How To Be A Dick

[filkertom]

Peter David gives us the skinny. If you want to read the referenced blog, it's here.

I am not a fan of Rob Liefeld's work -- I've been pretty vocal about that on a number of occasions -- but the ultimate way to express that is to not buy his stuff. I've never met the guy, and if I did I would proceed from the premise that he's a nice guy. If he asked what I thought of his work, I'd tell him, "Sorry, but you're not one of my favorites," and leave it at that.

This Yellow Hat Guy apparently now thinks he's hot shit. Well, he's half right.

(One comment board I saw linked to a very apt piece by Neil Gaiman.)

Comments

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Umm...

While I don't know either of the parties involved, demanding anything from a writer or artist is pretty low class. And telling someone that their work is terrible? There is such a thing as tact, you know. Even if the person really needs to be told how to improve, there are better ways of educating the person than that. While the comic gag is sort of humorous, it still isn't very nice.

And writers for comics are basically told what to do by the creators. It's not like they are steering the train that's on pre-laid tracks. All they are doing is setting the speed.

It's crap like this that makes me glad I'm just an amateur author and don't have to deal with people. I'm already blue about being looked over for all the eye candy in my genre. Having mr. Yellow Hat there telling me that my stories don't jive with historical Japanese records about the Kitsune and demanding an apology for that would cause me to quit sharing my work once and for all.

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

I've never met the guy, and if I did I would proceed from the premise that he's a nice guy.

Indeed.

Of course, the reverse is also true: one guy I worked for, years ago, still gets described as, "a damn good lawyer, but a complete asshole to work for".

[marrael.livejournal.com]

*headdesk*

[dlobok.livejournal.com]

I've only ever snapped at guests at cons for being dicks to me (one being Mr. Peter David, in fact) and even then I was also a guest at that con. I've never sought someone out to chew 'em out and tell 'em what for. There are more than a few times I've been at conventions where someone whose work I dislike was present - and I just did other things.

I mean, seriously, I'd rather spend my time focusing on the people whose work I do like and as someone who's dealt with this dickery before, it just sorta rolls off of you. It says nothing about the guest and everything about the person who needs this to be cool to his friends.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

Ya know, I think the inmates of "Scans Daily" would fall out on the other side of the argument, mostly being unfans of Liefield and David.

Personally, I think it's funny in a snide, ironic way. I know I've endured much worse insults.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

For Peter David to complain about other people's rudeness is the pot describing the kettle as being possessed of an absence of color, but in this case, he's not wrong. I'm not a fan of Liefeld's work or his chosen stances on a few things, but to go so far out of one's way to ridicule him in public is unacceptable on its own.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I was going to cite the cries of "Liiiiiieeeeefelllddddd!" as being a relatively harmless (if still on the dickish side) means of expressing dislike. I don't believe he reads the group (which is now on InsaneJournal), but if he does so, it's voluntary for him.

Handing him the book directly is rude, obnoxious, and deserves nothing less than scorn.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

I think you might be surprised by the reaction on Scans_Daily (http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/782835.html) then.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't have done any of it. And I never heard of the dude before now (I aint a comic book fan).

But I come down on the other-side of which act more rude and obnoxious.

Demanding a public apology for someone's work? That's just dickish. So say YellowHatGuy didn't do the "apology demand"....

People are allowed to state their opinions. Demanding an apology is not that. Leaving the "how-to" book, however, *is*.

So I'd really have to consider surreptitiously leaving the "How To" book on his table with a note attached to be a funny and rather stylish way of making the point. You put your work out there, youre opening yourself up to criticism.

It is also worth mentioning that it appears that Liefeld knew the job was this dangerous when he took it. Or he should have. If I grok the situation correctly, Liefeld is the current caretaker for the artwork and storyline that had fans devoted to it long before he took over. And many appear unhappy with what he has done with (to?) it.

I imagine if Babylon5 fans felt that Neil Gaiman's episode (Day of the Dead) caused the show to jump the shark, he might get a similar reaction. And I don't think Neil would have a problem with that way of expressing it. I bet he'd have a chuckle and think the guy deserved style points.

Peter David however....we know better.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

"Liefeld is the current caretaker for the artwork and storyline that had fans devoted to it long before he took over."

Um... the Twat in the Hat is demanding an apology for something that was published in 1996, that he only worked on 5 issues of anyway.

I don't think that counts as current. Nursing a grudge for that long over something that had no long term effect that Liefeld didn't even have creative control over, being just the artist, that's rather... obsessive.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I agree with you right up until you assert that leaving the book is merely stating an opinion. The way I grok leaving the book isn't merely saying one's piece, it's showing someone up in their professional venue, in front of the other fans. That's where the guy crossed the line; he could have made the same point to Liefeld in a private message, but doing it in a way that (ISTM) is meant to humiliate the man (whether or not he felt humiliated) is WAY over the line.

