John Byrne has several popular lies he likes to tell about me. One of his favorites jus resurfaced over on his board in a thread about whether the internet has ruined comics, in which he responds to the following set-up line–
“Wasn’t the ending to Alpha Flight #12 spoiled at a comic convention by another comic professional?”
–with the following lie:
“Peter David handed out xeroxes of Guardian’s death at a con about a month before the book shipped.”
Nnnnnno. A popular lie of John’s, but no. Number one, it wasn’t at a convention; it was at a get-together for retailers. Number two, it wasn’t Guardian’s death. It was an unlettered two page dream sequence in which Heather was seeing a dessicated Guardian tearing out the ground. Number three, it was part of a package of about two dozen photocopied highlights from assorted Marvel titles. Number four, the material in question was handed to me by Denny O’Neil, the book’s editor when I–in my capacity as sales manager at the time–was going around collecting material to put into the package. And when I said to him, “Are you sure you want me to include this in the material?” Denny replied, “Sure, what’s the harm?” Number five, retailers at the get together had no idea that the sequence actually indicated that Guardian really died. I know this because when John showed up at the get-together, he looked at the material, screamed at me at the top of his lungs, “How could you be showing this to retailers?!? It gives away the fact that Guardian dies!” and stormed out of the room, slowing only long enough to kick over a standing ashtray on his way out. At which point stunned retailers said, “Guardian DIES?,” started looking at the xeroxes again, and were muttering, “I thought it was just a dream sequence…”
Set your watches. I’m sure John will be hauling out the equally fun “Peter David was so stupid he had a character fall to his death underwater” lie sometime within the next six months. That’s one of his favorites.
PAD
• 
Ya know, I don’t particularly know if either party has every exact detail down as there are obviously two sides to this. At times they both act a bit like highschool girls over the whole thing with their cattiness. Still, the both are generally class acts to me in so many other areas that the whole thing is rather sad from a fan standpoint. If anything, its these type of act that really come off more unprofesional than those who are called out for growing roses or whatever. Heck, in my own industry when it comes down to those who are late and those who act like JB and PAD and it is generally people in the second category who are let go faster.
I can’t believe I’m the only one who thinks it is amazingly ironic that Byrne has (as stated above) said quite horrible things about Grant Morrison’s writing and “lack of respect”, yet is drawing a comic based on a Grant Morrison revamp of The Atom.
As always, reality is more fun that fiction.
*****
He is now only doing 3 issues. and he said “Everyone is quite vague on just what Morrison’s contributions were.”
“Plus, I can’t work out how Mr. David could have handed out material like that on his own say-so, infuriated John Byrne when he was at the height of his popularity…and still have kept his job after it got back to Denny O’Neil. Admittedly,I’ve never worked in Marketing at Marvel or anywhere else, but I can’t come up with a scenario that reconciles those things.”
Well PAD did have to fall back on writing…
kidding…kidding
JAC
Ðámņ!!! As sad as it makes me to see two creators whose wokr I have enjoyed argue like this, 🙁 I can’t help it but find these discussions more entertaining than the comics themselves right now. 😉
Probably why columns like ATR and LitG are so popular right now.
I (as I said way up above) tend to give guys the benefit of the doubt in regards to faulty recollection when it comes to things this old. That’s not saying that I always think that they’re telling the truth. I just don’t automatically assume that they are deliberately telling lies. Even events like this one, mostly he said VS he said, can tend to fall under the category of bad recollection by both parties rather then lies. I always put this particular dispute under that category.
Not any more. Not after a day’s worth of reading the arguments of the two parties in this dispute leaves me believing that this is yet another JB fantasy. Sadly, this just became one more reason why, as much as I loved and still love a small ton of JB work from my youth, I have absolutely no desire to stand in line to meet the man or get his autograph.
PAD has answered questions asked by posters from his own board and JB’s board with equal patience and manners. He has made arguments that make sense, have a level of logic to them and can be reasonably believed. He has explained his side with details that can at least stand up to rational thought.
It doesn’t make sense that he and others in sales could just stroll into any office they wanted and walk out with anything that they wanted to take. There’s no way I can believe that PAD could, just on a whim, take it upon himself to sabotage the payoff in one of the company’s top selling books, written and drawn by a man who was at that time one of THE golden boys of the company, and not get punished and/or fired for it. I also can’t see how he was trying to make himself relevant to the fans or come off as cool to his fans when, at the time that this happened, no one outside of his friends, family and coworkers knew who the hëll he was.
JB has thrown whatever he could think of out there and tried to see what would stick to the wall. PAD was out to get him. PAD wanted to give away the ending of the story so that he could be cool and be seen as a big man by the fans. PAD single handedly ruined the surprise death of Guardian for over one third of Alpha Flight’s readers. JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hëll of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a “we can’t fire you” clause. Nothing he has written has made the least bit of sense or approached anything like logic or rationality.
