's one thing about which I could be considered even remotely conservative, it's child rearing. Sometimes a kid just needs a spanking.
-Rex Hondo-
I know this is kind of off-topic, and I apologize to everyone for not staying totally relevant to the thread, but I just wanted to thank Peter David for one of his works and figured this would be the place to do it. (Besides, with all this talk of Internet negativity, I wanted to add something positive, so it kind of is on-topic...) Anyway, I read PAD's Hulk story "Future Imperfect" last night for the first time and just wanted to tell him that I thought it was a great story with a truly inspired ending. Really a true classic of the genre. Thanks, PAD. (I am a fan of your newer works, just a latecomer to that particular story).
It makes me crazy every time I'm in a store and I hear a kid SCREAMING at the top of it's lungs and the parents do NOTHING.
On our flight to San Diego this past Saturday, my wife and I had to deal with one of these unfortunates.
Even worse, the kid was then allowed to run around - and of course, the little f*ck had to get into the empty seats behind us, kicking stuff before screaming some more.
I wanted to throttle the little bastard. :)
Personally, I think it's great when comic book creators interact with their fanbase.
Also personally, it's because of PAD's internet presence on Newsarama.com and comicon.com that I ended up looking more into PAD's work and becoming a fan. Without the internet I definitely wouldn't have heard of Fallen Angel and I would have missed out on a really great comic.
Yes, it is a double-edged sword posting on the internet, but I think the effects are more postive than negative.
It sounds as thought it is loang past time for fans of Peter David to do something to show our appreciation for all he does on this website. Let's get those creative juices flowing people!
So farm all that comes to mind is a massive coordinated donation/membership drive for the CBLDF.
Other suggestions?
The internet is the ultimate example of "you can't please all of the people all of the time". Some people dislike big crossovers, some love them.
With the people who are dissapointed that the events of House of M aren't being reflected in the current Spidey story, I think they're mainly unhappy with the Spidey story in House of M, not with the current story. Even though I like JMS and Bendis, I didn't read the House of M stuff because I saw what was coming. Huge, gigantic events in the lives of the characters that would quickly be forgotten.
I don't have any problem with them being forgotten. Uncle Ben isn't dead and Peter is married to Gwen? That needs to be in a What If book, not something that Spidey is supposed to experience and remember.
I fondly rember reading "The events of this issue take place before Crisis on Infinite Earths" 20 years ago, and I'm perfectly happy with The Other working that way. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of having to buy 3 titles to get one story.
But that's just me. I can't claim that my preference is enough to make one style or another the "right" choice.
Mongo is card-carrying member of CBLDF. Mongo started off by buying Mouse Liberation Front tank top in 1979. Where cookies for Mongo?
Peter, I've said it before and say again:
You can't make someone believe something they don't want to.
You can only show them your "evidence" why you believe but it's up to them to decide whether that "evidence" constitutes "proof".
And beyond a certain point of discussion and debate, you have to . . . let go--for your sake if not theirs. ultimately, sometimes you just have to "let" people who think they're right and you're wrong continue with their delusions. You can't convince all of the people all of the time.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Except Mary Tyler Moore, she could turn the world on with a smile. (No, not *that* way, you pervs out there, sheesh.)
Peter,
There a bunch of annoying people out there. No matter what you do, people will bitch. Pay attention to the people worth listening to, and do your best to ignore the comments from the idiots.
I've enjoyed your presence on the Internet, and I'm glad you're here. But I don't spend any time judging comic creators by who is or isn't on the Internet. I judge comic creators by their creations. If people people are getting snarky over creators' activities or lack of them on messageboards, they should get a life. I appreciate creators who take the time to converse with fans--juding them on the conversations seems ungrateful.
It isn't lose/lose. For every snarky comment someone writes about your participation, there are 100 people who appreciate it.
Peter,
I'm somone who posted about the Other on the Comicon.com boards. I do appreciate your responses to my comments, and I apologize if I came across as a jerk. It wasn't my intent, but I know that some other folks came along and started making personal comments along the lines you mention above. Sorry for whatever contribution to that negative atmosphere I made.
For what it's worth, I appreciate your presence and accessibility.
"I'm betting you don't get to be a good writer or a successful writer without being able to take criticism. Isn't that what writers have to do to get to be successful?"
Yes, exactly. See, that's what many on-line critics don't get. The stuff that's said about my writing efforts pales in comparison to what I've dealt with in building my writing career. Some guy on the internet bitch slaps my latest issue of Spider-Man? Kind of pales in comparison to Judy Lynn Del Rey refusing to consider "Knight Life" for publication because she said the manuscript made her vomit.