Comments on an author's (e.g., PAD or Neil Gaiman) blog are generally fair game, unless of course they become abusive (or reveal privileged information, etc.), despite being public.

[hyrkanian.livejournal.com]

I saw this linked from Cully Hamner's Facebook and I just can't believe what an ass this guy was. Welcome to the "never get a con sketch ever again from any artist" list, yellowhatguy.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

Pleasantly surprised, actually. Thanks for the pointer.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I remember reading a Harlan Ellison* rant about this sort of thing a long time ago. To give credit where due, he did acknowledge that his own combativeness rather invites it, but was actively outraged on behalf of others who'd been subjected to beyond-the-pale harassment; the story that sticks in my memory was the person who walked up to Alan Dean Foster and poured a cup of warm vomit over him.**

There are a lot of ways of expressing one's distaste for someone else's work without being a complete scumbag. I've been known to say to a writer, "That's not a style I particularly like to read," and have never had one take it anything but calmly; they understand that nobody is universally popular. Also, that was in the course of an ongoing conversation -- I can't imagine just walking up to somebody to say I don't like their work.

I think incidents like this are an outgrowth of the Entitlement Society; some people just never get it thru their heads that they are not the center of the Universe.

* Yeah, I know, but still.
** That's assault, and the person who did it should have been turned over to the cops.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Well I *do* agree with your characterizations wrt what the guy did, but not what made it that.

What made it the attempt to humiliate was the public act before leaving the book and the blogging of the whole stupid thing.

If he had just left the book and a note that said "You clearly need this". Then yeah, all he'd be doing is stating an opinion and doing it rather creatively. Nobody would know what the book was for. It could be one Liefeld was signing for someone else.

And since nobody else would know what he did there, he wouldn;t be doing anything in front of other fans even if there were other fans there...if that makes sense.

But he did. It was clearly his attempt to do it the way you stated. The book-drop in a vacuum though wouldn't have been it.

Probably the only legitimate use of

[capplor.livejournal.com]

Don't ask, don't tell.

I've met people whose works I like or don't like. (For the record I'm here becasue I like Tom's work). My cannonical example is, in fact, ADF, but as much as I've run around cons with him, I think he's a great guy personally. I've only run into one or two authors who seem to have an attitude of "Worship ME" (no names). They can mostly be avoided.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

That was "Xenogenesis," if memory serves; it was published in Asimov's. While Ellison's chip-on-the-shoulder attitude does tend, as he himself admitted, to draw that sort of thing, I got the impression he was more outraged about the way others---L. Sprague de Camp, forex, who was always a wonderful gentleman---got treated by some folks.

[jeffreycwells.livejournal.com]

Well, it may be just my dodgy connection, but from here it looks suspiciously like the blog in question has been link-truncheoned to death by this point.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine being that rude, out of the blue sky, to anybody.

But then, cons do attract a few people who think the normal rules don't apply---or don't apply to them. Not to mention the headcases.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

My personal view is that, while Rob's art makes me twitch uncontrollably, I think it's only fair game to go after him for his work, not personally. Now, the idea of giving Rob a book on anatomy isn't that offensive, it's more about his work then him. Actually doing it, then I think you're crossing a line and making it a personal, right to someone's face. It's a thin line, but it's there.

Personally, I've never heard a bad word from anyone who knows or has met Rob, I always find he comes across as personable and, well, nice in interviews and while I might join in the cries of LIIEEEFELD as loud as anyone while looking at his work, I'd never dream of doing something like that to the guy. There's fair comment and then there's just asshattery.

Some creators are combatitive and this kind of behavior might be understandable, if not condonable, but to a guy who's sat there, minding his own business, generally being pleasant to his fans, taking time out to be at the con and has a reputation as being a decent guy in all his personal interactions... yeahhhh.

I think most people on Scans_Daily take the same view (and it's part of our rules now). Be critical of the work, sure, but don't attack the creator.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

You know, the irony here is pretty darn thick...

How easily the jerk seems to have forgotten that with power comes responsibility.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

And writers for comics are basically told what to do by the creators.

Editors, not creators actually.

[jss]

And that with great power comes great power bills?

[mouser.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of the best response. The best would be to look at him for a second, shrug, then ignore him.

The second, and only slightly less best would be to get a marker, autograph the book, and hand it to some other random person at the con, THEN ignore the stupid git.

Hmm...

