PeterDavid.net

The principle of "repeat a lie often enough and people start to believe it" is not completely wrong, more's the pity. Works for governments all the time.

Who did you have fall to their death underwater? I mean, that's pretty crazy. ;)

"Who did you have fall to their death underwater? I mean, that's pretty crazy. ;)"

It would be, had I done it.

The lie is rooted in an issue of "The Atlantis Chronicles" in which one character chucks another off a balcony. Since I'd firmly established that their clothes were weighted to counter buoyancy, the thrown character "fell" from the balcony, albiet slowly, and landed on his ass.

This was reworked by John into that I was so stupid that I had a character fall to his death underwater.

PAD

Admit it, though, this story was the inspiration for the "Layla Miller" character...

Well, since I didn't create Layla Miller, I'm not sure what the inspiration for her was.

PAD

OK....

I've never heard the underwater death thing before.

I've read Chronicles. I've given Byrne the "bad recollection" beneft for a number of other things he has said over the years (even the Alpha Flight one). But, damn, someone would have to have deliberately forced themself to misunderstand what was on that page to make a claim anything like that one.

John Byne also said there is no Santa Claus! How can he be so cruel?!?

John Byrne's forum has quickly turned him into the laughingstock of the comix world. Familiarity need not breed contempt, but it does when the person you're becoming familiar with is so close-minded and prone to fits of jealous rage.

I haven't read a positive reaction by Byrne to any creator younger (or at least "newer") than himself. He had to interrupt his ill-informed dissection of Grant Morrison's shortcomings to mention Peter's wrongdoing towards him. Don't even get him started on Alan Moore (though PAD doesn't miss many oppoartunites to go at that target, himself). Byrne called some fellow on his board an asshole just because he said he was looking forward to reading "Lost Girls."

"He had to interrupt his ill-informed dissection of Grant Morrison's shortcomings to mention Peter's wrongdoing towards him."

He did? I missed that one.

"Don't even get him started on Alan Moore (though PAD doesn't miss many oppoartunites to go at that target, himself)."

I do? Hmm. I only recall asking if people were planning to buy "Lost Girls" because of the controversy (or in spite of it), and I think I commented on the notion that Alan's deal with "Watchmen" was pretty much standard issue for publishing, and characterizing DC as thieves and such when he knew the deal going in wasn't exactly fair. Other than that...

PAD

I think that I'm going to go look at that thing. I've read a shorter version of this that Mr. David wrote before but I've never actually read anything that Mr. Byrne actually wrote himself about this incident. I'd be interested in seeing what it looked like through the lens of his perception. Given what I know of the two men, I believe what Mr. David wrote about it, but I'd still be interested in seeing how Mr. Byrne represents it.

Byrne just responded, actually:
"To this day, he maintains he was [justified in revealing Guardian's death]. 'I was doing my job!' -- as PR flak for Marvel. Someday, I hope some asshole does the same to him."

As I say, you can bring up pretty much any active writer in that forum and John will come up with something to bitch about.

PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each. At least you have reasoned arguments for each. JB is quite big on "quoting" pages and panels out of context, and using the most basic fallacies to claim that various comic writers are knowingly subverting or ruining beloved properties. It's his big cause.

Or maybe not. I just read what's there and it looks like he's not inclined to go into it in any more detail than "Peter David screwed me in this way." Maybe after work when I have more time...

Seems like if anyone blew the whistle on Guardian's death, it was Bryne himself. PAD makes a convienent target because he was a marketing guy at the time.

But, seriously, screaming and kicking over something? It's funny when my 10 month old son throws stuff around because he's frustrated, but I think once you start to get the hang of language as a form of communication, the tantrum starts to lose it's appeal.

It's just amazing that he cares so much. We all have past coworkers that we really don't like for one reason or another, but I try generally to forget about them. I don't really care that they might have friends or be popular.

Now, I fully understand how he could've been upset at the event. But it's not like you snuck into the Marvel Vault late at night, and said "Hee, if I slip in these pages, I'll ruin John Byrne's surprise! That would be such a clever prank!" It logically had to come from editorial. Byrne has a legitimate beef with his editor over how the promotion of his book was handled, but even then, that's something that you give over to other hands by working at D.C. or Marvel. But gee, you're barely even involved in the story.

Byrne is a competent artist, and his style of storytelling has found an audience, but I don't see how rabblerousing when it clearly fails the logic test does him much good. Especially against someone who has the kind of credibility one can only get after years of personal interaction with his readers. Whether one likes PADs work or not, (and most of us here probably do), I've never known him to be dishonest.

Does it even matter at this point?

Say you are John Byrne and his story is true. PAD (seems like before he was PAD) spoils something relatively important-but important in 1984 (or whatever). It is a solid 20 years later. Things happen. It would be a shame, but life goes on. Both men have gone on to 912 things since then.

I never liked the talent taking pot shots at each other. Too much seeing the wizard behind the curtain. For some reason, JB tends to do it with a lot of people and seemingly always has.

"PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each."

That's entirely possible, but that has nothing to do with Alan Moore as a person; that's just a discussion of writing technique.

PAD

I must admit it took me time to get used to some creators-JB, PAD, and others-who can be a bit gruff. I was used to the personas of Stan Lee, Gruenwald, Ralph Macchio, etc. who, from what you saw of them in the books, were not that way.

I stopped paying attention to John Byrne. He is an embittered little man, and his own worst enemy.

I just realized, Peter, that it may sound like I was trying to tell you to merely ignore John. I wasn't attempting to give you that or any other advice. My situation is different from yours: I don't know John, and he doesn't know me.

I was merely attempting to illustrate how childish behavior like Byrne's can backfire.

Here is John Byrne's full expanded version:

http://byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13964&PN=1&get=last#395931

In the 70's and 80's, I was a big time Byrne fan. Now, I don't bother. He has not done anything worthwhile since the second Generations limited series. In other words, he is irrelevant.

I hope that Byrne can get some help and return to form.

Byrne's version story would have far more credibility were it not for the numerous times he has been caught red-handed while lying about fellow creators, or at the very least for telling stories which he later could not back up.

I'll never forget the time he accused Roy Thomas of literally ripping pages out of a book he did not write and handing them in as a script. When confronted, Byrne issued a written apology that stated he was merely acting as an "office parrot," and that the real blame rested with the people at Marvel Comics who told that story.

What a real stand-up guy.

Whoops, correction to the above, he issued a "non-apology." He never said he was sorry and deflected the blame.

Yeah, I think he said Marv Wolfman had told the story.

Thomas allegedly threatened to sue him for defamation.

I think really what makes sense is that Byrne (and others) thought Thomas was adapting too many other works and ruining his talent. As Byrne said, "He used to be the best writer in the business."

In doing so, he tells a joke, which he may have heard from someone else, but instead tells it as fact for some reason.

Then instead of saying "I was kidding, exaggerating to make a point" he gave a non apology.

Either way, if he does something I am interested in, I'll buy it. I liked The Atom. and his art on Demon was stellar. I even liked Doom Patrol except for the nonsequential storyline.

Well, at least now John is coming up with brand new lies. It's a complete fabrication. Total bullshit. The only accurate part is this:

"Post Script -- I notice David leaves out of this version of his tale the bit of embroidery where he and Tom DeFalco had to come up to my room to "calm (me) down." It's a tangled web. Hard to keep track of all the strands."

Yes, I did leave that out since it wasn't especially germaine to the lie. Tom and I went up to Byrne's hotel room to try and calm him down, and I apologized profusely for having inadvertently upset him. I also assured him that I'd gone through the photocopies and removed the offending material, which I had.

Other than that, complete nonsense.

PAD

Anyway, I guess at this point, IMO, the best thing is to just ignore each other, although it is easy to say since I am not involved and not the ones being called a liar

Peter, one thing I've noted about you is that you stick with the facts when discussing disputes you've had with others. Byrne does the opposite. So, frankly, he can lie all he wants. I accept your version of the story because you haven't squandered your credibility by slandering others.

PAD, you even admit you handed out the offending fliers. So, why are you even arguing about it now?

Because the issue at hand is not "Did PAD hand out the offending fliers?". We're going from "Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian's death at a con about a month before the book shipped." to PAD handing out editoriallly-APPROVED xeroxes to retailers at a retailer meet. The anecdote becomes humorous when it's Byrne who accidentally spills the beans that retailers are witnessing Guardian's demise.

I always find it incredible that people can hold grudges 22 years after the fact.

As it is, the whole story comes down to "he said, he said." If PAD's version of events is accurate, then he was merely handing out promotional material that was given to him by the editor of the book. In which case, Byrne's real beef would be with Denny O'Neil, not PAD. The rest of the details seem trivial: Whether Byrne tripped over a chair or knocked over an ashtray isn't really that important. Both agree that he was furious at the time.

So the key question is, which version of events seems more credible: Was PAD handing out a packet of approved promotion material or was he handing out copies of pages just to spoil Byrne's story? To believe Byrne's version, you'd have to think PAD was some kind of loose cannon at Marvel, leaking plot details out of spite. I can't imagine he'd have risked his job if the materials hadn't been approved by management. So PAD's version of events sounds more credible to me.