Posters, from this board and even some from his own, have asked him to back up some of what he’s said or to clarify some of the less logical parts of his story. They’ve asked politely and without malice. JB has called them names, answered with even more nonsensical statements then the earlier ones and just plain blown the questioners off. The dumbest one was his saying that he could answer a question but he wouldn’t because he didn’t like how the question was asked. Was it rude or confrontational? No. JB just didn’t like the question based on some odd whim of his.
The defense rests, charges dropped and case closed. PAD wins this one hands down. Nothing that has been said against him stands up to any reasonable scrutiny or common sense. JB could still make a case for his side but I doubt it.
The sad thing is that I really liked JB’s work. I liked his Marvel Team Up runs. I liked his She Hulk. I loved his Alpha Flight and his Superman. I still do really. But I can’t get into his newer stuff. Only part of that is from his work being something less then what it used to be. Part of it is because of the man himself. I really try to keep the artist and the work separate in my mind. But I can’t turn around in fan forums or news sites anymore without seeing something that JB said that makes me think less of him, no matter how much benefit of the doubt I give him, and less interested in his work.
It really is a shame.
Posted by Bobb Alfred
Just as an excersise, everyone should take a moment to think about some event in their lives that occurred 20-odd years ago, and see how clearly they remember all the details. I’d have been 15. To be brutally honest, I can’t recall a single event with any clarity from that year. You’d have to skip ahead a year to when I first started dating for me to have any real clear memories, and even then, it’s mostly just the big details.
Thirty-six years ago this month i left View Nam – i was Navy, stationed at a Com Station in a safe area, so i never saw combat.
But, yeah, i can clearly remember all sorts of things; even some of the comics i was buying in the Base Exchange.
I can quote swathes of dialog from movies i watched sitting in the rain in the outdoor base theatre.
And it’s not that Viet Nam is unusual in my memory (i just picked it as a sort of landmark) i have clear recollections, for instance, of my first SF WorldCon, forty years ago this week.
Posted by Trevor Krysak
I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I’m asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?
Well, yeah – he didn’t get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer.
Oh, another popular Byrne lie, should it come up: Spider-Man 2099 #1 was the perfect example of a bad origin comic because the lead character never appears in costume. When it was pointed out to John that SM 2099 was in costume and in action for the first third of the book, he stated he didn’t remember it that way. So I think we can chalk this one up to another of John’s…how to put it…lapses.
****
I wonder if he made the same complaint about Gail Simone and her Atom #1 script. 😉
I posted:
“I post a decent amount on the Byrne board. I’m asking the same question here that I did there. PAD do you have anything to back up your version of the events?”
Mike Weber posted:
“Well, yeah – he didn’t get fired and they subsequently used him as a writer.”
That doesn’t really qualify as proof of anything. I’d appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own. Unless you are saying you were around at the time. Actual evidence of this is what I’m after. Some corroboration one way or the other. Not people trying to make excuses for John Byrne or PAD. Proof.
I’ve read this whole thing, and all I can think of is how my aunt once got honked off at me and my mother and refused to speak with us for over a year due to some imagined slight.
Look, it boils down to this. Byrne apparently will say or do anything he has to to make himself look good. He can’t let go of an insult, real or not. And he’s obviously insecure as hëll, since he seems to be trying to build himself up by trying to drag others down. The old premise of “It’s not enough that I succeed, all others must fail” is what seem to drive him. His many triumphs in his chosen field are not enough for him. And as long as he maintains that attitude, he’s going to remain a sad little man who’s obsessed with wrongs that were done to him so long ago that no one except him even gives a rat’s ášš.
His time is done. Let him pass. I have.
Miles
Trevor Krysak wrote: “I’d appreciate it if PAD would answer on his own.”
I could be wrong with my interpretation, but it seems he has already addressed this.
Peter David wrote: “What it comes down to is this: People can construe it as my word vs. John’s. But that’s often the case in most court situations as well, at which point the requirement is to look for two things: Opportunity and motive.”
There’s more. Just search through the last few responses from PAD to check it out and judge for yourself.
***
Peter David wrote: “You might want to let him know the word is “piqued,” not “peaked.”
Your example had my roommate laugh soda out of his nose. Not a pretty sight, but worth it all the same. I missed the incorrect usage, in truth, my spelling is terrible. But that example… that was golden.
Thanks. And thanks for taking the time to explain the details too. The chaos you suggest that would ensue from such an open door policy…well… that pretty much matches my assumption. I’m not expecting it at this point, as he has not shown an interest in prolonged discussion, but perhaps John Byrne will be equally considerate in forming a response to the questions I posed to him.
