 |

 |
jkason | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Dirk Deppey links to (and rightfully dismisses) this nonsense, an article ostensibly responding to the entitlement issues of the online comics community, but which is instead the journalistic equivalent of a blow job. A sloppy, adolescent one, at that. The offenses here are legion, among them the fact that Meeley (the author) desperately needs an editor--or at the very least a sound beating with a grammar book. Teach him how to use a comma. Teach him how to recognize sentence fragments. For God's sake, have somebody teach this man the difference between its and it's. Even forgiving the torturous use of English, the argument itself makes little sense. This isn't about entitlement in general, it's about trying to argue that CGE's recently-publicized financial troubles are no one's business but CGE's: "The issue with CGE and the freelancers was private business, that should have remained so." Why, sure, because the financial status of a company that's made a recognizable name for itself isn't news anywhere outside of the childish comics community, right? I mean, you can't find news about businesses or financials out in the more grown-up real world. I'm suspicious of Meeley's assertion that Bob Kane (creator of Batman) became "rich" off the Dark Knight, as by and large very few of the Golden Age (or Silver Age, for that matter) creators even managed "comfortably secure" as a result of their various work-for-hire properties, though I'll let it go without more information either way. Whether Kane was rich or not, the financial distribution of monies made on a property the size of Batman is, again, more than enough to make it newsworthy; so, too, is the attribution--or lack thereof--of creator's credit (to Bill Finger) for the same reason. If I'm suspicious of Kane's untold millions, I'm downright flummoxed by how Meeley can say: And to you 'newshounds' out there, quit with the doomsaying. Saying CGE is 'going under' isn't going to do anything, save make some who might actually TRY the work pass on it because they think it's not worth their time. I don't know what sites Meeley's reading, but I've never seen a single article (on Newsarama, Pulse, ICv2, or even Journalista! for that matter) claiming CGE was going under. Each site reported information on the financial details which have never been disputed by any of the parties involved. Freelancers say CGE isn't paying; CGE says they're not paying. Maybe I missed it, but can someone point me to the "CrossGen Going Under" headline? Bear witness, too, to great and powerful non-sequiturs like: Do you want them thinking all those stupid cliche's [sic] about comic fans are true, or do you want to show them that comics are not only a great source of entertainment but something that people of all ages and races can be a part of? Cliches like the fact that comics fans are childish? Myths that might be dispelled by having comics news sources cover grown-up topics like, say, financial news? And what does any of this have to do with "all ages and races"? I should concede that, somewhere in the middle of the essay, Meeley actually has an example that supports his initial thesis (he points to the long-running debate about who is "the real Green Lantern"), but it's one paragraph in the midst of a lengthy and repetitive diatribe against "doomsaying" CGE, and as such his only truly persuasive example reads as little more than a distraction. Well it might be, as this and the above-mentioned Kane example seem shoehorned in the middle of the essay as a means of proving Meeley's not just ranting about a single news story. He's ranting about a single news story. He's got about three points to make on the matter, though he seems to think that making one's point is the same thing as continually restating said point. No, that's what we call redundant. In the end, Meeley suggests that the end of company-sponsored message boards might fix the problem. Personally, I think maybe getting rid of message board posts masquerading as journalism might be a more inspired choice. Tags: comics, commentary
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |





 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I was astonished at this petulant rant when I read it last night. Apparently Meeley is unable to make the distinction between news reports and fanboy rage on the message boards on those same sites. Of course, there are people like the idiot on comicon who has a one man CrossGen Death Watch, but Meeley can't seem to figure out that the idiot isn't a news reporter. The line is blurred when sites like comicon post their news on the message boards themselves, but if Meeley can't make a simple distinction like this, he shouldn't be writing opinion columns and should stick to those message boards.
The "none of our business" argument has always irked me, not just because it is never consistenly applied by those who employ it. Why are these people haunting message boards and web sites if they want to declare a large chunk of industry news out of bounds? What's left - Who's stronger, Hulk or Thor? Judging from Meeley's opening sentence, that seems to be what he wants.
If a company isn't paying people, I'd think at the very least other professionals and aspiring creators would want and need to know this information. I wonder what they'd say back in the 70s when Jerry Siegel was bagging groceries and the unfavorable publicity forced DC to give him and Schuster a pension. "Oh, it's none of our business, it's a private business matter, that's what the legal system is for..."
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