This sordid miasma of bad feeling and acrimony almost makes you want to reevaluate the merits of killing a superhero and bringing him back to life at all.

...come to think of it, didn't the cover of that issue say a memeber of Alpha Flight was going to die? Peter, were you responsible for that too? Maybe John has a point after all.

//I always find it incredible that people can hold grudges 22 years after the fact.

As it is, the whole story comes down to "he said, he said." If PAD's version of events is accurate, then he was merely handing out promotional material that was given to him by the editor of the book. In which case, Byrne's real beef would be with Denny O'Neil, not PAD. The rest of the details seem trivial: Whether Byrne tripped over a chair or knocked over an ashtray isn't really that important. Both agree that he was furious at the time.

So the key question is, which version of events seems more credible: Was PAD handing out a packet of approved promotion material or was he handing out copies of pages just to spoil Byrne's story? To believe Byrne's version, you'd have to think PAD was some kind of loose cannon at Marvel, leaking plot details out of spite. I can't imagine he'd have risked his job if the materials hadn't been approved by management. So PAD's version of events sounds more credible to me.//

Another flaw in the JB story, at a convention a fan comes over and states he got pages from Peter David, except I don't believe Peter David was that well known at the time. Saying "I got it from the guy at the Marvel Table" I could believe but specifically mentioning the name of a pro that fans really wouldn't have known at the time. That leads me to believe it was a retailer event, given PAD's postition at Marvel at the time retailers would know his name, average fans, not so much.

In any event everytime this story comes up I always have the same thought, namely maybe they are both right. Has it occured to anyone that maybe the editorial office did give PAD those copies to hand out and then when confronted by thier star artist just lied about it? (What are you talking about, I didn't give it to him, I don't know how he got it). Probably no way to prove or disprove it now but it's not beyond the realm of possiblity and it would explain why PAD and JB see the incident so radically different.

Wow!

Does anyone even take Byrne seriously anymore when he goes off on these rants - hasn’t he become more like the crazy uncle of the comics industry that everyone just figures is going senile? It appears to me as time passes he is making more a name for himself by putting his foot in or shooting off his mouth than for any of the projects he works on.

Oops, I imagine just by saying something like that I’ll never be able to post up on his board... I’ll manage somehow.

Hmmm. Me thinks it is that Peter was in sales that has started John's bad attitude toward Peter.

Whether it's Rod, Joe, or "pseudo-Rod:"

I have known John Byrne for a number of years now and I have never known him to lie. I have never met PAD but it seems like he, at the very least, tells stories to make himself look good. Always.

You are at least passively comparing lies with spin, as if they are comparable, and they are not.

Presuming Byrne doesn't believe that what he is saying is a lie, he isn't even capable of admitting when he is wrong, which makes him exactly what you are accusing PAD of in your snide way. Witness Byrne's recent post in a thread about the Eternals (http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12952&PN=1&TPN=5), wherein he discusses the facts of Jack Kirby's treatment by Marvel:

As one who was there at the time, I can report that Jack was given carte blanche until it was seen that sales were plummeting --- at a time when FANTASTIC FOUR was selling about 190,000 per month, Kirby's CAPTAIN AMERICA sank to 17,000! --whereupon the "real" Marvel Universe was placed out of bounds, and he was given books like MACHINE MAN and DEVIL DINOSAUR.

He starts by offering his credentials as "one who was there at the time." Consider it certified, right? When several posters follow up by suggesting the 17K number seems unrealistically low for the period, Byrne defends it:

What you can "imagine" is not of a whole lot of concern to me. That's the number I was told at the time.
And have I mentioned lately how incredibly tired I am of these "Gee, John, I know you were actually there, but I think things must have been different" responses?

Note his aggressive play once again of the "I was actually there" trump card.

Shortly thereafter, some statements of ownership get posted that prove the number never got below 130,000.

Byrne's response?

Then I guess everyone up at Marvel back then was smoking dope or something.

At no point does Byrne apologize. At no point does he admit that he was misinformed and passed on that misinformation as fact, then defended it when it was challenged. When his position gets untenable, he abandons ship, without apology, concession or general courtesy. Why? Because Byrne always, ALWAYS, tells stories to "make himself look good." If he's wrong, he's not wrong, it's someone else: he was "merely acting in the office of parrot." Yet again.

Your perceived allies are no more worthy of your trust than your perceived antagonists.

Look, I'm no fan of Byrne's, nor of many of the sycophants who post on his messageboard. Nevertheless, to the Rod Odom impostors (and I'm sure neither of you are the real Rod Odom, because you do a poor job of mimicking his writing style and syntax): stop it. You are making asses of yourselves.

Get. A. Life.

(By the way, before anyone accuses me of being a PAD sycophant, search these threads. I've openly disagreed with him in the past. It's just that, unlike some people, I don't go out of my way to invent unfounded criticisms to level at him.)

"...come to think of it, didn't the cover of that issue say a memeber of Alpha Flight was going to die? Peter, were you responsible for that too? Maybe John has a point after all."

I don't remember the cover in particular, but no. The sales department was/is responsible solely for getting the books into distributors' hands and pushing the books that editorial hands us. We had nothing to do with sell copy on the covers. That was all editorial.

PAD

Well, now that mister Byrne has posted a version of events, I have an opinion. Mr. Byrne's own account has him very upset at the whole affair while Mr. David is described by him as more calm (even "dear in the headlights" is more calm than "leave before I choaked the @#$%"). While I believe that Mr. Byrne is telling events as he remembers them, I'm afraid I'd trust the man the Byrne himself describes as less emotionally worked up by the whole thing. No surprise, there.

Plus, I can't work out how Mr. David could have handed out material like that on his own say-so, infuriated John Byrne when he was at the height of his popularity...and still have kept his job after it got back to Denny O'Neil. Admittedly,I've never worked in Marketing at Marvel or anywhere else, but I can't come up with a scenario that reconciles those things.

"Has it occured to anyone that maybe the editorial office did give PAD those copies to hand out and then when confronted by thier star artist just lied about it? (What are you talking about, I didn't give it to him, I don't know how he got it). Probably no way to prove or disprove it now but it's not beyond the realm of possiblity and it would explain why PAD and JB see the incident so radically different."

It's certainly not impossible that Denny's office tried to cover its own ass. Of course, the concept that they didn't know anything about it falls apart when the simple question is posed: How did I get the artwork? The ONLY way I could have gotten it is to have it handed to me by the editorial office, and the ONLY person who would make the call as to what to show the public would be the editor overseeing that office (i.e., Denny.) The only other possible concept is that I snuck around to offices, found stuff I liked, took it without their knowledge, photocopied it and put it back. In which case I would have been fired. Does that scenario make ANY sense?

PAD

Nef. Wrote: "PAD, as far as your attitude towards Alan Moore, I've just noticed that you've mentioned the pacing of The Watchmen and the characterization of Batman in The Killing Joke more than once each."

To be fair, he also recently said:

PAD wrote "It's high-priced, but hey, it's Moore"

Which strikes me as an endorsement. Individual comments, be they positive or negative, should not be taken as reflecting the entirety of ones opinion.

"Another flaw in the JB story, at a convention a fan comes over and states he got pages from Peter David, except I don't believe Peter David was that well known at the time. Saying "I got it from the guy at the Marvel Table" I could believe but specifically mentioning the name of a pro that fans really wouldn't have known at the time. That leads me to believe it was a retailer event, given PAD's postition at Marvel at the time retailers would know his name, average fans, not so much."

Excellent point. Guardian expired in 1984; my first published comic work didn't come out until 1985. It's not like my work on "Marvel Age" established my name in the consciousness of fans. So Byrne's latest lie becomes that much more obvious when faced with yet more indisputable facts. Sadly, most of the Byrnebots on his board will never look below the surface.

Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

PAD

Hey, kids, just stuck my head in the lion's mouth and posed to Byrne some questions regarding his version of events:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13964&PN=1&TPN=3

Can't wait to see where this goes.

Byrne's responded. But his response doesn't really make sense when you consider the timeline.

Byrne answered part of my question at the time of this posting, but not all of it. So I rephrased the part of the question that was unanswered and posed it to him again.

It was worded in a non-threatening, non-inflammatory, but nevertheless direct way. Again, I am interested to see where this goes.

I have to admit that these PAD v JB things always amuse me. I have no idea most of the time who is right or wrong, and I don't go spread these things to others, they do enough of that. But it really is like a reality show. I would love to see a new season of Big Brother with all comic creators. How wonderful would that be??

For the record though, I do think that if things had gone down according the JBs recollection, PAD would have been fired by Marvel in a heartbeat. For everyone else, ask yourself what your employer would do if you did something like that.

Oh, and I give PAD credit because I have seen many critiques and reviews of creators' work, but I don't think I have have ever seen an overall endorsement or opposition just because of who they are. He seems quite objective.