Wow.
I turn away for a day, and bam, a blog entry with a 107-comment thread appears. I read most of the thread on JB’s forum, and Jerry C pretty much nailed much of what I wanted to say.
I’m just amazed at the self-serving, intellectually dishonest, and childishly hostile attitude Byrne brings toward the concept of civil discussion. I mean, really: Insulting perfectly polite posters who voice valid questions about his version of events? Even his retorts are prosaic: K-Mart having a sale on disingenuousness? Are you kidding me?
But the demagoguery of the Byrne cult is astounding. Between responding to a request for motive on Peter’s part by comparing this situation to the corpse of a shooting victim (when such a body constitutes evidence of something, whereas the He Said/He Said between Peter and Byrne provides none), mischaracterizing Peter’s explanation as a “defense” an “admission”, “just following orders” and “blaming Denny”, accusing him of not at leat being “sympathetic” to Byrne’s position and “smirking” (when Byrne himself admits that Peter tried to calm him down after Byrne’s outburst), one guy asking if you’d still be angry at someone running over your dog (well, after 22 years I’d be over it, and I’m someone who was forced to euthanize a beloved family pet after a neighbor shot it, and that was only 13 years ago), and the constant Straw Man arguments, non sequiturs and false analogies, what I can’t help but notice is this: In having participated in Peter’s blog for some time, I notice that regardless of the topic, the paralogists and flamers are generally exposed as such, and held in low regard, by Peter, and/or the other visitors here. There’s a certain reassurance in that. On Byrne’s boards, they reign. They seem to attack anyone who asks the most sincere questions, and rather than condemn it, Byrne is as guilty of it as any of them. L. Walker, who conducted himself with maturity, gets accused of being “passive-aggressive” rather than polite (I got that myself at imdb when I’ve responded to flamers with civility), of “stirring šhìŧ up”, even when he made it plain he had no such intent, and so forth.
One thing I keep thinking about is how people commented that if O.J. Simpson was innocent, then he did the worst job of acting like an innocent person, since following the murders, he acted exactly the way a guilty person would act. If Byrne’s version of events is the correct one, then not only must Peter be extremely good at acting like a polite gentleman who did not knowingly do anything wrong, and at pulling off this charade for his entire career, but Byrne has the incalculably bad luck of coming off like a self-serving churl incapable of approaching conflict in a good faith manner, despite being the innocent victim he insists he is.
Me, I tend to think that concrete evidence aside, you can tell a lot about what really happened by virtue of the character that each of the two men have displayed over the years. If Peter’s lying and Byrne is the honest victim, then you have to marvel at how their demeanors don’t match it.
L. Walker, my hat is off to you. I asked John a couple of questions (phrased diplomatically and unthreateningly because I know what a hothead he is), got the non-answers I expected, and chose to drop it. (And Peter, for the record, I am unswayed by John’s answers.)
L. Walker, like a good lawyer (are you a lawyer, perchance?), you continued to poke at the holes in John’s logic, refusing to give him a place to hide. His dismissive answers were telling: he danced around the periphery, never addressing the core issues.
One of John’s fans criticized me for telling off the “Byrne Forum Impostors” in a post at Byrne Robotics, while criticizing John here in Peter’s blog. He apparently thought I was trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth. So I posted my criticisms of John at Byrne Robotics, stating that his credibility had been diminished in my eyes due to past misdeeds, such as accusing Roy Thomas of plagiarism without evidence to back it up, and deliberately mischaracterizing the contents of Spider-Man 2099 #1. I think it is very telling that John did not respond to my recounting of those well-documented misdeeds on his part.
With that, however, I think I’m done poking at this thing.
Again, L. Walker, if I were wearing a hat I’d tip it in your direction.
Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account — it’s disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can’t prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?
L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they’d take you more seriously.
You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects
Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.
You have asked a lot of questions and he has chosen not to answer. At this point, repeating them again and again is not going to help-he seems to have decided he doesn’t like you, that you are trying to play “gotcha” and thus is done with you, effectively.
From experience, I know that this is unlikely to change.
He, and the posters theres, mostly see the board for fans to come and hang out and have fun with each other (even if lots of that fun is being negative about current comics/creators). JB considers it akin to his “home.” While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.
I am not criticizing you, but it is pointless. At some point the thread will be locked when he gets “bored” or you’ll get banned because the “majority” have voted you off the island.
In the end, it isn’t worth it-if you have something positive to contribute there, go for it-it can be an interesting and fun board (albeit it can be negative too). The topics are pretty diverse. But this tactic/way of going about things is not going to work.
Just a thought.