[dakiwiboid.livejournal.com]

I can only think of one circumstance under which I might say I wasn't unduly fond of an artist or actor's work to his or her face. If I got backed into a corner by a rabid fan who insisted on introducing me to that artist and who kept saying "Don't you just love _________'s work?", it might become difficult to just keep saying "It's a pleasure to meet you, I've seen your work many times" without saying that you don't actually like it.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

I recall reading it in Asimov's. The impression I came away with was appalled at some of the incidents, agreeing that Ellison had some good points,... and annoyance that he undercut those good points by treating the "40 Short Years Of Harlan Ellison" t-shirt as some sort of climactic capper to the cavalcade of outrage, thereby making it look like an it's-all-about-me personal whine rather than a valid and generally applicable message.

[saganth.livejournal.com]

Ok I hate to admit ignorance here, especially since I used to read comics... What exactly is wrong with Liefeld's artwork? I mean that seriously, I'm not an expert on anatomy, and I don't see his art very often. I have noticed, when I *have* seen his art, that a lot of his women are much too thin and tall compared to their bust, the mouths on the characters always seem to be in pinched grimaces, and a profile-view of Captain America gives new meaning to the term "barrel chest".. but I am wondering if folks here can shed some more specific light on what all the brouhahah is about with regards to his ability?

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, thank you for the correction. It is the Editor who is steering the story rather than the writer. So crabby Yellow Hat guy should be holding a grudge for 10 years for the comic's editor rather than Liefeld (whoever Liefeld and his unnamed editor are).

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

That's why you should use Arc Light Reactor designs from Stark Ind.

Re: Hmm...

[capplor.livejournal.com]

No, you can even SAY you don't like his work, politely, especially if specifically asked. We all have opinions. Making a point to insult/assault someone whose work you don't like is the demonstration of one's lack of social adaption.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Google "liefeld art" and you'll find a lot of references, and illustrated takedowns. The basic complaints are:

• he doesn't seem to understand anatomy (to the point of inventing new muscle groups, and being unable to draw feet) or perspective (either on people or things)
• all of his characters are impossibly proportioned and bent -- the skeletons of the women especially look more like emus with breasts, and that particular Cap profile reveals that Cap was not actually Steve Rogers but John Merrick
• he substitutes grimaces for pretty much every facial expression
• he puts in an absurd amount of "detail", i.e., scratchy lines that are supposed to be detail.

Guys, does that about cover it?

[wingus.livejournal.com]

The pouches! Don't forgot the absurd amounts of pouches!

[wingus.livejournal.com]

Yeah...this just makes me bang my head on my desk.

I'm not a fan of Liefeld in the least. I give him props for only one thing - being involved in the creation of one of my favorite characters, Deadpool. However, much as I don't care for his work, that's no reason to be a giant jerk like that. That can totally ruin a con for someone. Much as I may dislike a person's work or the person themselves, I wouldn't dream of wrecking a con for them.

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

You forgot the pouches. Lots and lots of pouches. Fanny packs run amuck.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

All of that, plus the fact that his work was "hot" for a few years, so that everyone tried to emulate him. He and his fans can therefore be considered responsible for about a decade of terrible comic art. There are a lot of bad artists who don't receive nearly so much loathing, because they were never popular.

None of which, of course, is an excuse for being a jerk. It's not like he's going to apologize tearfully, change his costume, and turn into Jill Thompson to atone for his sins.

[ravenclaw-eric.livejournal.com]

You have a good point about that. Me, I wouldn't have gone along with the t-shirt...not only is Ellison known for being touchy, but he's almost certainly sick of jokes about his lack of height. I sometimes wonder...would he have been a calmer character if he'd been 6'4" and built like a bouncer in a lumberjack bar?

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

That Gaiman post is one of my very favourite things every written. In any language. Ever.

"George R. R. Martin is not your bitch" entered my personal lexicon upon reading it. I'm saddened to report that I find use for the phrase with fair regularity.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

he doesn't seem to understand anatomy (to the point of inventing new muscle groups, and being unable to draw feet) or perspective (either on people or things)

I always think of him as "the guy who does the tiny, bizarre ankles."

[lanchid.livejournal.com]

I always think of him as the guy who gave Captain America tits.

[skemono.livejournal.com]

This page goes into detail about their issues with Liefeld's art, including sample pictures to illustrate the point.

[saganth.livejournal.com]

*snerk*

[saganth.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh yes.. Yup, that's pretty detailed alright. Thanks for the illuminating and somewhat painful explanation. I've said for years I can forgive bad art if the story/dialogue is fantastic, but this does push the limits of tolerance.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

Anyone pointed you to this (http://scifisongs.blogspot.com/2009/08/sci-fi-song-20-george-rr-martin-is-not.html) yet?