Regardless of who's got the more accurate recounting of events...they were 22 years ago after all...I think the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I was just getting into comics at exactly that time...Alpha Flight 16 was my first issue, I think. Anyway, the point is, imagine a marketing guy in your company releases some time-sensitive information that risks hurting sales, and maybe more importantly, upsets one of your star talents (say what you will about byrne today, no one can dispute that in the 80s Byrne was one of the top talents in comics). Now, maybe that marketing guy doesn't get fired on the spot, but do you really think that the publisher is going to keep him on much longer? Let alone start giving him work as a writer for some of their most popular characters?

It just doesn't fly. If events were more the way Byrne presents them, we'd not be having this discussion, because no one would know about PAD as a writer of comics. Maybe he'd still be writing stuff, but not the stuff we talk about more often than not. Because if Byrne really thought PAD had done something on his own, without Marvel editorial approval, he'd have had him canned.

It's easy for PAD to pass the blame off onto a dead man - too bad he waited until Denny was gone to cast him as the villian in this story. Funny how often that happens.
*****
Yes, I am certain PAD was waiting andwaiting for Denny to die to bring this up, so he had a hypnotist sneakily introduce himself to Byne and make Byrne bring it up to begin with just so that PAD could blame Denny. I hear PAD is a criminal genious this way.

Do you realize how you sound?

Just as an excersise, everyone should take a moment to think about some event in their lives that occurred 20-odd years ago, and see how clearly they remember all the details. I'd have been 15. To be brutally honest, I can't recall a single event with any clarity from that year. You'd have to skip ahead a year to when I first started dating for me to have any real clear memories, and even then, it's mostly just the big details.

PAD's been proven in the past to be a stickler for details and facts. Byrne's demonstrated that he doesn't really care if his recollection is right or wrong, he's sticking to it. Which one makes the more reliable witness to you?

Because if Byrne really thought PAD had done something on his own, without Marvel editorial approval, he'd have had him canned.
*****
Maybe it is all about another Byrne lie and in truth he is really a sweet understand guy who can accept that people make mistakes and it wasn't an intentional slight by someone out to get him so he stood up for Peter David and the became friends for life going on to work together for hundreds of issues of the best comic books in the world.

Oh how I love alternate universe stories.

I don't want to ruin the PD.net/ByrneRobotics crossover (with Joe "Rod Odom" Zhang doing his best to play the role of Doombots), but in regard to L.Walkers post above ("To be fair, PAD recently wrote 'It's high-priced, but hey, it's Moore'"):

In that post PAD was gauging fan interest in Lost Girls. I took the "hey, it's Moore" to indicate only that many comic fans buy anything with Alan's name on it. Maybe he did mean that he's one of those fans, I don't know. The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong.

Why do people always impersonate Rod/Joe? It is soooo lame. The same guy seems to be posting and making whacky opposing points with himself. Watta maroon.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

Last I checked, Denny O'Neil was still alive. I hadn't heard anything about him dying. And he's still listed as a guest for next week's Dragon Con.

http://www.dragoncon.org/people/oneild.html

I don't know whether you're the "real" Rod Odom or just another Byrne sycophant, but you'd better be able to back up the story about Denny being dead.

"Posted by: Rod Odom at August 29, 2006 03:18 PM

It's easy for PAD to pass the blame off onto a dead man - too bad he waited until Denny was gone to cast him as the villian in this story. Funny how often that happens."

Am I reading this right? Denny O'Neil is dead? Since when? I haven't been able to find a single reference to his death anywhere.

Rick

Is "Rod Odom" the new "I am Spartacus!"?

My take on the issue: Just stay away from messageboards; they're hives of scum and villany, and you can't believe anything 90% of what you read there. Oh, crap, does posting undermine my position?

Nef. wrote "In that post PAD was gauging fan interest in Lost Girls. I took the "hey, it's Moore" to indicate only that many comic fans buy anything with Alan's name on it. Maybe he did mean that he's one of those fans, I don't know. The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong."

Could be taken either way, I admit. Thanks for clarifying your interpretation.

That guy is just a fake Rod/Joe. He is just trying to stir things up and blame it on the byrne forum

Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie.
*****
Uhm, did you know him well 22 years ago? I don't know about many people here, but most of the people I know changed tons over the last 22 years, at least enough to put some reasonable doubt into this bit of logic.

Greg Kirkman says "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public"

Well, I've spent a fair amount of time lurking on his forum (can't join without a school or work email, don't you know), and he frequently curses and otherwise insults members based on their tastes and opinions. Not even as the result of a prolonged and heated argument, but out of the blue. He just called someone "an ass" for suggesting that all parties should forget about an event so long in the past, for instance. Maybe "yelling" and "in front of the public" aren't the technically correct terms to apply to those situations, but I think it establishes him as a bit of a bully prone to outbursts.

Greg Kirkman says "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public"

Apparently, John Byrne himself disagrees:

John Byrne wrote on his forum: "I exploded. I threw a fit -- but nothing else. I demanded to know what the %#$@ he was doing sabotaging a story I had been working on for more than a year."

Greg Kirkman: "Anyone who knows JB, or who has spent any time on his board enjoying his company - and, yes, repecting his rules - can see this as an obvious lie. He would never yell at anyone in front of the public, and would certainly be far too canny to give things away on his own like that. But it looks as though PAD has really learned how to push The Big Lie by sticking to his guns and spicing things up with details like the supposed ashtray."

Greg, John Byrne is the man who openly accused Roy Thomas of literally ripping pages out of someone else's book and handing them in as a "script" for a comic -- and who, when confronted about it, couldn't even muster up the decency to say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have repeated that hearsay."

He is also the man who claimed that the protagonist in Spider-Man 2099 #1 did not appear in costume, even though anyone who picked up the actual comic could tell you otherwise. And again, he could not be bothered to apologize.

So I think reasonable people can be forgiven for entertaining the idea that he would engage in other similarly unprofessional behavior.

According to Greg Kirkman, this person posting under his name is not him.

Greg Kirkman wrote on the John Byrne forum: "Oh, boy, now it's my turn for people to pretend to be me! I guess we're both Internet celebs, Joe!"

"Rod Odom says" No Rob, what is sooooo lame, is a guy who continues to whine because he was kicked off of a board that didn't want his sorry little ass. Tell us again how you love Byrne and can't understand why he hates you.

Stay on IMWAN, wimp.
*****
Ha? This has to be a joke post from someone at IMWAN.

I don't whine that I was kicked off. I liked it enough there but I am not angry or upset that I got kicked off.

and I doubt Byrne much even remembers me, much less hates me. We had few interactions considering my time on there, other than my banning.

and I do like a lot of Byrne's work, though I've hardly bought all of it. I don't "love" Byrne-I don't even know him, never met hi,and I disagreed with him frequently enough. He gives a lot of time to hbis fans, more than any pro I've seen, but he also has an abrasivve personality.

and the real Rod and I had a good talk on newsarama a little while ago.

I am figuring this is a joke but hard to tell.

Bill: Actually, he did apologize, publicly, on account of the lawsuit brought forth by Thomas, as any Google search will tell you.

Well, Denny O'Neil is still alive, near as I can tell. At http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699 Joe Zhang posted the following:

Hi Denny!

I have a couple of questions for you.

John Byrne has told a story about how Peter David handed out xeroxes of the death of Gaurdian at a convention a month before the issue hit the stands, revealing the surprise ending. Peter said you told him it was ok. Is that how it really happened?

John Byrne also claims you stole the idea of an asian Batgirl from him. He pitched it to you and you declined and a few months later, you introduced her yourself. Is that anywhere close to being true?

Thank you for your time.

And I think we may see Byne's "out" if Mr O'Neil should confirm PAD's sequence of events--he'll claim it's payback for Byrne revealing the "theft" of the Asian Batgirl idea!

Bill Meyers, you're a braver man than me for stepping in that snakepit...and why are there supposed to be people pretending to be some guy named Rod Odom? Is he someone we're suppsed to know?

Bill Mulligan: "Bill Meyers, you're a braver man than me for stepping in that snakepit..."

Actually, it's the reverse: I'm scared not to do it. I said some stuff about John here. If I don't have the guts to say it to John's face (or "cyber-face" as the case may be), that would make me a coward in my view. So, I guess I did what I did out of fear of being a coward. How's that for pretzel logic?

Bill Mulligan: "and why are there supposed to be people pretending to be some guy named Rod Odom? Is he someone we're suppsed to know?"

Don't think so. Rod Odom is a fan of Byrne's and an outspoken supporter (I don't know if Rod Odom is his real name or just a handle). Some really creepy Byrne-haters think it's cool to impersonate Rod, when all they're doing is betraying the fact that they still live in Momma's basement and ain't never had a girlfriend.

I came across that forum when I googled Denny O'Neil looking for information on whether or not he was dead.

And Joe Zhang is allegedly the "real" Rod Odom.

I don't get this constant impersonation game. Does anyone here think that claiming to be Rod Odom makes their opinions more credible? The same thing happened the last time I remember PAD writing about Byrne. What's deal with that?