Maybe Byrne just needs a big hug, and he’ll break down and cry and let out all the hurt and emotional baggage that seems to affect him so. Some gentle human contact will heal that fragile, hurting soul and he’ll stop blindly lashing out at others.
Yes, love is the answer here!
So, uh…….somebody go ahead and get on that.
Trevor, seeing you address someone as having been accused of something, saying the accuser has no proof, and asking the accused if he has any proof for his account — it’s disturbing. What if the accused has no proof? What then? If we can’t prove our innocence, are we guilty of any unsubstantiated accusation aimed at us or what?
*****
Well, if it is a civil case type situation, which this is, the standard is generally more likely than not. Say 50.1% I think he did (or did not) do it, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, yeah, basically it is a toss up between who you believe and who you don’t believe. If people find JB more credible, he “wins.” If people find PAd more credible, he “wins.” Unless one has corrobaorating evidence.
We all have to make our judgments in life. This isn’t a criminal case.
Someone posted on another board that they were there when it happened-that it was at a “Roast of Jim Shooter” con in Atlanta and they along with everyone at the convention got handed the pages in a packet that included other pages.
Not sure if that is true or not, but that is what they said.
Well, I went back to Byrne Robotics and posted again. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I blame L. Walker, because I’m so impressionable. 😉
(If any Byrnebots are reading this, the above was a self-deprecating joke, nothing more. I went back of my own volition, out of principle.)
There’s a southernism that seems to apply here. “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subkects
Except that the times I’ve gone over to byrnerobotics.com, their definition of “causing trouble” appears to be anything short of blind worship of JB.
I’ve never posted there and never will. As L. Walker has discovered, anyone who starts asking questions about one JB’s little anecdotes (unless it’s something like, “Gee, how can PAD be such a prìçk?”) is either immediately banned or dogpiled by JB’s sycophants.
Yeah, but see, and I say this as someone who was banned himself, it is Byrne’s board. If L. Walker is being a pain, even if his questions are legitimate, Byrne doesn’t have to deal with it. He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn’t have to be anything but what he wants it to be.
Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.
I can see PAD being perturbed by the posting by Byrne of a (negative) anecdote of a 20 year old incident on a publicly viewable forum.
spiderrob8, I’d agree with you but for one small detail: anyone with an Internet-enabled computer can read the content posted in Byrne Robotics. Complaining about people responding to a story told publicly is like stepping up to a podium, saying something inflammatory into a microphone, and then telling the audience, “I wasn’t talking to you.”
“JB would also have us believe that PAD had one hëll of a contract. PAD could risk damaging books sales, and thus the companies bottom line, just because he felt like it and he was sit safe and secure in his office and laugh at the misfortunes of JB and at the fools at Marvel who gave him a contract with a “we can’t fire you” clause.”
Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it’s the former, I missed it. If it’s the latter, okay, but just so that doesn’t become a “fact” in the mix, I had no “contract” with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there’s no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.
PAD
Considering L. Walker never signed up except to ask these questions, I can see how people there could be perturbed, even if the questions are legitimate.
I don’t. They brought the incident up and are now perturbed that there are people who don’t just take what Byrne says at face value? Please. At least PAD was willing to answer some of the questions people posed here. JB has just dismissed L. Walker’s questions with sarcasm and let his sycophants attack.
He is there all the time. Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him. The forum doesn’t have to be anything but what he wants it to be.
JB seems to confuse “pleasant” with sycophancy, though. My advice to him, if he ever reads this forum, is if all he wants to unquestioning worship, then just close the forum to the public and make it so people can post by invitation only. That way, he and his ten remaining fans can have their little circle jerk about how great he is to their heart’s content.
Peter David: “And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there’s no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.”
Yeah, I made that point again in my last post in Byrne Robotics. I was expecting him to hurl names at me but strangely John is not responding. Given his penchant for hurling invective at those who point out the holes in his stories, his unwillingness to respond to me speaks volumes.
Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.
Sure, they are’t sticking around much-whether the qualtiy of the books, or like me, no interest in the Demon and Doom Patrol, and I only tried them because of him. I would, however, be very interested if he was back at Marvel on probably a dozen different-which of course ain’t happening any time soon.
The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn’t let you in too much).
I am not even sure why I should care who is right here. How does this affect my enjoyment of The Atom or Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man?
It is like an argument between two Hollywood celebrities, one may be right, and one may be a liar, but why do I care as the consumer?
This is the strange world that my mind lives in………
Bill Mulligan referenced the PAD/Todd debates above, the weather reports on the TV this morning make Ernesto’s impact on the Georgia/Carolina area look grim and a friend just emailed me with some rather sad WWE news. Then the thought struck me…..
