Comic Book Resources

My two cents: If you are being truly defrauded, cheated or discriminated against in a legally actionable way, absolutely. If you get dicked around via miscommunication and respect issues, bitch to those who know and love you, and discreetly educate others in your field to be wary of such and such. And maybe someone will take up your cause and expose the dickery for you, saving/maintaining your good standing in more ways than one. Or, if you must, issue a thoughtful statement to clear up rumors, and when people ask again, refer to your original statement.

If I'm ever in this kind of situation, I could very well be a big fat baby about it, but this is my current rational opinion.

I think that it's very easy for people to say that others should keep quiet when they're not the ones being treated poorly.

And I think silence only perpetuates a problem.

I think it's a little funny, since he is a columnist for CBR, and has recently himself taken a shot at Dan DiDio when he said:

"I still think Didio gave me the “Reign In Hell” assignment so he could tell me to "go to Hell" on a regular basis and leave me helpless to respond in kind."

Helpless to respond in kind. Well, he did respond, by writing about it on the internet. Spare me indeed.

That's a shot at DiDio? I think that's more like a little self-mockery.

It's okay to be public. However, Dixon crossed over into personal territory and let his feelings get in the way of his message. If he had basically said, "Due to a conflict between myself and Dan DiDio over the direction of certain characters and / or titles, I am no longer employed by DC in any capacity. All my solicited work will still be published, but nothing after that.", then that would have been fine.

He decided to be snarky and single out everyone he liked or wasn't responsilbe and then proceeded to make lots of snide remarks aobut the direction of the company without specifically naming DiDio, but definitely making it known that it was him. It was like a child or teenager upset over something isntead of a professional.

So, yes, it's fine to be upset and take things public if you believe you are mistreated, but you should still maintain your professionalism.

Also, Giffen's remarks are identical to Dixon's in that they sound like a pissed off child instead of a professional. He goes out of his way to make a point about Dixon, but never directly mentions him by name, indirectly mocking and disrespecting him. He's just as unprofessional as Dixon was and it wasn't his place to sound off on it since it had absolutely nothing to do with him. If he wanted to praise DiDio, that's fine, but to attack Dixon in a public forum like that is just a child's "I know you are but what am I?" type reply.

Yeah, I didn't really see that as a shot at DiDio, more like the kinds of jokes these guys tell about each other constantly.

I also wanted to add, I don't think silence is golden--I think that when people get into internet discussions about anything, especially about their own negative experiences, it's very easy to get caught up in it and go places you'll later wish you hadn't, or that may backfire on your cause in some ways. So the key is not to STFU about the poor treatment, but to be extremely wary of that snowball, and realize your steaming head may not be in constant control of its judgment.

Even after all the public airings, are we really sure that Dixon was treated unfairly?

I still only have his word. And frankly, that's not good enough for me to judge. And if you don't want me to judge, then keep this crap quiet.

"Professionalism" is the term that people in the wrong invoke when they are publicly exposed.

The problem with Giffen's comparison to doctors/lawyers/etc. is that for the most part people in those professions do not have a fanbase that will be asking why they're no longer with their old hospital/firm/etc. But a patient or client might ask them why, and it might be related on an individual level.

I don't see why it should bother me if a creator chooses to take a dispute with a past employer public. Sure, it may have negative consequences for their future employment (though if it's a common practice in the industry the impact is probably less than many expect), but that's not really any concern of mine.

Actually, people fired from particular professions over politics or whatever-- at least around here, including doctors and librarians-- happily air their dirty laundry in casual gossip with acquaintances. If they thought anybody on the internet would care, they would most certainly take their complaints there.

If someone I like is gone from a book I like, you better believe I want to know why and hold someone accountable.

"Actually, people fired from particular professions over politics or whatever– at least around here, including doctors and librarians– happily air their dirty laundry in casual gossip with acquaintances. If they thought anybody on the internet would care, they would most certainly take their complaints there."

I guess I didn't express myself very well because that was pretty much the point I wanted to make. I think people like to complain when they're treated unfairly, the difference between me and Chuck Dixon is that if I get fired there are about 10 people who will care.

to answer the question about if its a good idea..I'd have to say no..Its one thing to maybe clear the air about things so people dont jump to conclusions but airing dirty laundry probably isnt a good idea...at least for the person doing it...Hey Im human I like hearing all about the little inside gossip going on and it dosnt affect me at all, but if your going to spout off be prepared for the consequences. Who knows how future employers will look at you if you run your mouth.

Val d'Orazio makes the case for speaking out here better than anything I might say.

"Who knows how future employers will look at you if you run your mouth."

As someone who they shouldn't treat poorly, for fear of public condemnation.