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if Denny replies to it. I do find it interesting that Byrne cites as "proof" that Denny O'Neil claimed ignorance about PAD distributing the pages. He even says on his forum that either his version of events is true or Denny O'Neil is a liar. But Byrne is the only witness to what Denny allegedly said to him. So, if Denny confirms that he gave the pages to PAD, then Byrne will just say that Denny is a liar.

Bill Mulligan, I think the Rod Odom is the internet handle of the same Joe Zhang that you are quoting from comicscommunity. If you read this entry's sister thread at the Byrne Forum, you'll see him repeatedly denying that he is the poster(s) here using the "Rod Odom" handle here. It appears that there's some guy sometimes impersonates him and posts trollish remarks.

Also, the wording and syntax you quoted of the "Zhang" posting from comicscommunity sounds like the guy who was posting here. I've never been to commiccommunity, so I don't know how hard it would be to post under someone else's name there, but that comment seems more inflamitory than Mr. Zhang's usual stuff.

Well...the opposing belief on that matter is that Joe Zhang trolls around the internet as "Rod Odom" and a number of other pseudonyms. He admits to using "Odom," so it lends some credibility to his detractors. I think that the syntax and opinions posted above by "Rod Odom" read quite a bit like Zhang's posts. He's easily the most sycophantic of the Byrne robots.

Stil, if someone is posing as him (or more like "adopting his pose", it is distasteful and unfortunate.

(I don't know if Rod Odom is his real name or just a handle).

****
Handle, think Dr. Doom with an extra o. However, there are several (or at least one) people who post undert his real name and his fictional name. Not only that, they made up a distateful blog about him, pretending to be the real guy. It was kinda sick. The fake Rod or "real name" also sometimes posts (at say newsarama) overdoing it on how much he loves Byrne-as an exaggeration/joke on the real one. Then sometimes he'll have a "conversion"

The real Rod may be John Byrne's biggest fan. He also seems to be a decent enough guy, even if sometimes he may seem overeager. He just likes John Byrne a lot, the work and person. People sometimes get on his case for that.

If this Odom guy is the same guy who used to hang out at the DC boards then I don't believe the guy on the Byrne board is telling the truth. I don't think there is other people using his name. I think he does go to all these different boards that criticises Byrne and stirs things up.

He was a definite troll on the other boards I frequent.

Mike O'Brien was another Byrne poster who would attack others and start fights on other boards and then claim he was never there. But he always knew who everyone was and if they showed up at the Byrne board to ask questions he would point to their behavior elsewhere and push to get them banned.

Byrne and his fans are very odd.

"The real Rod may be John Byrne's biggest fan. He also seems to be a decent enough guy, even if sometimes he may seem overeager. He just likes John Byrne a lot, the work and person. People sometimes get on his case for that."

I don't agree spiderrob8. I have seen him attack people for the mildest of things. Calling people pap smears, pedophiles and failed abortions because they happen to like a particular comic Byrne and his followers have deemed to be examples of all that are wrong with the industry. These things were said on the Byrne board so he can't use the excuse that someone was pretending to be him. I find him to be utterly repulsive.

The Byrne board does have some good people there but fools like Jason Fulton and Joe Zhang give it a bad rep.

Well, you know, i don't know the guy. Sometimes he said things on the board that were off putting (to me) but I guess i just chalked it up to "that's just 'Rod'." Because there were other times he was fun to "talk" to or read his posts. However, I am not too familiar with other boards. I only started posting here and at newsarama on a regular basis in the last 6 months or so. Most;y on newsarama, I just see Rod posting Byrne commissions or popping up here and there to say that he doesn't like Joe Q. And I believe there is at least one guy who uses Rod's real name that is a troll, based on the nature of the posts.

Mike O'Brien was another Byrne poster who would attack others and start fights on other boards
*****
This I don't believe. While I don't always agree with Mike on things to the point it has been heated, he has still seemed honorable enough not to troll like that. Besides, just because a guy mostly posts at one board does not mean he doesn't read others.

And why are we making this about the fans? Seriously? Isn't this train wreck of an argument really about the creators being in a tizzy with one another? Oh if only Celebrity Death Match covered comic book writers and artists.

"This I don't believe. While I don't always agree with Mike on things to the point it has been heated, he has still seemed honorable enough not to troll like that. Besides, just because a guy mostly posts at one board does not mean he doesn't read others."

Mike was on the Joe Quesada board recently doing just that. He has also been here in the past stirring up trouble. I was attacked by him through emails because I made the comment that I didn't like the job Byrne did on the Doom Patrol. He very recently attacked a fellow Byrne board member because he wanted to read Lost Girls.

Mike can be a very funny person but he suffers from some serious mood swings which can manifest itself at anytime.

That just doesn't make any sense as I have criticized Doom Patrol on the JBF and never received a bit of chastizing. Are you sure you didn't run over Mike's puppy?

Isn't this train wreck of an argument really about the creators being in a tizzy with one another?

The only 'tizzy' seems to be Byrne's reality not really getting along with the sensible realities the rest of us live in.

"Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

PAD"

But ... but ... he was THERE!

;)

Admit it, though, this story was the inspiration for the "Rod Odom" character...

"The (admittedly limited) evidence led me to believe that PAD thought Moore to be somewhat overrated as a writer, perhaps I was wrong."

Good lord, no, I don't think that at all. I may not think he's perfect, but who is? He's produced some of the most brilliant comics I've ever read.

PAD

See, that is exactly what I was talking about above. If I could write, I would love to be a colleague to PAD. He is still the only person I have ever written a fan letter to, and this was after the invention of the Internet, and I stand by that decision and being totally worth while.

SOMEBODY POSTED THAT DENNY O'NEIL IS DEAD

NOT TRUE

http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/

Carry on.

Greg Kirkman and the "real" Rod Odom (whatever and whoever the hell that may be) have contended on the Byrne board that they've never posted here. So I've deleted, and will delete, any further posts from anyone signing those names.

PAD

I will further ask that no one on this board reply to anyone signing those names.

PAD

Just reading through some of these Byrne stories and a thought occurs to me. Some people should just NEVER be made to think that they have talent. Byrne has some talent. Seems, though, that he thinks of himself as Talent. Big difference. So, he's made a whole reality around himself where JOHN CAN DO NO WRONG. Sad, really.

I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events? At this point unless I've overlooked something this is basically a he said/he said situation. I think absent of any valid proof of things you both come off bad for this battle of recollections. In the midst of all the back and forth jostling between this and Byrne's site nothing seems to be coming out that contains actual proof of anything.

I have enjoyed the work of both of you over the years. You are equally talented creators in a tough medium. You seem to be strong willed individuals as well. This butting of heads doesn't seem to accomplish anything but negativity. I truly have no interest in taking a side. This isn't Civil War after all. I'd just like some verification of facts. Otherwise this all seems pointless.

Okay, I stuck my head in the lion's mouth by posting in John Byrne's forum, and have determined that the lion's mouth is toothless and reeks with halitosis.

Which is what I expected to find.

L. Walker, word of advice: drop it. It ain't going anywhere. John Byrne and his fans have had years -- decades, even -- to learn the art of denial. Walk away.

I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks it is amazingly ironic that Byrne has (as stated above) said quite horrible things about Grant Morrison's writing and "lack of respect", yet is drawing a comic based on a Grant Morrison revamp of The Atom.

As always, reality is more fun that fiction.

Yikes, just yikes.

I don't know what to believe at this point in the game, but after twenty-plus years does it really matter that much? Maybe the best thing to be done is just to ignore Mr. Byrne and let him be. He clearly seems to desire solitude.

I don't want to appear to take sides; I've met Peter and he seems a nice guy for someone I've encountered in passing, but I've never met Mr. Byrne save from what I've seen in interviews and on television on series like Prisoners of Gravity and the like. And I really liked Byrne; coming up in the '80s he was one of the names amongst names. Fantastic Four, Superman. . .he had a talent and he used it well, nobody can ever take those achievements from him and I laud him for them. I even enjoyed his run on She-Hulk, which was offbeat and fun and ahead of its time in a lot of ways, a nice anti-deconstructionist statement.

So what the heck happened? I mean, he seemed like an affable enough fellow. And who knows, maybe he gives blood generously, visits children's hospitals and does good works we don't even hear about. So maybe after doing all that, he comes to the computer and the aggravation sets in. Frustration with his current place in the overall heirarchy of comics. When you're in you're in, when you're out hoo boy. . .it's tough to get back in. So maybe he sees red, maybe he says some things he doesn't mean. That's cool, we all get mad sometimes and that's okay, it's part and parcel of who we are and what our environment generates in this life. Maybe he's fallen in with one too many toxic influences. Again, I don't know. To use the words of the great Stracynksi saying would be knowing. Do not know, so cannot say.

I love comicbooks. I love them a lot, before I even realized there were men and women behind the scenes who actually created them as bodies of work, that they did not spring fully-formed as Athena from the brow of Zeus. When I learned that there were people whose job it was to place Superman in peril month after month and create stories like The Man of Steel, Future Imperfect, The Dark Knight Returns. . .it struck me as cool on a level previously undreamed of. It made me want to aspire to that level of cool, to try my own hand at writing, however slight my talent was compared to theirs. Byrne was one of those august company, someone whose work I may not always have agreed with (Man of Steel has aged a bit poorly, and his views on Krypton and Superboy/girl for instance), but I respected him. He was an artist who helped introduce me to Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and all that. I owe that debt to a lot of comics creators, such as Roy Thomas, Marv Wolfman, Jim Shooter, Bill Mantlo. . .the list goes on.

