Image Concerns

Originally published August 19, 1994, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1083

In an earlier column, I pointed out that Marvel Comics was suffering from a major perception problem. That, to an extent, it didn’t matter what its motivations for certain actions were. Credibility was being damaged due to the public perception.

It has since been pointed out to me that I have the same situation in regards to Image.

Ordinarily this wouldn’t bother me. Several of the Image founders have decided that I (a) hate them (b) have it out for them (c) want to tear them down since, for the most part, they’re (a) wealthier (b) more famous (c) have more hair.

Now all of this is baseless. (Okay, okay… maybe the hair. I mean, Liefeld has a really nice head of hair. Not enough to drive me into spasms of jealousy, but it’s not shabby at all.)

No Image creator has ever explained why these nasty, mean-spirited mindsets are required to criticize them and only them. That is to say, my motivations were never called into question for–for example–the Marvel “bashing” a couple of weeks ago.

Nor have they ever explained what the aforementioned mean-spirited mindsets have to do with anything. How disparaging me as a person, as a writer, as a human being, has any relevance to a single criticism I’ve ever issued about Image.

Here’s a general rule of thumb that all of you should keep in mind when discussing any topic: Any response to an argument that can be boiled down to “Who the hëll do you think you are?” is a psychological fallacy of reasoning. To be specific, it’s an Ad Hominem attack, defined as attacking the person instead of the issue.

When the person is the issue, that’s one thing, which is what I try to stick to. Typical of my columns will be, “So and so said such and such; if we analyze such and such, we realize that it makes no sense and comes across as hypocritical.”

Typical of the rebuttals I get (not just from Image, but lots of folks) is, “Peter David said such and such; Peter David’s a jerk, and I don’t like him.” This isn’t exactly cogent, or convincing, or even relevant.

Unfortunately… and here’s where we get back to the part about perceptions… it doesn’t seem to make a difference.

As a society we seem to embrace the irrelevant; lavish attention on the illogical.

I suppose part of the problem is that–I’m forced to admit–Image is a lot slipperier than I. Here I am, I put out my opinions, I try to stay on target, and am a target in return. I’m fairly stationary in that respect.

It’s different with Image.

It works as follows: If you critique an individual associated with Image (God forbid, a founder) for any action he may take or comment he said as an individual, then you’re perceived to be slamming Image as a whole, and you’re being unfair. If, on the other hand, you critique statements made by individuals in their capacity as Image reps and refer to Image as a whole… why, then, Image reps immediately say, “No, no, Image is not a unit, but rather a loose consortium of creators,” they split in different directions, and you’re being unfair.

It’s kind of like trying to pick up water with tweezers.

The problem is becoming, though, that many people seem to be buying into this “Peter’s out to get Image” mindset, which lends credence to the idea that you don’t have to put together well-reasoned arguments to carry people’s hearts and minds. All you have to do is repeat something often enough, from enough directions, and it’s insidiously going to stick.

I find this disturbing.

I particularly find it disturbing in that friends of mine are picking up work for Image–writing, mostly, which I certainly consider a good sign. And, without exception, when they’ve broached the subject of their new employment to me, it’s prefaced with comments along the following lines: “Look, I hope you won’t be angry at me, but I’m doing work for Image.”

Why in God’s name should I be upset if someone is doing work for Image… particularly writing? They could use good writers. I understand their page rates are quite good. I like to see my friends employed. I don’t give it much thought beyond that.

And yet, they voice concern that I will, somehow, consider it to be some sort of personal betrayal.

Because of the perception.

In my very first column about Image, even though I tore to shreds their badly written press release, I still wished them success and said that theirs was a nervy move.

Didn’t matter.

I wrote a column defending Dave Sim’s writing an issue of Spawn while fans were busy howling that Sim had “sold out.”

Didn’t matter.

To my mind, I treated them with the respect McFarlane claimed they craved… i.e., I handled them in my column the exact same way I did Marvel or DC. No kid gloves, no special favors. To separate them from how other publishers are treated in BID would have been patronizing.

Didn’t matter.

I gave a nice write up to The Maxx. Now I rarely, if ever, write reviews of comic books, leaving that province to “Comic Guide,” “Tony’s Tips,” et al. Yet I felt strongly enough about Maxx, and determined enough to put the lie to the “Peter hates Image” label, that I made an exception and reviewed it.

Didn’t matter.

I tried ignoring them for months. It was fairly easy, actually, since they weren’t doing anything worth writing a column about.

Didn’t matter.

If anything, various Image personnel have stepped up their assorted personal attacks, as if angry that I stopped paying attention to them.

Apparently, when it comes to Image, it’s all or nothing. You can be in their camp and offer 100% percent support. If you take this approach, your motives are never brought into question and you will be rewarded.