And that's a good thing.

MRW, I was "rebutting" Giffen's original statement moreso than anything you posted. Frankly, speaking out is important-- in the industry I usually cover, video games, it took a spouse speaking out anonymously about Electronic Arts' appalling overwork of employees to change the situation for the better at both EA and several other studios using the same crooked overtime practices.

"As someone who they shouldn’t treat poorly, for fear of public condemnation."

Or as someone with a colossal ego who will throw public temper tantrums when they don't get their way.

And that's a bad thing.

Which isn't to say that sometimes even personal laundry shouldn't be aired when its part of a problem in the industry. People are going to have different opinions over what constitutes a problem. Is a company deciding that the superstar creator gets priority over other people a problem? Not really, though the editorial communication that the situation demonstrates is. That communication breakdown could have been illuminated without the bridge burning and ego stroking that has occurred which makes me feel that Dixon did cross the line.

There's two sides to every story and usually the publisher has to be more cautious about what they present due to having to manage relationships with a few hundred creators.

Nope,silence is NOT golden.
It is significantly less risky than speaking out,though.Talkers run the risk of getting blackballed,particularly in incestuous environments such as the comic book industry.Still,the culture of silence contributes to and/or worsens the atmosphere of impunity that apparently exists in the comic book world.And given the comparative dearth of good press coverage,how else do we know what's going on?In an industry where the publishers hold most of the cards,at that?

I'd prefer reliable, impartial comic book reporting.As it is,I'll take what I can get.

I agree you cant be totally silent on a subject thats how rumors start popping up, but theres a differance between setting the record straight and telling all the gorey details..and like I said the only reason I think it may be better to stay silent is just for your own personal good...bosses tend not like people who are going to run out and air the dirty laundry. And there are only so many places you can go in comics before theres no one left

He decided to be snarky and single out everyone he liked or wasn’t responsilbe and then proceeded to make lots of snide remarks aobut the direction of the company without specifically naming DiDio, but definitely making it known that it was him. It was like a child or teenager upset over something isntead of a professional.

Actually, any details Dixon gave he seemed to give reluctantly, and usually to put out a rumour started by someone else.
Remember, all he said was that he was no longer employed by DC - it was only once the net went rife with speculation (there are several threads of it here), that he started going into detail, and it only indricetly came out who he had a disagreement with, as Dixon would say who it wasn't, because people were getting into frenzies over who it may be. (ie. People saying Paul Levitz is an arsehole for what he did, Dixon responded with 'It's not Paul, I like Paul' etc).
Children or teenagers aren't usually reluctant to talk about who they have a problem with, so the term doesn't fit for Dixon.

In fact, can I ask, did you actually see any of Dixon's posts on the matter? It sounds like you've heard people talking about them, without actually seeing them - in which post was he childish?

As for Brian's question, I think Kieth is being too much of a company man, and has probably gotten a little cushy, being buddies with both big companies these days.
Dixon is a freelancer, and if he breaks with an employer, for whatever reason, depending on circumstances, it may be to his advantage to put it out there that the company was at fault, not him.
Whether it be to let other companies know his side before being labeled 'difficult' (which airing problems could well get him labeled), or to show how much of a splash he can make to show that people do pay attention to his name.
I mean he could suffer in silence like comic pros did back in the day, but what good did that do Kirby and everyone else who got fucked over on work for hire comics?

I never suspected that Giffen was capable of such incoherence. It was just barely focused enough that I can say I'm pretty sure I don't agree, but it's just a step up from something that's meant to be muttered on the subway.

It depends: there are times when the right thing to do is to speak, and times when it's better to shut up.

Whether it was OK for Dixon to talk, even the bits he did, is debatable. More importantly, it was *his* choice, not ours. He's the one who will suffer the consequences, if any.

And it IS very ironic that someone like Giffen, who post complaints in his column all the time, is criticizing someone else for doing the same thing.

Do lawyers do this when they have a flare-up in their firm? Doctors?--Keith Giffen

The short answer... YES!

Lawyers, Auditors and even Doctors gossip, bad mouth and air dirty laundry all the time! They may not use the internet, but they basically do it all the time... over coffee, on phone coversations, "power lunches" and happy hours. Anyone who's ever been "a client" or handled a corporate account knows this. That's how "professionals" manage the flow of information and either... keep an existing client when they leave the firm/partnership; or steal an existing client from one of the partners!

Come on, Keith! Are you this naive? ...or are you trying to score some brownie points with Didio? Maybe get to be one of his... Boys!

In any case, this is a no contest.