Harlan Ellison once said you should never judge the art for the artist, that the work itself should stand alone, apart from the mind that created it. Why? Because the art is the best of what's inside that person. The best of Fitzgerald and Hemingway went onto the page, the same way the best of Byrne or Warren Ellis or Frank Miller goes onto the printed page in the works that make their craft sing. No matter my distaste for them as individuals, I remain in awe of their talent and deeply impressed by their mastery of the craft. But we have to remember that an artist is as much man as maestro, and that sometimes they can't always live up to what they've created. I wish no ill towards Mr. Byrne, but I fear he's fallen into that trap of cantankerousness and bitterness. He may always have been that way, it may be a recent development. But regardless of the man, the talent remains and has my underlying and deepest respect.

Yeesh, I do go on, don't I?

Stacy

I was going to respond to those who youno longer want us to respond to, PAD. But since you have asked us nicely not to respond to them, i will respect your wishes.
In summary, your version of events seems a lot more plausible than Byrne's.

Bill Myers wrote: "L. Walker, word of advice: drop it. It ain't going anywhere. John Byrne and his fans have had years -- decades, even -- to learn the art of denial. Walk away."

Your advice is appreciated. I'm going to need to check out of the topic anyway, I've ignored most of my work today and will now pay for it. All those words spent in a forum setting, and I don't type particularly fast.

This what Rod Odom had to say over at the John Byrne forum about Peter David.
He seems to know PAD very well.

"It's sobering to think that guys like PAD , Johnston, Joe Q., who say one thing and do another, THOSE are the guys who are rewarded in the comic industy. Sad. "

"Let's put this in perspective, folks. Professional sabotage is something that happens. And it happens a lot to JB. Like how the rumor columnists constantly spin lies about Byrne. If they aren't making it up, then they are being fed by people who want JB to fail. PAD back then was probably the same sort of creature like Rich Johnston and his sort are now: hangers-on who wouldn't hesistate to do thoughtless, hurtful stuff to make themselves somehow relevant to comics."

"So it was his job to be a goddamn fool? Just like he's obediently writing stories for a worthless editorial regime today?"

PAD better watch out because Rod Odom is watching him.

I have talked to PAD a few times here and at the Comicon messageboards and I came away with a good impression of the man. I talked to Byrne a few times and came away thinking he was a tool.

PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?

Is John even questioning Peter's account? Why should anyone not take Peter's word when it looks like even John is taking Peter's word? What defense does anyone have in addressing that kind of bias?

From appearances, John is saying Peter is an asshole (a word John uses in this issue) because when he was handed xeroxes by Denny O'Neil, Peter didn't say, "I can't take these, creator-of-Ra's-al-Ghul. You don't know what you're doing, Mr. Green-Lantern/Green-Arrow-with-Neal-Adams. The risk in spoiling the surprise death -- of a character who hasn't even appeared in 2-years-worth of comics -- will hurt, um, sales. Somehow."

Then again, who can blame John his grudge? People quit their jobs over a co-worker's unhappiness every day. Amnesty International is even holding a benefit concert for the spoiled surprise of Guardian's (first) death. Sting is scheduled to perform.

1I'm going to step out on a limb here and I hope no one will cut it off, but Peter David is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He has never been too busy to answer a question or offer fair advice on writing in all the times I have met him at Shore Leave, Farpoint, or any other con I've seen him at. In fact I'd say that his panels are among the best parts of the cons. Peter is usually writting four or more comics a year as well as three or more novels. As opposed to Mr. Byrne who is writting, what, one comic book and can't be bothered to spend one whole day at a con.
I'm sorry, but it outrages me when someone like Byrne spreads lies about good people. Because lies hurt and give misleading ideas about some people. Just because he wrote Man of Steel, Next Men, and Fantastic Four does not give him license to slander someone else; even if it is just over his precious Alpha Flight.
But then I guess that's why Byrne is only doing one comic book: It takes so much more time to make up lies about people than it does to write a few novels, like say, Peter David.

"Is John even questioning Peter's account?"

Well. Let's see. He said this earlier today.

"Well, not surprisingly, Peter David's version is nearly completely wrong.

Let's check the details. First, it was a convention. I was sitting at my table signing books and doing sketches when a fan came up to me and said "So Guardian is the one who's gonna die, huh?" I smirked my best smirk and said "That woud be telling." The guy smirked back and thrust the xeroxes at me. "No, I know it's Guardian. Peter David is handing out xeroxes."

I then sought out David and discovered that he was, indeed, doing just that, sitting behind his table and handing out xerox copies of the death scene (which did have Heather in it. He got that much right.) I exploded. I threw a fit -- but nothing else. I demanded to know what the %#$@ he was doing sabotaging a story I had been working on for more than a year. A story whose Big Reveal the Alpha office had somehow managed to keep out of the fan press. David did his best deer-in-the-headlights impression, and said it was his "job" to promote the books. "BY GIVING AWAY THE ENDINGS??" By this time I was pretty much on the verge of having a stroke. To prevent myself throttling the little sh*t I left the room, in the process stumbling and falling over a chair. Howls of laughter in the room. (This became, in earlier iterations of the story, the chair "Byrne threw at Peter David.")

When I confronted Denny, later, he professed complete ignorance of the whole thing. And, of course, he absolutely assured me there was no way in hell he would ever have authorized David handing out xeroxes of the end of the story.

It's a typical tale that has grown in the telling, but this is the true version. And, as noted above, there are witnesses who support this version.

Post Script -- I notice David leaves out of this version of his tale the bit of embroidery where he and Tom DeFalco had to come up to my room to "calm (me) down." It's a tangled web. Hard to keep track of all the strands."

So yeah he does seem to contradict PAD's take on things. Neither John Byrne nor Peter David have anything that I can see in the way of proof of any slant to this whole mess from 20+ years ago. So that leaves us with a situation where a story of John Byrne's was inadvertently spoiled. Unless there is some form of concrete evidence that's all that can realistically be said. Everything else is questionable.

What I do think would be hard to question is how quickly these little tales bring out the worst in people. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. I'm sure a quick glance through this site and the Byrne board will be enough to highlight it. Ultimately until some sort of proof surfaces I think this is a big blow up over nothing.

I mentioned this earlier elsewhere. I'd love to see a neutrally run site that allowed comic creators to come together and discuss the past, present and future of comics. It'd be nice to see some of this old crap resolved. Of course you can never underestimate the power of people to hold on to things.

PAD:

I've been asking this question to Byrne, and as of yet he has not seen fit to respond directly. Can you shed some light on who, at that particular time, would have been responsible for distributing marketing materials to the marketing staff? My assumption is that editorial would retain control over this. Byrne's only response on the question of how marketing staff would come by material has been this:

"Nothing more complex there than walking into an office and picking up the artwork. Sales and Marketing did that all the time. Sometimes there were mad scrambles to retrieve artwork that was not supposed to get out. This time, that didn't happen."

Was there an open door policy with content? Or was content typically handed down through the editorial department?

When I confronted Denny, later, he professed complete ignorance of the whole thing. And, of course, he absolutely assured me there was no way in hell he would ever have authorized David handing out xeroxes of the end of the story.

If Denny O'Neil gave Peter xeroxes of issue 13, which has the dream sequence described Peter, then Denny was answering truthfully that he did not hand over xeroxes of the death of Guardian at the end of issue 12.

If that's John's reason for discounting Peter's take -- that he asked his editor if he gave away pages Peter never even claimed were given away -- then my confidence in John's account has just dropped to one-tenth.

"But regardless of the man, the talent remains and has my underlying and deepest respect."

Same here. Lord knows he's pulled some boners creatively. But who hasn't?

What it comes down to is this: People can construe it as my word vs. John's. But that's often the case in most court situations as well, at which point the requirement is to look for two things: Opportunity and motive.

Motive for my doing what John said I did? None. Nothing credible. Nothing even worth responding to.

Opportunity? To take the material in question (NOT the death of Guardian, as John keeps falsely maintaining, but a dream sequence from a subsequent issue) without editorial blessing? Could I have walked into an empty office, snuck out with it, and then returned it after having it photocopied, all without editorial sanction. Yes. Why would I? Goes back to motive: None. Risk my job, my sales career (my comic writing endeavors were still a year away)? Why? John offers no reason. There is none.

The only comment of John's that borders on truth is when he asserts, in terms of the art, "Nothing more complex there than walking into an office and picking up the artwork. Sales and Marketing did that all the time. Sometimes there were mad scrambles to retrieve artwork that was not supposed to get out. This time, that didn't happen." Except sales and marketing never "picked up" artwork. We were always given artwork by the editorial offices, typically for solicits. On occasion, yes, they came by and asked for it back...typically because corrections still needed to be made. Doesn't mean it wasn't given to us by editorial in the first place.

