Even if he is crazy as a loon and off his rocker - and I say that with love in my heart.

While I agree that people don't have a right to attack a creator for a work, they do have a right to attack him/her for comments and statements that are not work related (I hold up OSC's homo statements as an example). Making any such comments in a public forum is a privilege, not a right, afforded to celebrities - a point I watched played out time and again by my grandfather who to his dying day expressed often and loudly his hated of Jane Fonda because of what she said and did during Vietnam. I understood why he felt the way he did but I also stood up to him when he tried to tell me that The China Syndrome or Agnes of God sucked just because she was in them (two movies I happen to like).

I'm not obligated to respect Quesada as a creator nor respect his stories. That doesn't mean I should talk like a fifth grader about either subject.

I think Brian Cronin is confusing “don’t talk like an immature douchebag” with “don’t talk about an individual creator’s mistakes in such a way that assigns individual responsiblity to that creator”.

Well, one of you is, anyway.

I don’t think he is. I went back up to re-read the original post to make sure, but he’s specifically talking about the *disrespectful* comments. There’s a difference between 1) critiquing work and assigning blame to the creators who do it, and 2) calling those creators names.

Yeppers!

you can’t grasp the concept of a bad Grant Morrison comic (they exist) or that Creator Pinata of the Day – say, Jeph Loeb – producing something pretty decent.

Lynxara, you're my new favorite. I don't know new favorite "what," but rest assured, you're it. Because I really feel this way, but haven't been able to articulate it well. Thanks for being another voice in the wilderness.

I think Brian Cronin is confusing “don’t talk like an immature douchebag” with “don’t talk about an individual creator’s mistakes in such a way that assigns individual responsiblity to that creator”.

I don't think he is. I went back up to re-read the original post to make sure, but he's specifically talking about the *disrespectful* comments. There's a difference between 1) critiquing work and assigning blame to the creators who do it, and 2) calling those creators names.

I don't think Grant Morrison's Batman is very good. Following on the heels of Seven Soldiers, it seems to be written way below his usual level, and unless DC has recently decided to hire some editors who will actually crack the whip on Morrison, that level of quality is entirely his fault.

He is not, however, a douche, a fuckwad, a shitstain, the worst thing to happen to comics, the worst thing to happen to *Batman*, a talentless anal blister or any other ridiculous thing I could call him. He's just a guy who wrote a story that isn't good enough. I'm talking about bad Batman being clearly Morrison's fault, but I'm not talking about *him*, you know?

Look at the story itself first, and only bring in wider issues surrounding it-- comparing it to the creator's past works, looking for known pet themes or writing tics-- once you've got a solid grasp of the narrative as it stands now. People were decrying Quesada's hand in OMD #4 when all they had to go on was a poorly-typed synopsis, and that's just ridiculous. They didn't actually have a story to criticize yet.

First, because it acts as if a given story is an Immaculate Conception, that it falls from some Platonic overworld intact and complete. I can talk about structural flaws in a story where I treat those as a feature of the story itself. (Say, in the screenplay of The Golden Compass). But at some point, if I think there is a huge miscalculation in the entirety of a creative work, I'm going to want to talk about the author of that work, about the reasons why that miscalculation happened. When I'm talking about an author with a long track record, I can do that without a huge amount of psychologizing, because the author's creative psychology is visible in the work itself, independent of what he or she might be like as an individual.

If the decision is more mysterious to me, or not an evident extension of previous work, then the impulse to ask questions about the psychological calculation that went into the decision isn't just irresistable, but perfectly normal.

I think Brian Cronin is confusing "don't talk like an immature douchebag" with "don't talk about an individual creator's mistakes in such a way that assigns individual responsiblity to that creator". I completely agree with the former, but it's an unremarkable thing to argue for. E.g., it doesn't matter whether we're talking about stories or individuals, it would be best to not scrawl subliterate abuse all over the internets. But I think this is a story where it's perfectly legitimate to ask, "What was this individual creator thinking when he did this? Why write this, why demand this?", in the same way that an observer of Enron was perfectly entitled to ask what its executives were thinking when they took the steps that destroyed their own company.

A long time ago, i was one of those guys who gets riled up whenever a creator did something that i did not like with a character. I loose sleep and vow never to read anything by the creator again. That was 8 years ago when i was a teen.

Nowadays i treat comicbooks as it was meant to be, a piece of entertainment, not gospel. I read them and they make me laugh, cry or think for the duration of the read, After a breather in this fictional world, reality checks in and life goes on.

But i also understand that this fictional characters are owned by the company that created them. They have a dedicated team of profesionals producing stories for our amusement, and also like any other business entity, to make money.That's no secret.

Most of this dedicated profesionals could very well leave the industry and work in movies, games, advertising or what-not which provide a higher income and exposure. But they still stick around for the single reason that they love the industry.

It's understandle when the reader is emotional over what happened to their favourite character in a story. It's part of the entertainment. But personally attacking/insulting a real person over what they did to a fictional character? That's uncalled for.

Just my 'personal' feelings about the topic.

Example: "Quesada shows he has no real concept of who Peter Parker is. The idea is asinine and the execution shows a complete lack of storytelling ability."

Now, that certainly _is_ an insult of sorts, and it is directed towards Quesada, but it's not name-calling or threats of violence. I believe that this sort of insult or invective is acceptable in most forms of discourse, because it's an insult based on those points that are salient-- i.e., the story itself.

I should add that I haven't read One More Day, and so my example is not my personal opinion but rather simply an example.

As for Jack D.'s example -- what is the point of getting het up in that kind of situation? Demand your money back; demand compensation if the poster was valuable; but don't make it personal. What's the point? Chances are he didn't do it on purpose to make your life miserable.

Which is the root of the issue, I think. People get emotionally invested, and that's okay; but what's not okay is the widespread assumption that being emotionally invested in the characters means the creators owe it to you to write the kind of story you want to read. They don't. They really don't.

On the one hand, it seems clear that personal insults are way out of line. A distinction must be made between the merits (or lack thereof) of the work of art and those of the person proper.

On the other, it is just not reasonable to expect no emotional investment from fans. Incidentally, there is often a pleasant side to the confusion between the person and the work; fanboys can be quite welcome by some writers.

I fear that in these days of overextended storylines and high cover prices one can't help but be more vocal when a whole storyline turns out to be disappointing. Abstract respect for a creator is hard to come by when one has some evidence that the creator is interested in squeezing all the money he possibly can out of the readers.

Specially when I remember him making some very crass comments about DC and their properties. I also remember reading about how Bill Jemas and Joey Q loved to belittle the comic book reading population.

So... as far as I'm concerned, if he was able to dish the porn potty language, he should be able to handle some colorful and creative analogies from the fans. (You know, as long as nobody threatens him or his family with bodily harm.)

And just so we're clear, in order to express "dissent," your opinion has to be different from everyone else's. You hated OMD? So did most people who are talking about it. That's not dissent. That's agreement...