I mean... government agencies (state or federal)? Is this too easy, or is there somebody out there that believes Government Agencies are free of gossip and bad blood? Let's just say there is a reason they all know the exact date & time they are eligible for retirement.

Colleges & Universities? Please. It's part of the curriculum. In fact, a lot of times you get more bitching and complaining than actual "teaching".

Hospitals? Again, another gimmie. Ask any Nurse if "this place" is anything like "Grey's Anatomy" and they'll tell you who's showed up drunk for surgery, who's screwed who, and in my particular case... who's Doctor has an illegitimate child.

Who else? ...Priests?

You are kidding, right? Some of the Priests at my old high-school haven't spoken to each other in ages! And whenever they had to, because of a school event; you can bet your life it was going to turn into a snarkfest!

As far as Librarians go, I only know the one from my high-school. She was very old. She had worked over 50 years without receiving any sort of recognition for it;

...and she kept a bottle of Scotch in her office, in plain sight. at a private high-school. Trust me. I just didn't have the stamina to talk to her.

Library politics can be really absurd. There was a local incident a few years ago where the country asked them to hire a bunch of new young clerks with basic qualifications who could learn how the system ran on-the-job and take over as the older women running the system began retiring (as it was clear would begin happening in about ten years). What actually ended up happening is that they fired all of these young women as quickly as they could come up with excuses for it, and then replaced them all with very old retirees who had no hope of advancement and no qualifications. Nobody realized this had happened until the various women who got fired started gossiping and e-mailing each other.

Do lawyers do this when they have a flare-up in their firm? Doctors? Librarians? Yeah, I know the film / TV / general entertainment business is rife with this kind of public square yowling but do we really want to lumped in with a bunch of narcissistic crybabies?

Geez, Giffen's column is quite remarkable in that his logic seems to be consistently faulty and his metaphors and examples never, ever work. Do lawyers have hundreds of thousands of people judging their job performance and looking over their shoulder and dissecting the reasons for their departure on the internet the way entertainers do? Are librarians often the subject of blog posts, gossip columns or widespread fan speculation whenever they have problems the way comic book creators are? Do librarians have every mistake they make on the job analyzed at length in message boards, forums, on talk radio shows, on ESPN and in sports bars across the world the way sports stars have their job performance analyzed?

I mean, seriously, I understand Giffen wants to carry water for his employer, that's fine, but GEEZ! use a better analogy. If you can't think of a good defense, wait until you can and write a column then. Entertainment jobs like film, TV, music and sports are rife with public square yowling because they are rife with public square condemnations due to the fact that the general public is fascinated with those jobs and discusses them at length. If librarian, lawyer or doctor on-the-job performance and office politics were widely discussed by the public at large the way they're discussed for entertainment figures, you'd also see them doing the same public square yowling that entertainment figures do. NOBODY wants to risk their reputation being ruined, especially when they think it's unfair. However, in the case of librarians, doctors, or lawyers, the average person really doesn't care about them because they think they're jobs are boring, hence the public doesn't bother gossiping about them and scrutinizing their job performance, which as a result keeps them from ever having to air out dirty laundry. First off, no one would care. Second, where would they do it? Is there a doctorbuzz.com blog where doctor groupies gather around and discuss the latest firings and hirings and people discuss a hot up and coming new doctor's latest surgeries?

Try again, Keith. Fail.

I didn't read all the comments before replying. It seems like a few people beat me to the punch and made the same points, which makes me happy.

Val d’Orazio has made it her Life Mission to badmouth DC Comics. All because SHE had a bad experience...at least, in HER mind.

Scott McIver said:

"“I still think Didio gave me the “Reign In Hell” assignment so he could tell me to “go to Hell” on a regular basis and leave me helpless to respond in kind.” (Keith Giffen)

Helpless to respond in kind. Well, he did respond, by writing about it on the internet. Spare me indeed."

Giffen is best known for JLI, a series where outrageous humor was part of the story. He often writes about comic book life in humorous ways. To suggest that he was offended by DiDio and was getting public revenge is just looking for a chance to be offended by SOMEthing. The folks at DC do a LOT of bantering back and forth. It happens at a lot of businesses.

d'Orazio disapproves of the current DC leadership, but, well, she's entitled to that view. I'm glad she shared her experiences, honestly.

Have to fault Giffen on this- Dixon didn't go out of his way to name names, in fact he went out of his way to do the opposite, and let's face it, a bit of whistleblowing keeps a company honest.

Dixon didn't really go about this in the smartest way, but to say he shouldn't and to give the examples as to why he shouldn't that he did was just as dumb or worse. And also a little hypocritical.
"Dixon shouldn't say that about Didio! Here's what I think about Dixon!" -Giffen.