Think about it. Think logically: What sort of insanity would it have been if we just walked away with artwork whenever we felt like it? Editorial would be in a constant state of panic...well, more than typical.

Everything was cleared. Everything.

Including this.

Do I sound unapologetic? Damned straight. Know why? Because I felt miserable enough at the time. As John alluded, I desperately tried to make amends at the time (and keep in mind we're talking only about two dozen photocopies; it went only to the retailers, no matter what lies John is now foisting upon his more credulous followers). I apologized profusely at the time. I even assured John that, if the AF office gave me artwork for solicits in the future, I'd call him personally to make sure it was okay (which I did).

Over a decade later he was bitching about it on the AOL boards.

Y'know what? When you do your best to make amends and it's still not good enough--and you're accused of being an art thief and liar to boot twenty two years later--being apologetic wears thin.

Final thought: Why do I remember it so clearly when others may not? Because I'm the one who had to come into the office Monday where my boss, Carol Kalish, said to me first thing--referring to the retailer cocktail party where the whole thing had happened--"So...I understand we spent $300 of Marvel's money Friday night to host a John Byrne anecdote," because that's all anyone was talking about.

Failures like that tend to stay with you.

PAD

I doubt that Byrne would want to debate PAD. Didn't work out so hot for Todd McFarlane, did it?

There was a time when Byrne was the best thing out there--those early Claremount/Byrne/Austin issues of X-MEN were what got me into comics. He had people like me treating him like he was a Hollywood superstar.

To lose that--as he largely has, perhaps unfairly--can't be fun. For some it may be just too much to handle.

There's just a pall of unhappiness that looms over the Byrne boards. Some folks can be fun when they are cranky. Harlan Ellison can turn a bad mood into a good 2 or 3 hours of rock solid entertainment, as long as you aren't the source of said mood.

I wish he would just let go of the past and put some joy into his art, recapture what it was that turned me into a comic book fan for life. Or at least be happy with the knowledge that a place of honor is assured in the history of American comic books (though it's clear he won't be a beloved figure like Kirby or Perez).

John Byrne has always reminded me of Dan Rather. You just sit there looking and tilting your head at them like a confused dog-- wondering if the success, the money and the accolades will ever be enough. Yet, those triumphs never are. I used to watch Rather read the news because I really thought that one day his head would EXPLODE. I think of ol' Johnny B the same way. Hope springs eternal.

Oh, and L. Walker--who has been remarkably calm in the face of some truly bizarre responses--if you do continue bothering to interface with John, who wrote the following:

"NOTHING has previously peaked your interest.

Amazing."

You might want to let him know the word is "piqued," not "peaked." Personally, I think a writer of his stature not knowing that is pretty "amazing," but that could just be me. It's just that, since he's so quick to call others on their misuse of words, well...

Correct example: "A quick peek at artwork from AF#13 had piqued retailers' interest, but interest really peaked after John Byrne stomped out in a fit of pique."

Anyway, do with that factoid what you will.

PAD

Ya know, I don't particularly know if either party has every exact detail down as there are obviously two sides to this. At times they both act a bit like highschool girls over the whole thing with their cattiness. Still, the both are generally class acts to me in so many other areas that the whole thing is rather sad from a fan standpoint. If anything, its these type of act that really come off more unprofesional than those who are called out for growing roses or whatever. Heck, in my own industry when it comes down to those who are late and those who act like JB and PAD and it is generally people in the second category who are let go faster.

I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks it is amazingly ironic that Byrne has (as stated above) said quite horrible things about Grant Morrison's writing and "lack of respect", yet is drawing a comic based on a Grant Morrison revamp of The Atom.

As always, reality is more fun that fiction.

*****
He is now only doing 3 issues. and he said "Everyone is quite vague on just what Morrison's contributions were."

"Plus, I can't work out how Mr. David could have handed out material like that on his own say-so, infuriated John Byrne when he was at the height of his popularity...and still have kept his job after it got back to Denny O'Neil. Admittedly,I've never worked in Marketing at Marvel or anywhere else, but I can't come up with a scenario that reconciles those things."

Well PAD did have to fall back on writing...

kidding...kidding

JAC

Damn!!! As sad as it makes me to see two creators whose wokr I have enjoyed argue like this, :( I can't help it but find these discussions more entertaining than the comics themselves right now. ;)

Probably why columns like ATR and LitG are so popular right now.

I (as I said way up above) tend to give guys the benefit of the doubt in regards to faulty recollection when it comes to things this old. That's not saying that I always think that they're telling the truth. I just don't automatically assume that they are deliberately telling lies. Even events like this one, mostly he said VS he said, can tend to fall under the category of bad recollection by both parties rather then lies. I always put this particular dispute under that category.

Not any more. Not after a day's worth of reading the arguments of the two parties in this dispute leaves me believing that this is yet another JB fantasy. Sadly, this just became one more reason why, as much as I loved and still love a small ton of JB work from my youth, I have absolutely no desire to stand in line to meet the man or get his autograph.

PAD has answered questions asked by posters from his own board and JB's board with equal patience and manners. He has made arguments that make sense, have a level of logic to them and can be reasonably believed. He has explained his side with details that can at least stand up to rational thought.

It doesn't make sense that he and others in sales could just stroll into any office they wanted and walk out with anything that they wanted to take. There's no way I can believe that PAD could, just on a whim, take it upon himself to sabotage the payoff in one of the company's top selling books, written and drawn by a man who was at that time one of THE golden boys of the company, and not get punished and/or fired for it. I also can't see how he was trying to make himself relevant to the fans or come off as cool to his fans when, at the time that this happened, no one outside of his friends, family and coworkers knew who the hell he was.

JB has thrown whatever he could think of out there and tried to see what would stick to the wall. PAD was out to get him. PAD wanted to give away the ending of the story so that he could be cool and be seen as a big man by the fans. PAD single handedly ruined the surprise death of Guardian for over one third of Alpha Flight's readers. JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hell of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a "we can't fire you" clause. Nothing he has written has made the least bit of sense or approached anything like logic or rationality.

Posters, from this board and even some from his own, have asked him to back up some of what he's said or to clarify some of the less logical parts of his story. They've asked politely and without malice. JB has called them names, answered with even more nonsensical statements then the earlier ones and just plain blown the questioners off. The dumbest one was his saying that he could answer a question but he wouldn't because he didn't like how the question was asked. Was it rude or confrontational? No. JB just didn't like the question based on some odd whim of his.

The defense rests, charges dropped and case closed. PAD wins this one hands down. Nothing that has been said against him stands up to any reasonable scrutiny or common sense. JB could still make a case for his side but I doubt it.

The sad thing is that I really liked JB's work. I liked his Marvel Team Up runs. I liked his She Hulk. I loved his Alpha Flight and his Superman. I still do really. But I can't get into his newer stuff. Only part of that is from his work being something less then what it used to be. Part of it is because of the man himself. I really try to keep the artist and the work separate in my mind. But I can't turn around in fan forums or news sites anymore without seeing something that JB said that makes me think less of him, no matter how much benefit of the doubt I give him, and less interested in his work.

It really is a shame.

Posted by Bobb Alfred

Just as an excersise, everyone should take a moment to think about some event in their lives that occurred 20-odd years ago, and see how clearly they remember all the details. I'd have been 15. To be brutally honest, I can't recall a single event with any clarity from that year. You'd have to skip ahead a year to when I first started dating for me to have any real clear memories, and even then, it's mostly just the big details.

Thirty-six years ago this month i left View Nam - i was Navy, stationed at a Com Station in a safe area, so i never saw combat.

But, yeah, i can clearly remember all sorts of things; even some of the comics i was buying in the Base Exchange.

I can quote swathes of dialog from movies i watched sitting in the rain in the outdoor base theatre.

And it's not that Viet Nam is unusual in my memory (i just picked it as a sort of landmark) i have clear recollections, for instance, of my first SF WorldCon, forty years ago this week.

Posted by Trevor Krysak

I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?

Well, yeah - he didn't get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer.

Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn't remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John's...how to put it...lapses.

****

I wonder if he made the same complaint about Gail Simone and her Atom #1 script. ;)

I posted:

"I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I'm asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?"

Mike Weber posted:

"Well, yeah - he didn't get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer."

That doesn't really qualify as proof of anything. I'd appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own. Unless you are saying you were around at the time. Actual evidence of this is what I'm after. Some corroboration one way or the other. Not people trying to make excuses for John Byrne or PAD. Proof.

I've read this whole thing, and all I can think of is how my aunt once got honked off at me and my mother and refused to speak with us for over a year due to some imagined slight.

Look, it boils down to this. Byrne apparently will say or do anything he has to to make himself look good. He can't let go of an insult, real or not. And he's obviously insecure as hell, since he seems to be trying to build himself up by trying to drag others down. The old premise of "It's not enough that I succeed, all others must fail" is what seem to drive him. His many triumphs in his chosen field are not enough for him. And as long as he maintains that attitude, he's going to remain a sad little man who's obsessed with wrongs that were done to him so long ago that no one except him even gives a rat's ass.