|  |
 |

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 9th, 2003 07:25 pm (UTC) |
| (wanna link?) |
|
Meeley lost me when he asked, as so many other whining fans have, "Why did they have to take it to the fans?" The fact of the matter is, WE DIDN'T "TAKE IT TO THE FANS." Robin first posted his CrossGen chronology on a professional inkers' group, and I posted his chronology with a few addenda of my own on my blog. From there it finally hit the comics news sites. The problem is that, for whatever reason, some fans seem to regard these sites as their exclusive domain, and it's just not so. The sites are frequented (although not always posted to) as much by pros as by fans. The point of going public (besides that we were in a position to where dozens of other freelancers aren't, since Robin had never signed a non-disclosure agreement) was to alert the comics community of a newsworthy situation that wasn't being covered as newsworthy situations in other companies had been. If the fans don't want to know (and why is it these same fans always want to know everything negative about Marvel, for instance, but not CGE?) it's easy enough to skip the threads in question without whinging about it.
As for CGE going under, I sincerely hope they don't. I harbor little hope of ever seeing the $1300 that would have helped us attend San Diego and could now help me pay for bifocals and new orthotics and other medical necessities, but we'd certainly never see it were the company to implode. Still, the news of their CFO resigning can't be seen as a positive sign.
- Elayne (http://elayneriggs.blogspot.com)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 9th, 2003 10:09 pm (UTC) |
| (wanna link?) |
Why?
|
I just have to wonder why it can't be seen as a positive sign. I keep seeing this, all over the internet. Why not? The only fact surrounding Beattie's departure is that, he is, in fact, departing.
What if he was doing something detrimental to the company? His departure could then be seen as a positive.
Just not enough information, at this point, to determine whether it's positive, or negative.
Perceptions, opinions, and assumptions are not facts.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|  |
 |

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: September 9th, 2003 07:52 pm (UTC) |
| (wanna link?) |
|
In respose to Ms. Riggs statement I offer up this counter point from the BF thread:
Out of curiosity, I started reading through some of the older threads on the Comic Book Inkers Union discussion group. It looks as though the posters were aware that Rich was reading the threads there long before the 8/13 story broke. In fact, Rich had reported material from that group earlier: In the 6/30 LITG Rich reported on a dispute between Chuck Gibson and Red Sky Entertainment/Fuzion Comics, and Robin Riggs commented:
Robin Riggs wrote: Okay, so much for this being a nice quiet place to chat with folks about the business. Rich Johnston's latest column has a nice cut and paste of Chuck's back and forth with Jason over Red Sky. That means that either Rich is trawling these groups or someone here is feeding it to him. Either way I'm not posting anything but bland niceties from now on. Like him or loathe him a lot of people read that column and I certainly haven't been posting with that audience in mind.
So I guess it was a bit disingenuous for the Riggses to claim that they only posted on a private group and didn't know anyone else would pick it up. Especially when Robin Riggs wrote on 7/14 "Are you getting all this, Rich?"
This isn't to say this presents the whole story, either. In that same post from 7/14, Riggs said "Rich had that [CG] story long before we started talking about it here," so Rich still could have gotten the story in the 6/16 LITG elsewhere, and then the inkers group started discussing it in reaction. And Rich had popped up himself on 7/1 to assure the group that he didn't specifically trawl the board for rumors (although Rich never said he wouldn't use anything he happened to stumble upon while lurking, either). Finally, I don't know that I see anything wrong with Riggs going public with the information.
Just thought I'd share the additional details I'd found, since it adds more to the story in my mind.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

|  |
 |

|
 |
|
 |