Ladies and gentlemen, we have come here to witness the selflessness of two great men. Two men who are willing to risk their own bodies for the good of the industry and for the fans. Dragon Con is this week. Ernesto is acting in a way that could cause problems for travelers and attendees. A plan was hatched. A plan was then chucked. A new plan was formed.
PAD & JB saw the potential threat to the fans fun. How, they asked, could they make that extra something special for the fans to slog through the possible tropical s**t storm.
Well, they have a known history and sorta-kinda rivalry. A debate? Yeah, that’s the ticket. No….. Been done already. People would call it a cheap knockoff of PAD/Todd. Besides, Byrne flat refused to debate in his boxers. So what could they do? The new plan, the ultimate plan, took form.
The weekend before the Con an old dispute is revived on their respective boards. Venom is thrown and words clash like steel. Other boards pick it up and the grudge expands. Then, just at the last minute, the announcement is made.
Peter David…
John Byrne…
Hëll in a Cell. Dragon Con 2006.
Too bad you guys didn’t start this a weekend earlier. Then you might have gotten the buzz needed to really build the thing. Still, it’ll make my first ever Dragon Con an even more memorable experience. then it could have been.
Oh, PAD…. If Byrne tries to talk you into doing the “Foley bump” for the show….. Pass.
Trevor Krysak –
That doesn’t really qualify as proof of anything.
Well, this certainly means you don’t care to work from a position of logic and rational thought, which seems to be a general problem with all the Byrne-backers.
I mean, seriously: do you realize how ridiculous you sound in the face of all the comments as to why PAD should have been canned, if this incident was PAD’s fault and as big of a deal as Byrne makes it out to be?
spiderrob8 –
While discussions are large and free wheeling, and sometimes contentious, challenging him on his home forum, especially when you never posted on any other topic, is just not going to work.
If Byrne was as much of a man as he thinks he is, it wouldn’t matter who’s asking the questions, he would answer them. Just like PAD does here.
spiderrob8 –
Obviously, he wants it to be a pleasant place for him.
Ie, he wants a place where everybody there will bow down and worship him. Thankfully, the world at large doesn’t work like that.
Maybe Byrne can go into politics; he’s got about as much credibility at this point as most politicians.
“Did John actually say that, or are you extrapolating? If it’s the former, I missed it. If it’s the latter, okay, but just so that doesn’t become a “fact” in the mix, I had no “contract” with Marvel. I was an employee and could be fired at any time. And believe me, if the scenario had played out as John claims, I would have been gone. Editorial would have come down on me like the right hand of God and there’s no way Carol would have been able to protect me from such egregious behavior.
PAD”
No, let me clear that up a bit. John is not saying you had a contract. It’s just that it’s the only way the events as he has told them in the last day or so could have gone down. There’s no way that Marvel would have just let an employee sabotage their books and ruin creators story lines just because he had a bug up his butt and not do something about it. There are only two ways in the known universe that an employee could get away with that.
1) The employee has a contract created by The God of All Lawyers. Nothing short of your own death is enough to give you the boot.
2) The employee has THE photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location and a plan to have them sent into wide publication if he doesn’t get his way or is killed.
I went with the argument line of #1 because most sales guys in organizations like that don’t have contracts (let alone contracts of that nature) and that I saw no way to defend you against #2. We all know that you in fact do have the photos/videos/knowledge of the bodies location. How else can you possibly explain even one tenth of your success in the fields you’ve chosen to make your living in?
😉
Hope that clears things up.
On the day after the Challenger space shuttle exploded, professors at Emory University asked their college freshmen students to write a description of where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded. Three years later, the professors asked the same students to recall where they were and what they were doing when the Challenger exploded; the professors then compared the statements to those made the day after the explosion. The experimenters reached two conclusions: first, there was a high level of inaccuracy in the recollections three years later, and second, high confidence levels accompanied completely wrong recollections.
-http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html
I believe that John Byrne believes what he is saying, but I don’t believe it happened the way Byrne says. As PAD has noted, if it had gone down the way Byrne says, PAD would likely have been fired.
I feel like the scorpion on the back of the frog.
First, the stories of the incident, really, are basically the same. The real question is, why are we discussing this 22 years later. Was the phrase “get over it” ever more appropriate?
But since we are parsing the microscopic details of an incident that happenned before the average comic book reader was born, here’s another logical point: This happenned before the widespread use of the internet. JB claims that a third of the readers of AF had the story ruined. If the pages had been seen by the mainly local fans at a regular con, then the ruination would have no way to spread easily. But if the pages went to dealers at a retailer seminar, from all over the country, who could tell hundreds (tens?) of customers, that’s the only way the story could spread so quickly without the use of these pointless message boards.