His time is done. Let him pass. I have.

Miles

Trevor Krysak wrote: "I'd appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own."

I could be wrong with my interpretation, but it seems he has already addressed this.

Peter David wrote: "What it comes down to is this: People can construe it as my word vs. John's. But that's often the case in most court situations as well, at which point the requirement is to look for two things: Opportunity and motive."

There's more. Just search through the last few responses from PAD to check it out and judge for yourself.

***

Peter David wrote: "You might want to let him know the word is "piqued," not "peaked."

Your example had my roommate laugh soda out of his nose. Not a pretty sight, but worth it all the same. I missed the incorrect usage, in truth, my spelling is terrible. But that example... that was golden.

Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to explain the details too. The chaos you suggest that would ensue from such an open door policy...well... that pretty much matches my assumption. I'm not expecting it at this point, as he has not shown an interest in prolonged discussion, but perhaps John Byrne will be equally considerate in forming a response to the questions I posed to him.

Wow.

I turn away for a day, and bam, a blog entry with a 107-comment thread appears. I read most of the thread on JB's forum, and Jerry C pretty much nailed much of what I wanted to say.

I'm just amazed at the self-serving, intellectually dishonest, and childishly hostile attitude Byrne brings toward the concept of civil discussion. I mean, really: Insulting perfectly polite posters who voice valid questions about his version of events? Even his retorts are prosaic: K-Mart having a sale on disingenuousness? Are you kidding me?

But the demagoguery of the Byrne cult is astounding. Between responding to a request for motive on Peter’s part by comparing this situation to the corpse of a shooting victim (when such a body constitutes evidence of something, whereas the He Said/He Said between Peter and Byrne provides none), mischaracterizing Peter’s explanation as a “defense” an “admission”, “just following orders” and “blaming Denny”, accusing him of not at leat being “sympathetic” to Byrne’s position and “smirking” (when Byrne himself admits that Peter tried to calm him down after Byrne’s outburst), one guy asking if you’d still be angry at someone running over your dog (well, after 22 years I’d be over it, and I’m someone who was forced to euthanize a beloved family pet after a neighbor shot it, and that was only 13 years ago), and the constant Straw Man arguments, non sequiturs and false analogies, what I can’t help but notice is this: In having participated in Peter’s blog for some time, I notice that regardless of the topic, the paralogists and flamers are generally exposed as such, and held in low regard, by Peter, and/or the other visitors here. There’s a certain reassurance in that. On Byrne’s boards, they reign. They seem to attack anyone who asks the most sincere questions, and rather than condemn it, Byrne is as guilty of it as any of them. L. Walker, who conducted himself with maturity, gets accused of being “passive-aggressive” rather than polite (I got that myself at imdb when I’ve responded to flamers with civility), of “stirring shit up”, even when he made it plain he had no such intent, and so forth.

One thing I keep thinking about is how people commented that if O.J. Simpson was innocent, then he did the worst job of acting like an innocent person, since following the murders, he acted exactly the way a guilty person would act. If Byrne’s version of events is the correct one, then not only must Peter be extremely good at acting like a polite gentleman who did not knowingly do anything wrong, and at pulling off this charade for his entire career, but Byrne has the incalculably bad luck of coming off like a self-serving churl incapable of approaching conflict in a good faith manner, despite being the innocent victim he insists he is.

Me, I tend to think that concrete evidence aside, you can tell a lot about what really happened by virtue of the character that each of the two men have displayed over the years. If Peter’s lying and Byrne is the honest victim, then you have to marvel at how their demeanors don’t match it.

L. Walker, my hat is off to you. I asked John a couple of questions (phrased diplomatically and unthreateningly because I know what a hothead he is), got the non-answers I expected, and chose to drop it. (And Peter, for the record, I am unswayed by John's answers.)

L. Walker, like a good lawyer (are you a lawyer, perchance?), you continued to poke at the holes in John's logic, refusing to give him a place to hide. His dismissive answers were telling: he danced around the periphery, never addressing the core issues.

One of John's fans criticized me for telling off the "Byrne Forum Impostors" in a post at Byrne Robotics, while criticizing John here in Peter's blog. He apparently thought I was trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth. So I posted my criticisms of John at Byrne Robotics, stating that his credibility had been diminished in my eyes due to past misdeeds, such as accusing Roy Thomas of plagiarism without evidence to back it up, and deliberately mischaracterizing the contents of Spider-Man 2099 #1. I think it is very telling that John did not respond to my recounting of those well-documented misdeeds on his part.

With that, however, I think I'm done poking at this thing.

Again, L. Walker, if I were wearing a hat I'd tip it in your direction.

Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account -- it's disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can't prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?

L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they'd take you more seriously.

You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects

Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.

You have asked a lot of questions and he has chosen not to answer. At this point, repeating them again and again is not going to help-he seems to have decided he doesn't like you, that you are trying to play "gotcha" and thus is done with you, effectively.

From experience, I know that this is unlikely to change.

He, and the posters theres, mostly see the board for fans to come and hang out and have fun with each other (even if lots of that fun is being negative about current comics/creators). JB considers it akin to his "home." While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.

I am not criticizing you, but it is pointless. At some point the thread will be locked when he gets "bored" or you'll get banned because the "majority" have voted you off the island.

In the end, it isn't worth it-if you have something positive to contribute there, go for it-it can be an interesting and fun board (albeit it can be negative too). The topics are pretty diverse. But this tactic/way of going about things is not going to work.

Just a thought.

Maybe Byrne just needs a big hug, and he'll break down and cry and let out all the hurt and emotional baggage that seems to affect him so. Some gentle human contact will heal that fragile, hurting soul and he'll stop blindly lashing out at others.

Yes, love is the answer here!

So, uh.......somebody go ahead and get on that.

Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account -- it's disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can't prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?
*****

Well, if it is a civil case type situation, which this is, the standard is generally more likely than not. Say 50.1% I think he did (or did not) do it, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, yeah, basically it is a toss up between who you believe and who you don't believe. If people find JB more credible, he "wins." If people find PAd more credible, he "wins." Unless one has corrobaorating evidence.

We all have to make our judgments in life. This isn't a criminal case.

Someone posted on another board that they were there when it happened-that it was at a "Roast of Jim Shooter" con in Atlanta and they along with everyone at the convention got handed the pages in a packet that included other pages.

Not sure if that is true or not, but that is what they said.

Well, I went back to Byrne Robotics and posted again. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I blame L. Walker, because I'm so impressionable. ;)

(If any Byrnebots are reading this, the above was a self-deprecating joke, nothing more. I went back of my own volition, out of principle.)

There's a southernism that seems to apply here. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects

Except that the times I've gone over to byrnerobotics.com, their definition of "causing trouble" appears to be anything short of blind worship of JB.

I've never posted there and never will. As L. Walker has discovered, anyone who starts asking questions about one JB's little anecdotes (unless it's something like, "Gee, how can PAD be such a prick?") is either immediately banned or dogpiled by JB's sycophants.

Yeah, but see, and I say this as someone who was banned himself, it is Byrne's board. If L. Walker is being a pain, even if his questions are legitimate, Byrne doesn't have to deal with it. He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn't have to be anything but what he wants it to be.

Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.

I can see PAD being perturbed by the posting by Byrne of a (negative) anecdote of a 20 year old incident on a publicly viewable forum.

spiderrob8, I'd agree with you but for one small detail: anyone with an Internet-enabled computer can read the content posted in Byrne Robotics. Complaining about people responding to a story told publicly is like stepping up to a podium, saying something inflammatory into a microphone, and then telling the audience, "I wasn't talking to you."

"JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hell of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a "we can't fire you" clause."

Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it's the former, I missed it. If it's the latter, okay, but just so that doesn't become a "fact" in the mix, I had no "contract" with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.

PAD

Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.

I don't. They brought the incident up and are now perturbed that there are people who don't just take what Byrne says at face value? Please. At least PAD was willing to answer some of the questions people posed here. JB has just dismissed L. Walker's questions with sarcasm and let his sycophants attack.

He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn't have to be anything but what he wants it to be.

JB seems to confuse "pleasant" with sycophancy, though. My advice to him, if he ever reads this forum, is if all he wants to unquestioning worship, then just close the forum to the public and make it so people can post by invitation only. That way, he and his ten remaining fans can have their little circle jerk about how great he is to their heart's content.

Peter David: "And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior."

Yeah, I made that point again in my last post in Byrne Robotics. I was expecting him to hurl names at me but strangely John is not responding. Given his penchant for hurling invective at those who point out the holes in his stories, his unwillingness to respond to me speaks volumes.

Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.

Sure, they are't sticking around much-whether the qualtiy of the books, or like me, no interest in the Demon and Doom Patrol, and I only tried them because of him. I would, however, be very interested if he was back at Marvel on probably a dozen different-which of course ain't happening any time soon.

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

I am not even sure why I should care who is right here. How does this affect my enjoyment of The Atom or Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man?

It is like an argument between two Hollywood celebrities, one may be right, and one may be a liar, but why do I care as the consumer?