But if you dare to make negative observations, then you are out to get them. Then your motives, your talent, everything, is brought into question and assailed so repeatedly that even people who should know better start to question you.

It’s similar, in some ways, to Ross Perot’s on-again off-again presidential campaign. He had a great old time with all the trappings and importance of running for the land’s highest office…up until the press started giving him the same sort of eye-balling, close-up treatment that it gave to every other candidate. At which point Perot howled, “It’s not fair!” and curled up into a ball. Eventually he crawled back into the race, but his behavior cost him support.

Perceptions are what shape opinion, far beyond reality. Clinton has been finding that, over and over again. I would venture to guess, for example, that far fewer people actually read the Clinton Health Care Proposal (all 1000+ pages of it) than had opinions of it. These perceptions were formed, not by the Proposal itself for the most part, but by commercials and second hand information. Clinton claimed that all of this presented a distorted view to the American people. Didn’t matter. At this point, other avenues for Health Care reform are being explored since many politicos are pronouncing the Clinton plan dead. Unworkable, unmanageable, because the perception is that the plan is poisoned.

Perceptions oftentimes have little to do with reality, and yet perceptions shape the reality. The problem with facts is that frequently they’re not nearly as interesting as the fantasies extrapolated from them. That’s why conspiracy theories about everything under the sun abound; why UFOs, astrology and the Loch Ness monster, like the Energizer Bunny, keep going and going; why arguments that appeal to emotions seem to be more memorable, and even more effective, than arguments that appeal to logic and reason.

That’s why, on the one hand, there’s me saying, “Image reps said this, and it makes no sense,” and Image reps respond, “He’s out to get us.” And they say it over and over again, until even the least gullible people I know find themselves saying, “Yeah, well, I guess Peter’s out to get them.”

No one said I was out to get Marvel when I wrote about their problems with Walter Wang a few weeks back. Hëll, even Marvel didn’t say it (well, not to me, at any rate). In fact, that column garnered surprisingly little response. Computer boards made no mention, CBG got almost no mail.

What gets big responses? Columns (however infrequent) about Image. Or Peter Pan. Or “Daisy Ðÿkë.” Because these are columns about matters that people get worked up about emotionally. Their relative merit or importance is secondary to the perception that these things are more important, and where do I get off talking about them? Who the hëll do I think I am?

Who the hëll do I think I am?

I am someone who (a) likes to get people to think, and (b) has a column to that effect that CBG readers support. It’s no more involved than that.

Not to sound too sour, but sometimes I think I’m wasting my time. That people don’t want to think, but instead embrace the gut reaction, the knee-jerk response. People opine, “Peter’s out to get this person, he’s out to smear that group.” How is this conclusion reached? Well… it’s just one of these things that everyone “knows.”

Like centuries ago, when everyone knew the earth was flat.

Here’s a hot news flash: Everyone knows nothing.

Let us see if I can put a fine point on this. Give one more shot at making a cogent series of reasoned statements, rather than the ad hominem style that is the method of choice for some Image reps:

I do not hate Image.

I have never hated Image.

I do not hate anyone connected with Image.

I am not trying to destroy, drag down, or assail anyone who is connected with Image.

Image, and its participants, are of interest to me only in that they sometimes say and do things that are of interest to this column.

People that I genuinely hate, that I cannot stand… these people are rarely, if ever, mentioned in this column. I tend to shun such people. I’m not real big on taking efforts to destroy someone; my mind just doesn’t work that way. I would rather just ignore them, hoping that someday they will drown in a pool of their own bile.

As far as I’m concerned, Image can and should go on about its business, content in the knowledge that I wish them only long term success.

Oh, and guys… by the way…

This business with skipping over late issues to avoid returns… or providing no information as to creative teams for a month of books…

Assinine and inconsiderate of the retailers.

Nothing personal, you understand.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705. He must also respectfully disagree with Bob Ingersoll’s assessment of the Hulk’s crime of homicide in Hulk #416.

First, Atalanta’s stating that she was willing to marry Trauma was clearly made under duress. By threatening her family, it was the equivalent of holding a gun to her head. On that basis, the Hulk refused to stand by and let a gross injustice be done. Second, the Hulk was helpless under the assault of Armageddon. It was Trauma–contrary to Armageddon’s advice–who exacerbated the situation by attacking the Hulk in man-to-man (or whatever) combat. And, under Troyjan law, whatever happens as a result of such one-on-one combat is between the combatants, outside the laws of the land. Your humble writer of stuff, you see, is far more conversant than Bob with Troyjan law and can state firmly that it’s nothing like Ohio law, despite Bob’s claims to the contrary. Bob was clearly misled, perhaps duped by the Impossible Man or some such prankster.)