And it’s also odd that this was used in a thread on JB’s board to support the point that the internet is ruining comics. Since AF was ruined before the internet, it shows that it is actually nerdy fans who ruin comics.
Putting personalities aside and a lack of proof (why nobody thought to whip out their handy tape recorder and capture the incident for posterity so that Trevor would be mollified 20 years later is beyond me!) I just try to look at what makes sense. Byrne’s account would have us believe that Peter David walked into somebody’s editorial office, removed artwork without permission, made photos copies of the artwork, returned it to that office and then passed it out, again without permission. Not only that, but if we were to believe Byrne’s version of events, it would mean that that Peter (who was basically a grunt in the Marvel marketing department at the time) ruined the work of one of the company’s biggest stars at the time and wasn’t punished for his actions! Again, it just doesn’t make sense. At least Peter’s account of the events has an internal logic to it, whereas Bryne would have us swallow all these inconsistencies to accept his version. As somebody pointed out earlier, a civil case is decided on which side has the majority of evidence, even if it’s 51-49%. In this case, it ain’t even close.
And Peter, if in the future, you could ask Kathleen to video all of your public appearances, business meetings and bowling matches, it would really help us all out when somebody asked for proof.
Ironically enough, just the other evening I was reading the TPB collecting the first arc on Byrne’s WONDER WOMAN run. I got a chuckle out of his intro to the volume where he complained that the speculator boom and bust is what killed the chances of him continuing NEXT MEN and that he tried to warn everyone but his warnings went unlistened and he became the Cassandra of the comics industry.
Yes, he actually compared himself to Cassandra of myth.
And that comparison would work, if he was truely the only one at the time to being sying such things. But he wasn’t. There were many folks who warned that the speculator boom was bound to implode on itself. Hëll, I was in my mid-20s with no real education in economics or business philosophy and I knew that things would crash pretty quickly.
Methinks that JB’s recollections are certainly colored by the rose-colored ego that he views things through.
What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I’ve read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories. At the same time, the big art team credit that everyone loved was Byrne and Austin, but the message I got in reading those interviews always seemed to be John downplaying or even disliking the contributions of the Claremont and Austin. That bothered me, if only because it seemed unnecessary. Even if Austin did things he didn’t like to his pencils, he could have taken a higher road then he chose to in a forum that he knew would be read everywhere given the popularity of the X-Men at the time.
Byrne’s still seething over this reminds me of that Monty Python skit where two archeologists wind up in a heated argument over which of them is taller, and the shorter one, after being completely humiliated, announces “I’ll get you for this–if it takes the rest of my life!”
Of course, that’s partly because 20 years later, death in comics is a lot harder to take seriously. Even at the time, Guardian’s death didn’t strike me as the stunning shock Byrne assumes.
Judging by recent sales figures, he has at least several tens of thousands of fans left, willing to at least try his books, not 10. Now what he had, but they are there.
Well, obviously, I was exaggerating with the ten figure, but he clearly isn’t the superstar he was in the 80s. The quality of both his writing and pencilling has fallen off considerably over the last 10-20 years. Of course, I’m of the opinion that his work was overrated in the 80s anyway.
The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn’t let you in too much).
Sadly, my experiences have often been similar. There are many writers and artists whose work I enjoy, but whose personalities have turned me off.
Someone has posted a question to O’neil on his message board. He hasn’t responded yet:
http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699
The more I peek behind the curtain at my old favorite creators (and true I am more of a character fan than creator fan) the only one who has not disappointed me, small or large, is Stan Lee. (and Stan doesn’t let you in too much).
Every single creator you have come to know in either casual or substantive fashion has disappointed you? Either you’re picking the wrong people, or you’ve got to consider that your expectations just might be unrealistic.
I have frequently been astonished to observe the general graciousness and tolerance with which so many pros who didn’t draw X-Men 108-143 (excluding 110) treat fans, as those aficionados are frequently not the most socially adept folks in the world.
What surprises me most is that those pros aren’t consistently “disappointed” by the treatment they receive.
spiderrob8: L. Walker- Perhaps if you posted in some other topics, they’d take you more seriously. You have a lot of people who go there for the purpose of causing trouble and not contributing to other threads on more positive subjects. Thus, they act with suspicion at people who do join simply to challenge JB on one point or another.
