1) My sincerest apologies to T. and Dan Apodaca for being an asshole in this discussion.

2) My sincerest apologies to the rest of you for being an asshole in this discussion.

Let's get back to talking about how and why Comics Should Be Good!

There's a blog for PA notes out there on the internet, and the divide is, interestingly enough, actually in favour of the men when it comes to note leaving.

Yeah, sorry, when you are comparing someone to a woman as a form of insult? Or castigating someone by stating they’re behaving as a grotesque stereotype of a woman? That’s classic, old-school, indefensible sexism.

*sigh* I really was going to leave this alone, but the whole misogyny/sexism thing is something I want to address. It's not an insult to women. There are different ways to handle conflict. Some ways are preferred by women. Some are associated with men. Women can be catty and a little more passive aggressive or snide when in conflict with each other. Women themselves admit to this. Men do macho tough guy posturing and physical threats and chest puffing. As a man I can admit to this. Neither gender is perfect and pointing out these truths is not an insult to men or women. This thread was classic cattiness and passive aggression at its worst, and it was ugly, and I got caught up in it. Cattiness is forgiveable in a woman, but it's just extra ugly in a man, just like excessive fistfighting and machoness is extra ugly when done by a woman. I'm not exempting myself from the criticism. Sorry if that's politically incorrect but it just is. I'm not apologizing for it or backpedaling. Just because someone else comes in snarky and catty doesn't mean I had to respond in kind.

It’s wrong and insulting to the forum, the topic, and everyone involved in the discussion. It’s also pathetic– nothing like resorting to ad hominem bullshit to admit your own argument’s fundamental weakness.

Wait...THEN and ONLY then did the thread become wrong, insulting to the forum, the topic and everyone involved in the discussion? So you mean this thread was all about civility and respect of others' opinions before comment #33 by T. dragged it down into ugliness? I suggest you reread it from the top and tell me again when the tone got lowered and when the personal insults to the forum and everyone involved in the discussion began. I'll accept responsibility for keeping the tone of this thread in the gutter, and I expressed regret for that, but I am NOT taking the blame for dragging it there in the first place.

It's wrong and insulting to the forum, the topic, and everyone involved in the discussion. It's also pathetic-- nothing like resorting to ad hominem bullshit to admit your own argument's fundamental weakness.

Hard to say, isn't it, since Sears' art made the story pretty incomprehensible? But hey, he got to sell dozens of pages with roided-up Caps and Falcons on them, so good for him.

And T's not being misogynist so much as sexist with his girls/estrogen=trivial whining business.

It’s been said that the character ‘M’rissey’ in LSH #38 is named after a Legion superfan that passed away.

Can you find out if this is true?"

I'm not Brian, but I suppose it could have been a reference to late BNF Rich Morrissey. I associate him with Batman rather than the Legion, but who knows?

T hates girls and Oestregen

Combined with '90s pin-up junk, I think the trend towards more pictures/ less words hasn't gone away since the early '90s. Again, I think original art sales had something to do with storytelling erosion, but I think the above-mentioned trends had more to do with it.

"Decompressed stories with lots of splash pages keep getting made because the artists and writers who produce them are popular audience draws."

It's true that there are a lot of popular writers who prefer to work in a decompressed style right now, but don't take that to mean that there isn't also editorial pressure to do so. John Byrne has been very vocal (yes, big surprise to some there) about his work on JLA, and about being told to add in splash pages and larger panels to "fluff" the story out to six issues. "Writing for the trade" is the choice of the editor, as well as the writer and the artist.

It's the free market guys. While I agree that we can't lay all the blame at the customers' feet and that artists and editors should take some responsibility for their product, they make it because people buy it.

If GE produces huge gas guzzlers, we blame them for the environmental damage they do. However, if customers stop buying their product and shift to a product (with lower emissions) from a competitor, GE will change their practice.

In reality though, I think Giffen is complaining about a problem where there is no problem. The free market ensures that there is something for everyone. If the majority want pin-up style art, then the majority of art will be such, but the demand for story-driven art ensures that such art continues to be produced. If most of the stuff the industry produces is crap, who cares? I can still buy stuff that pleases me, and so can all of you.

Probably not with small press or self-published work, as I would think the overriding goal is to get the work out to the public.

You guys need a time out in the Snark Free Corner. Do I get cool points for finding three characters with their heads enlarged to ridiculous proportions?

Since pin-up style artwork sells the best in that market, is there an incentive to work it in to as many pages as you can? Sure. Does that mean visual storytelling must necessarily suffer? I don't see why.

Contrary to a previous poster, I don't think The Authority suffered story/art-wise from the liberal use of "widescreen" style. Nor does Ultimates. Many artists might do it poorly, but it CAN be done well.

So if Giffen's point is simply "selling original artwork leads to poor visual storytelling," I don't agree this has to be the case.

If it is a true detriment, like the Sears pages someone showed earlier in the link, (argue all you want about Sears, but I found that page hard to follow) the editor should reject them.

Are fans feeding this habit of artists drawing for a sell on market? Yes.
Is it their fault? No.

It's the artists for behaving unethically.
It's the editors for not demanding more from the artist.
It's also the publishers for not paying enough, or providing enough benefits, so that the sell on market has become worth more to the artist than the books work.

I think Giffen's schtick for this column to blame it on readers, for problems that aren't necessarily their faults.
Good idea too, upset people, get more hits of people coming to see what the fuss is.

not a mind reder or anything but i think the irony he's talking about is you holding up omar the biggest e-whiner in the discussion as some kind of warrior against e-whining. i thought (hoped) you were being sarcastic tho