There's this off-base perception that if I discuss my work on line, it's because I'm "defensive" or "thin-skinned" (the only time the word "thin" is ever associated with me). Neither is true. Most of the time, it's simply to address what I see as misperceptions.
And it always fascinates me when I say that certain things I write require effort on the part of the readers to perceive. To which some fans get huffy and believe that I'm expecting too much. I just don't understand that reasoning. There are certain works out there that have entire books of thought, analysis and interpretation devoted to them. I'd like to think that readers of my work are up to the occasional challenge of skimming below the surface of my words.
PAD
"It wasn't my intent, but I know that some other folks came along and started making personal comments along the lines you mention above. Sorry for whatever contribution to that negative atmosphere I made."
Don't worry about it. If anything, I feel badly for the comicon participants. A simple thread started about someone liking my issue of MKSM gets completely hijacked by a small group of pontificators, none of whom have read (a) the stories in question or (b) my work in general, and yet amazingly know everything about the quality of the comics and my "real" reasons for participating in the crossover.
I don't think any rational person wants to go around quoting Spiro Agnew, but really, "nattering nabobs of negativism" just seems so applicable somehow...
PAD
Well, Comicon.com pretty much fell to the Visigoths a long time ago -- chewed at from both sides by long-time trolls and juvie exiles from the defunct Wizard boards.
PAD,
I do agree, you are somewhat in a no win situation. While we have a lot of disagreements on various social/political issues, the one thing I have always respected is that you are always yourself. And so I take you at your word when you say something. I appreciate the fact that you are open to feedback and even criticism about your work, even from non-writers such as myself.
So keep being yourself. I think most of us get it, and those who don't probably never will.
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim:
>So keep being yourself.
...or, if not yourself, possibly a young Richard Dawson.
Oh, can I deliver my Treatise on Trolls here? Please? I can't resist it after all this lovely lead-in...
Two years ago, I caught two girls operating a phony charity. Without going into a lot of detail, they'd used the internet extremely effectively to present themselves and their fake program. They managed to attract even prominent celebrities into supporting them, and conned a lot of people worldwide, including me, before they finally slipped and told a lie they couldn't wriggle out from. Understand that this wasn't one of those "I'm from Nigeria and want to give you $5 million if you'll send me $3K" things, this was a complex, long-term con, where they establish trust and build relationships so they can screw a lot of people at a time, not just swindle individual chumps into sending them a single check.
Discovering the con and breaking the news to the rest of the group on the internet was sort of OK--I had sufficient factage to support my story. And as it gained momentum, other people came forward to say, "Hey, they screwed me too and then banned me from the website so I couldn't tell the rest of you." So that helped convince the people who knew the most about the story that I was the one telling the truth, not the cons--i.e. that I was the good guy.
Enter Round 1 of trolls. These came in several varieties. The first were the Smug Smarter Than Thous. They came in uninvited just to inform us that we were all stupid and gullible and that THEY would never be so lame as to fall for a con artist. There were also the Coulda Told You Sos. They knew all about these girls from prior, smaller Internet scams, and if we had only looked at their websites, we would have known what we were dealing with. It didn't seem to matter that the Bad Guys had changed their names and online identities. This was our fault, we were obviously too unhip or too stupid to know the right facts, or too snobbish to ask the right questions from the right people. Basically your standard "blame the victim" or "kick 'em when they're down" responses, no big surprise, just annoying, unhelpful, and hurtful.
So the group gets past this initial wave of trolls. We start uncovering some really bizarre stuff as more and more previously screwed-and-banned people come forward. Teh Law let the bad guys off the hook on technicalities, creating a certain sense of outrage even among the trolls. Plus, the details became so gobsmacking that the story turned into entertainment--people couldn't wait to check in and catch up on the latest atrocity. The trolls were mostly content to simply mock the bad guys and watch.
Alas, it couldn't go on that way. We made a mistake in one "inquiry" and suggested that an innocent person was just another sockpuppet for the bad guys. It took the group about 6 hours to figure out that this person was, in fact, a real person (and make this correction online), but that was all it took to attract some particularly nasty trolls. The accusations started that we witch-hunters, going after anyone and everyone we could. Then we were Anti-Fanfic (since the accused innocent was a fanfic writer). Then we were Anti-Slash Fanfic (same reason). Then we were out to get Specific Slash Fanfic Writers, whose personal Troll Brigades felt the need to come forth and defend them even though their names had never come up on the message board before. No amount of pointing to the fact that we knew we'd made a mistake in the first place and corrected it publicly was enough to stop this train--and really, it was only about 3 main trolls that created and stoked this little Hearsay Vortex.