Luigi Novi: Walker isn’t obligated to post on other topics, “positive” or otherwise. His only obligation is to be civil and intellectually honest when speaking on the topics he does chooses speak about, which he clearly was. The topics he chooses participate in is completely irrelevant, and for Byrne and his fans to place emphasis on which discussions he chooses to participate in, instead of the content and merit of his arguments is completely wrong-headed on their part, and evasive of the pertinent points. Yeah, you’re right, they’re going to act this way, but that only condemns them and their ability to discuss rationally. It in no way obligates Walker. There’s no reason why Walker should jump through their hoops by posting on other topics for some false sense of legitimacy in their eyes, since, as it’s been noted here, they’re still going to jump on him the moment he does disagree with John (what one of his forumers called “arguing and confronting” Byrne—a cardinal sin there, of course). Given the constant stonewalling by Byrne and his forumers on the points people like Walker directly put to them, arguing that one should establish some sort of forum street cred before disagreeing or challenging Byrne completely misses the point.
cal: What I know of John Byrne comes from stories like this one that I’ve read about here, and what I used to get in the published interviews in the X-Men through Superman days. What came to disappoint me then was the way that John had to be given cocreator credit on the X-Men stories.
Luigi Novi: Didn’t he co-write the stories with Claremont? (My memory could be wrong here.)
Someone has posted a question to O’neil on his message board. He hasn’t responded yet:
“>http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699
Did anyone ask Denny if he’s still alive?
I stopped liking Byrne when I met him back in the mid 80’s and he refused to sign my copy of Classic X-Men #1. “I don’t sign reprints” he said and proceeded to pull out a rubber stamp of his signature and stamped my book with it. Úšhølë.
JB claims that a third of the readers of AF had the story ruined.
****
1/3 of the people who wrote in letters I think
Luigi Novi: Walker isn’t obligated to post on other topics, “positive” or otherwise. His only obligation is to be civil and intellectually honest when speaking on the topics he does chooses speak about, which he clearly was. The topics he chooses participate in is completely irrelevant, and for Byrne and his fans to place emphasis on which discussions he chooses to participate in, instead of the content and merit of his arguments is completely wrong-headed on their part, and evasive of the pertinent points.
****
He can do what he wants. I am just saying, given the constant flame wars there, real (sometimes guys come by and start posts calling him Old Balls and stuff or saying stuff you would never say to a person in person-not that he is always innocent at all but still) and made up (overreaction), there is a bunker mentality sometimes now. and what i was saying is someone who comes there to ask questions like that, legitimate or not, and who only is posting in a thread regarding some controversial incident, isn’t likely to be taken seriously over there, right or not.
he can do what he wants, sure, until he gets banned or ignored. Byrne is not obligated to have a board at all-he has no obligation to run it the way others want him too.
I am not defending or not defending John Byrne. I got banned too. there are more effective ways to do it than repeating the same question over and over. At this point, it is too far gone anyway, so no more answers will be coming.
and I mean no disrepsect to L.
Luigi Novi: Didn’t he co-write the stories with Claremont? (My memory could be wrong here.)
****
Yes, he co-plotted. He claims that the majority of certain stories were his idea. I forget which ones. Of course, Claremont scripted.
Frustrations over Claremont scripting scenes and characters different the way Byrne plotted/drew, plus a certain desire to see if he could do it on his own (I guess given their long collaboration together) prompted him to leave X-men.
On his board, he has always been nice about Austin
Posted by: Craig from Reisterstown at August 30, 2006 12:20 PM
Every single creator you have come to know in either casual or substantive fashion has disappointed you? Either you’re picking the wrong people, or you’ve got to consider that your expectations just might be unrealistic.
******
Growing up, I followed characters, not creators. However, I developed certain affection for some whose work I liked-Stan Lee, Kirby, Ditko, McFarlane, PAD, Byrne, Larsen, and a few others. Even Liefeld to an extent .Not many.
I don’t go to cons. and I don’t religiously follow creators. I am not friends with them.
However, in almost every case, through interviews, once those interviews started being in mags other than promotional things like Marvel Age, or especially interviews or posting on the internet, of any real depth, I have found many of the creators who meant anything to me to often be either petty, really really opinionated, bossy, nasty, gossipy, or whatever. I am not saying they are bad people.
Stan Lee would be the one who never seemed less than he was or his public persona.
McFarlane, who really meant something to me, silly as it sounds, as a kid, was the first one to turn me off in interviews as something of a pompous ášš.
However, like I said, I don’t follow creators much-so (1) there are only so many who could disappoint me, because the rest I just don’t care and (2)I don’t know any of them personally, and the only one I can say I have some knowledge of in depth is Byrne, since he posts so much, and i was there a long time. And even then it is probably superficial.
Finding out the wars and dislikes between creators who meant something to me as a kid is not necessarily fun, nor how nasty they can be to each other.
>>”>http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/dennyoneil/?read=1699
>Did anyone ask Denny if he’s still alive?
Yes, but he appears too busier responding to other questions to answer it. 😉
there is a bunker mentality sometimes now.
