| |
|
Neville Barker Really though, it sounds like no one even read my post due to what you all chose to box my ears over (what I really deserved lambasting on was the run on sentence, sloppy delivery, poorly thought out paragraph structure, etc)
Which we would have only seen by reading your post. Unfortunately, in my time on the internets, I tend to see the 'you didn't read what I said!' used most commonly when people have dared to take a contrary position to the person advancing the original thesis.
If most of you had paid attention to the reference to Loeb's son's passing in my post and not simply became reactionary via the spin nice lady put on it, I actually said, in reference to his son, 'i am sorry for his loss'.
Saying sorry doesn't automatically cancel out the bad taste some people might feel about you bringing it up. The way in which you did so suggested to me that you were proposing that the production of good funnybooks for you should be a bigger concern to Loeb than his son. Saying 'sorry' doesn't undo that. Now, we all often say things on the webternet without realising how other people will take it (hell, I'm practically Our Lady With the Foot in Her Mouth), you of course, have the right to say what you mean and mean what you say but it's not a good idea when people take your words to mean something else to get huffy and claim that several other people have made the same complaint against you only because I have Poison Ivy-ed them with the express purpose of attacking you.
It would probably be best to wait until Loeb does interviews in which he admits that his Wolverine work isn't his best due to family tragedy before you start dragging it in.
i also stated 'I didnt understand what that had to do with his writing',
So why bring it up when you're talking about his writing?
As for buying the book, I guess I should have been more clear in my stating that I don't buy it, I've been reading it on break at work.
Then I would suggest you don't read it at all. Support your local library, for example. According to the Comic Book Queers podcast the Chicago libraries (IIRC) are doing a sterling job in getting graphic novels in.
Nice Lady, you seemed real interested in attacking me for all kinds of attributes you have imagined I have.
And you are wildly overestimating my interest in this topic. Really. I will admit that my first sentence was a little mean (seeing as my moderation duties here involve putting summaries on topics when the people starting them don't bother, or fixing HTML bork-ups I will sometimes get snippy), but otherwise I believe I was playing the ball, not the man (assuming that you are male of course).
Did this make you feel any better about whatever issue you had with my post, given tht you stated that you don't read the book?
Where exactly is the foul here? I made clear I hadn't read the issue in question and made my points broad on the character and the style of stories I was aware were generally produced about him. If you go back and look, you'll see I spend a lot more time on that than on what you see as picking on you.
As I stated above, you obviously didn't read my entire post before commenting on it, or if you did you just inferred what you wanted from it.
As you are inferring that I didn't read what you wrote? I did actually. If I hadn't then my post would have probably had nothing to do with the topic at hand and been about something else completely.
Where did you get it that I was a collector or fan boy or whatever? That was just you thinking you had me pegged via my words and trying to be hurtful. You failed on both counts.
You were complaining about someone's writing on a comic title. Most of the time people on the net who complain are fanboys who won't drop a title that they say they haven't enjoyed for years. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that you were one of those but still, I apologise for that.
Loeb was a writer people have told me repeatedly is worth supporting. I grew up with the character and I guess it puts me beneath you to say I LIKE him (or did at one time anyway) and became interested when this writer so many people recommended was put on his book.
Hey, I liked Hush, though that seems to put me in a clear minority. And did YOU notice when I said about how I used to read Wolverine? The only thing that stopped me was lack of funds. As someone who used to spend all their money on the pervert-suit brigade I wouldn't look down on anyone for reading them, any more than I would give deference to someone who claimed they should be respected because they only read indie comics.
I guess in starting all this I really just wanted someone to explain to me how this writer so many people seem to hold in high regard could have done such terrible, ametuerish (again with spelling) work. i guess the answer is I should have known better, that the character has indeed become, as most of you echoed in one way or another, over-used and a parody of itself.
Hmmm, I wouldn't say that over-use and 'a parody of itself' are necessary bad things per se, the Big Two are pretty bad at taking a core group of characters (Spidey, Bats, Cable 15 years ago) and spreading them out everywhere in order to sell (why did I buy Designer Genes, why?!), it's more that some characters have a limited range of stories that can be told about them. You cannot put Judge Dredd into War and Peace and expect it to work. It seems that Loeb is, much like with Hush and, perhaps, something like The Long Halloween, trying to play with a characters history in the hopes of saying something interesting about his present. |
|
|