Said trolls were characterized by an utter disregard for logic or reason--once they decided something, that was How It Was, and no amount of truth was going to change their minds. Those trolls typically can't tell the difference between Facts and Opinions, and like to bring up old or irrelevant arguments at every opportunity. These are the kinds that will attack you no matter what your stance--"you're too defensive" if you respond, "I must be right because you ran away" if you ignore them.
I found that the best thing to do is ban these people--they don't tend to contribute to discussions, because all they want to do is Prove Their Point. Unfortunately, you can only ban them from your own blog; I've never figured out how to effectively deal with them on other sites. I tend to go for the ignoring approach, though, because these people are so irrational and obnoxious, arguing with them is a chore, not a challenge. The worst part? Even when you manage to score a brilliantly snarky smackdown, they don't admit defeat. If anything, being put in their place only makes them troll even harder in hopes of revenge.
The next wave of trolls joined the story in the middle. They'd read a few posts, just to see what this blog was all about, and form opinions based on a fraction of the available information. Then they spout them. Hoo, boy, do they spout them. It's amazing to me that the people who know the LEAST about any given topic will blather about it with the MOST righteous indignation. I think these trolls just like to think of the world in black and white, nice, simple, sorted-out bites that they can comprehend without too much synaptic effort. It's frustrating, because YOU know that they have no idea what they're talking about, but since their posts have an equal footing with all others, another newcomer could mistake the troll for an expert. So you're stuck with either the incredibly boring job of correcting their misperceptions (and be labeled as "too defensive"), or you let them perpetuate "facts" that aren't true, potentially to your detriment. Ugh either way.
It's all so sophomoric, and it's complained about universally among bloggers. I don't think it has anything to do with upbringing, or can be blamed on any generation. I think it's just that many people never grow up beyond their 7th grade mentality. Sad.
PAD, I'd just like to say, I have never been, and never will be insulted or offended when a writer OVERestimates the intelligence of his audience. I personally rather enjoy it when I catch subtexts and hints on re-reads that I didn't get on the first time through.
-Rex Hondo-
"There's this off-base perception that if I discuss my work on line, it's because I'm "defensive" or "thin-skinned". Neither is true. Most of the time, it's simply to address what I see as misperceptions."
But who's responsible for those "misperceptions", the people who read your work and came away with a different perception than you had intended, or you for perhaps not clearly conveying your intentions through your work?
Either way, to have to go outside of your work and give additional explanation to these people only justifies their own "misperceptions", if you will, since only supplementary explanation made it clear from them, and not solely the information in the work.
It's just never a good idea to go explaining yourself, even for the sake of clarity. (unless it's something along the lines of "This is such a great idea, what inspired you?" or somesuch)
'It's just never a good idea to go explaining yourself, even for the sake of clarity. (unless it's something along the lines of "This is such a great idea, what inspired you?" or somesuch)'
-------------------------------------------------
the above words by hdefined
I,
really hope not. A lot of writers write from experience and also include 'inside jokes'. There is no way I'd know what they 'meant' by such things if I wasnt there and thats still a stretch. A writer's pov of a story I like just adds to my enjoyment, provided it isnt being used as a crutch to support weak storytelling...
'It's kind of fascinating, actually, in the way that any no-win scenario can be. '
-------------------------------------------------
the above words by PAD
Of,
course we simply could be proving you right 70 so odd responses later. Or is this more of a reminder of how dealing with people, on or off the net, is what life was and continues to be...
I've found that most people that complain about an artist's work are really just insecure. I had a creative writing teacher that banned us from any sf/fantasy because (ready for this?) they aren't real forms of literature. This guy was a published poet, so to him poetry was all that mattered.
Mostly because his prose was lousy.
I'm not going to say that PAD should just ignore they who criticize his work, but ya know what? Someone who complains because you're not on such and such board or you disagree with them or BUSH SUCKS or whatever...these people seem to think you live on Bajor where the days are 28 hours long. There's only so much time that a person can spend on the internet (something I always tried to explain to my ex-girlfriend) and you start a new project every thirty milliseconds, right? That's it, you should pull a Micheal Keaton and clone yourself!
And to Bobb and Fred--AMEN BROTHERS! Brian's 4, and USUALLY, he's one of the best behaved kids around. Unlike the rest of the kids in his preschool class, he's got manners and he cares about what other people want. Usually. That's the kind of house I came from, and it makes me feel good that at least I'm taking care of him right. Too many parents now want to be friends with their kids and let them do whatever they want. Kids need structure.