Yes, and unfortunately, Walker has fallen into the trap that bunker mentality sets for anyone who dares not take whatever Byrne says as gospel. By turning the debate around to attacking Walker’s motive for asking the question and making him defend his reasons for posting on this subject and not on others, they effectively changed the subject. It’s an ad hominem form of attack perfected by, well, anyone working in talk radio these days: Avoid answering any difficult questions by attacker the questioner. Put them on the defensive and make them waste their time justifying their motives instead of answering the question.
So some a couple of friends and I were discussing this via email when, as these things often do in our discussions, things degenerated into silliness. This time, the silliness revolved around future JB whoppers soon to appear at a discussion board near you!
* I told Marv Wolfman that Nova had a silly looking helmet, so he stabbed me with a pushpin that he claimed had AIDS on it.
* Peter David killed Jon Benet Ramsey and tried to blame me for it. At least that was what they said at the Marvel offices.
* Peter David snuck down to Australia and sabotaged the third act of Singer’s SUPERMAN RETURNS script just out of spite for my revamp of Superman from the 80s.
* Dan Didio cancelled Blood of the Demon because it was too good compared to the other DC books being published right now. They wanted to push this Grant Morrison Batman nonsense, and they were afraid that my consistent quality would just soak up all the sales. I mean, at the point of cancellation, the book was doing 190,000 in sales each month.
* Back when I was working at this book warehouse in Dallas, Texas there was this one November Saturday afternoon where I saw Peter David waving a rifle around behind the fence of this nearby grassy hill where myself and co-worker Lee O. would sometimes eat our lunch. My friend Jack, who owned a local upscale tavern, saw him too. Unfortunately, Senator Arlen Specter in conjunction with the Cuban mafia has organized a campaign to keep my books from selling, so I can’t get the word out about this.
* My Doom Patrol run was the best ever, Arnold Drake even said so himself. Jim Lee and Alex Ross were begging me to take some time off so they could do the artwork. It made more money for DC than the GNP of Bolivia. But Peter David with his “Long Island Voodoo” raised the corpse of Denny O’Neil up from the ground and made Zombie O’Neil eat the brains of the powers that be at DC, who promptly cancelled DP.
* Peter David and his minions hijacked the trucks carrying the entire print run of ATOM #1, replacing the pages where the hero is wearing the superhero uniform with inferior quality artwork where he isn’t wearing the uniform. PAD’s interwebs minions have been working overtime to squash any reporting of this while his apologists within the DC hierarchery will deny this ever happened.
Ironically enough, just the other evening I was reading the TPB collecting the first arc on Byrne’s WONDER WOMAN run. I got a chuckle out of his intro to the volume where he complained that the speculator boom and bust is what killed the chances of him continuing NEXT MEN and that he tried to warn everyone but his warnings went unlistened and he became the Cassandra of the comics industry.
****
Reading over a lot of his old essays and interviews, he seemed to come to his Cassandra routine on this one pretty late. In 1983, when he’s “telling it like it is” to the Comic Journal, he mentions nothing about the dangers of the Direct Market (even though it is already in full swing), instead he takes to bashing Gene Colan, libelling Roy Thomas, taking pot-shots at Frank Miller, kissing every square-inch of Jim Shooter’s ášš, and talking about how Marvel has been screwing up for the last 15 (even 20!) years. Other missives from the period have him calling it a new Golden Age… the same old patting themselves for increasing sales a bit (but not to Silver Age levels) that I see everyone else doing at the time.
By the early 90s, when it became apparent to anyone with half a brain that the speculator market was going to crash, he joined in with a chorus of voices, including Neil Gaiman who spoke on the subject in the belly of the beast at Diamond’s annual event. I worked in a shop at the time, and by the third or fourth time I witnessed a fan buying 200 copies of a TUROK #1, even I knew that things were going to get ugly… and soon. If you were in retail, you knew about the recent Trading Card bust, and you could see the horrifying simularities coming.
But it Byrne… he’s a voice in the wilderness… if only they had listened to him, none of this would have happened… even if he never seemed to get worked up about the subject until everyone else was warning of it, too.
Well, Matthew Hansel, who is a Byrne member with 2300 posts, is also a moderator on the O’Neil board and has deleted the question regarding this incident. That would be one thing, but he then goes on to say that he’s sure Denny would just agree with JB, anyway. Here’s the quote:
“Hmmmm…I’ve just deleted the posts at the Denny O’Neil board which were, in my opinion, poorly phrased questions designed to incite a certain reaction and also designed to cause trouble.
NOTE: If others try this, I will delete their messages, too.
On a side note: Denny is a professional writer. I can’t imagine that he would ever authorize ANY SPOILER or ANY WORK by ANY WRITER that was working for him all in the name of publicity.
I’ll believe Denny every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And always over Peter David.
MPH”