This is the strange world that my mind lives in.........

Bill Mulligan referenced the PAD/Todd debates above, the weather reports on the TV this morning make Ernesto's impact on the Georgia/Carolina area look grim and a friend just emailed me with some rather sad WWE news. Then the thought struck me.....

Ladies and gentlemen, we have come here to witness the selflessness of two great men. Two men who are willing to risk their own bodies for the good of the industry and for the fans. Dragon Con is this week. Ernesto is acting in a way that could cause problems for travelers and attendees. A plan was hatched. A plan was then chucked. A new plan was formed.

PAD & JB saw the potential threat to the fans fun. How, they asked, could they make that extra something special for the fans to slog through the possible tropical s**t storm.

Well, they have a known history and sorta-kinda rivalry. A debate? Yeah, that's the ticket. No..... Been done already. People would call it a cheap knockoff of PAD/Todd. Besides, Byrne flat refused to debate in his boxers. So what could they do? The new plan, the ultimate plan, took form.

The weekend before the Con an old dispute is revived on their respective boards. Venom is thrown and words clash like steel. Other boards pick it up and the grudge expands. Then, just at the last minute, the announcement is made.

Peter David...

John Byrne...

Hell in a Cell. Dragon Con 2006.

Too bad you guys didn't start this a weekend earlier. Then you might have gotten the buzz needed to really build the thing. Still, it'll make my first ever Dragon Con an even more memorable experience. then it could have been.

Oh, PAD.... If Byrne tries to talk you into doing the "Foley bump" for the show..... Pass.

Trevor Krysak -
That doesn't really qualify as proof of anything.

Well, this certainly means you don't care to work from a position of logic and rational thought, which seems to be a general problem with all the Byrne-backers.

I mean, seriously: do you realize how ridiculous you sound in the face of all the comments as to why PAD should have been canned, if this incident was PAD's fault and as big of a deal as Byrne makes it out to be?

spiderrob8 -
While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.

If Byrne was as much of a man as he thinks he is, it wouldn't matter who's asking the questions, he would answer them. Just like PAD does here.

spiderrob8 -
Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him.

Ie, he wants a place where everybody there will bow down and worship him. Thankfully, the world at large doesn't work like that.

Maybe Byrne can go into politics; he's got about as much credibility at this point as most politicians.

"Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it's the former, I missed it. If it's the latter, okay, but just so that doesn't become a "fact" in the mix, I had no "contract" with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there's no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.
PAD"

No, let me clear that up a bit. John is not saying you had a contract. It's just that it's the only way the events as he has told them in the last day or so could have gone down. There's no way that Marvel would have just let an employee sabotage their books and ruin creators story lines just because he had a bug up his butt and not do something about it. There are only two ways in the known universe that an employee could get away with that.

1) The employee has a contract created by The God of All Lawyers. Nothing short of your own death is enough to give you the boot.

2) The employee has THE photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location and a plan to have them sent into wide publication if he doesn't get his way or is killed.

I went with the argument line of #1 because most sales guys in organizations like that don't have contracts (let alone contracts of that nature) and that I saw no way to defend you against #2. We all know that you in fact do have the photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location. How else can you possibly explain even one tenth of your success in the fields you've chosen to make your living in?

;)

Hope that clears things up.

On the day after the Challenger space shuttle exploded, professors at Emory University asked their college freshmen students to write a description of where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded. Three years later, the professors asked the same students to recall where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded; the professors then compared the statements to those made the day after the explosion. The experimenters reached two conclusions: first, there was a high level of inaccuracy in the recollections three years later, and second, high confidence levels accompanied completely wrong recollections.

-http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html

I believe that John Byrne believes what he is saying, but I don't believe it happened the way Byrne says. As PAD has noted, if it had gone down the way Byrne says, PAD would likely have been fired.

I feel like the scorpion on the back of the frog.

First, the stories of the incident, really, are basically the same. The real question is, why are we discussing this 22 years later. Was the phrase "get over it" ever more appropriate?

But since we are parsing the microscopic details of an incident that happenned before the average comic book reader was born, here's another logical point: This happenned before the widespread use of the internet. JB claims that a third of the readers of AF had the story ruined. If the pages had been seen by the mainly local fans at a regular con, then the ruination would have no way to spread easily. But if the pages went to dealers at a retailer seminar, from all over the country, who could tell hundreds (tens?) of customers, that's the only way the story could spread so quickly without the use of these pointless message boards.

And it's also odd that this was used in a thread on JB's board to support the point that the internet is ruining comics. Since AF was ruined before the internet, it shows that it is actually nerdy fans who ruin comics.

Putting personalities aside and a lack of proof (why nobody thought to whip out their handy tape recorder and capture the incident for posterity so that Trevor would be mollified 20 years later is beyond me!) I just try to look at what makes sense. Byrne's account would have us believe that Peter David walked into somebody's editorial office, removed artwork without permission, made photos copies of the artwork, returned it to that office and then passed it out, again without permission. Not only that, but if we were to believe Byrne's version of events, it would mean that that Peter (who was basically a grunt in the Marvel marketing department at the time) ruined the work of one of the company's biggest stars at the time and wasn't punished for his actions! Again, it just doesn't make sense. At least Peter's account of the events has an internal logic to it, whereas Bryne would have us swallow all these inconsistencies to accept his version. As somebody pointed out earlier, a civil case is decided on which side has the majority of evidence, even if it's 51-49%. In this case, it ain't even close.

And Peter, if in the future, you could ask Kathleen to video all of your public appearances, business meetings and bowling matches, it would really help us all out when somebody asked for proof.

Ironically enough, just the other evening I was reading the TPB collecting the first arc on Byrne's WONDER WOMAN run. I got a chuckle out of his intro to the volume where he complained that the speculator boom and bust is what killed the chances of him continuing NEXT MEN and that he tried to warn everyone but his warnings went unlistened and he became the Cassandra of the comics industry.

Yes, he actually compared himself to Cassandra of myth.

And that comparison would work, if he was truely the only one at the time to being sying such things. But he wasn't. There were many folks who warned that the speculator boom was bound to implode on itself. Hell, I was in my mid-20s with no real education in economics or business philosophy and I knew that things would crash pretty quickly.

Methinks that JB's recollections are certainly colored by the rose-colored ego that he views things through.

What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I've read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories. At the same time, the big art team credit that everyone loved was Byrne and Austin, but the message I got in reading those interviews always seemed to be John downplaying or even disliking the contributions of the Claremont and Austin. That bothered me, if only because it seemed unnecessary. Even if Austin did things he didn't like to his pencils, he could have taken a higher road then he chose to in a forum that he knew would be read everywhere given the popularity of the X-Men at the time.

Byrne's still seething over this reminds me of that Monty Python skit where two archeologists wind up in a heated argument over which of them is taller, and the shorter one, after being completely humiliated, announces "I'll get you for this--if it takes the rest of my life!"

Of course, that's partly because 20 years later, death in comics is a lot harder to take seriously. Even at the time, Guardian's death didn't strike me as the stunning shock Byrne assumes.

Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.

Well, obviously, I was exaggerating with the ten figure, but he clearly isn't the superstar he was in the 80s. The quality of both his writing and pencilling has fallen off considerably over the last 10-20 years. Of course, I'm of the opinion that his work was overrated in the 80s anyway.

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

Sadly, my experiences have often been similar. There are many writers and artists whose work I enjoy, but whose personalities have turned me off.

Someone has posted a question to O'neil on his message board. He hasn't responded yet:

http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699

The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn't let you in too much).

Every single creator you have come to know in either casual or substantive fashion has disappointed you? Either you're picking the wrong people, or you've got to consider that your expectations just might be unrealistic.

I have frequently been astonished to observe the general graciousness and tolerance with which so many pros who didn't draw X-Men 108-143 (excluding 110) treat fans, as those aficionados are frequently not the most socially adept folks in the world.

What surprises me most is that those pros aren't consistently "disappointed" by the treatment they receive.

spiderrob8: L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they'd take you more seriously. You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subjects. Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.
Luigi Novi: Walker isn’t obligated to post on other topics, “positive” or otherwise. His only obligation is to be civil and intellectually honest when speaking on the topics he does chooses speak about, which he clearly was. The topics he chooses participate in is completely irrelevant, and for Byrne and his fans to place emphasis on which discussions he chooses to participate in, instead of the content and merit of his arguments is completely wrong-headed on their part, and evasive of the pertinent points. Yeah, you’re right, they’re going to act this way, but that only condemns them and their ability to discuss rationally. It in no way obligates Walker. There’s no reason why Walker should jump through their hoops by posting on other topics for some false sense of legitimacy in their eyes, since, as it’s been noted here, they’re still going to jump on him the moment he does disagree with John (what one of his forumers called “arguing and confronting” Byrne—a cardinal sin there, of course). Given the constant stonewalling by Byrne and his forumers on the points people like Walker directly put to them, arguing that one should establish some sort of forum street cred before disagreeing or challenging Byrne completely misses the point.

cal: What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I've read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories.
Luigi N