"If anything, I feel badly for the comicon participants. A simple thread started about someone liking my issue of MKSM gets completely hijacked by a small group of pontificators, none of whom have read (a) the stories in question or (b) my work in general,"
As someone who participated in that thread, I should point out that statements like this one are one of the things that led to criticism from those "pontificators". If you read the thread, you'll find SOME of the people saying they aren't reading the stories in question and, I believe, ONE person saying they're ignorant of Peter David's work in general. Mr. David has now just willy-nilly attributed those qualities to, apparently, everybody who said something he didn't like.
Furthermore, the folks who aren't reading the story in question aren't really criticizing the quality the story. Almost all of those comments are directed toward the sales/marketing side of the equation, for which knowledge of this particular story is not essential.
I invite everyone to read the relevent threads on comicon.com and come to your own conclusion.
Mike
Jeez, Peter really came off defensive in this blog entry, didn't he? Sheesh.
(Just kidding. :-) )
"I,
really hope not. A lot of writers write from experience and also include 'inside jokes'. There is no way I'd know what they 'meant' by such things if I wasnt there and thats still a stretch. A writer's pov of a story I like just adds to my enjoyment, provided it isnt being used as a crutch to support weak storytelling..."
What you're describing is not quite what I was saying. If a fan asked "what was this reference supposed to mean?" that's more of an innocent inquiry. However, if a fan says, not as a question, "I hated how this character acted this way," then it looks weak for the writer to come in and say "But you don't understand, there was a really good reason for that character to act that way!" The former's acceptable, the latter never ends well.
PAD,
You're quite aware that it would be impossible to reply to each and every criticism and compliment, offered up on each and ever forum, on the 'net -- without setting aside every project you're involved in for weeks or months at a time. Each of these participants that fish for such responses tends to be too self-absorbed to realize that he *isn't* the only individual seeking your attention. I imagine many of those folks have too much time on their hands, and nothing better to do than to inhabit forums and chatrooms all day.
I've always thought it was very neat that you interact with us fangeeks, first on Usenet, and now in this and other forums. It *isn't* written into your "job contract" that you do so, though it does enhance the experience for us and no doubt for yourself. On a personal level, I get a kick out of receiving a personal response to a question or comment, and I quite understand when you aren't able to do so. It's unfair for any of us to demand your attention, so I (and others) really do appreciate that you take the time, without sacrificing any of the time you dedicate to writing your books.
So, thank you for sticking around in spite of us fangeeks!
Wildcat
Jeanine wrote: "I don't think it has anything to do with upbringing, or can be blamed on any generation. I think it's just that many people never grow up beyond their 7th grade mentality."
While I disagree with you that upbringing has no influence on a person's behavior, I'd like to THANK YOU for saying that this can't be blamed on generation. I'm 39 now, and I heard the "kids today are so much worse than they used to be" complaint in the 90's, 80's, and 70's -- and I'm sure I would have heard it in the hippie-filled 60's too, if I hadn't been too busy figuring out things like walking, talking, and using the bathroom (preferably not all at the same time). When I worked at Hewlett-Packard, one guy had a (translated) quote taped to his wall from an ancient Greek in maybe 500 BC who had essentially the same complaint.
I went back to college two years ago get my MS, and I can't say I noticed the students acting significantly differently than the ones I remember from the 80's when I got my BS. IMHO, things are actually getting slowly *better* over time -- the early 2000's are a better place than the early 1900's, which beats the 1800's, and heaven help you if you think the middle ages were a paradise. I've seen the marginal improvement over my lifetime.
But you always have to remember that every generation spawns a high percentage of @$$holes. Some grow out of it, and some don't. I've known jerks who were born in the 40's and earlier, who displayed every symptom of bad behavior mentioned in this thread.
While I understand your point of always hearing that this generation is worse,etc, I am basing my statements about the loss of personal responsibility and accountability on about 10 years of watching a trend growing steadily with a population. Very specific and observable traits are being seen. Are there improvements in some ways? Sure, this generation is more computer savvy and m8uch more advanced as a whole in math and sciences than I was as a high school graduate in 86.
PAD
I wouldn't worry about it. There are always people out there who want to criticise for the sake of it, not because they want to enter into a reasoned argument about this or that part of a text or so forth.
Being a Brit, I always see criticism as a sign of popularity. Our tabloids behave in a similar way to your online critics, bitching and critiscing someone and distorting what they have said and done. The more popular you are the more they do it! There is no way to win with the tabloids, and I have heard countless celebrities drone on and on about how they tried to make friends with the media and how it never worked and the bitched about them anyway.
Your right, you'll always have those people in your life. But it would be a shame to miss out on discussion with fans who are more reasonable.
Keep on blogging and posting.