First, Comics Link. I got all the Auctions in one link, you're welcome.
Second, Michael Hunt asked what's going on re: comicsgate. Quite simply, I subscribe to what Harlan Ellison said: "You're not entitled to an opinion, you're entitled to an INFORMED opinion!" And since I haven't found the time to fully inform myself about the doings of comicsgate or EVS yet, I haven't contacted Dave about it. I'm gonna try to do that tonight and tomorrow. Monday's post should hopefully be what I'm sending Dave, and then we'll all wait for a reply. I apologize if that's frustrating to anybody, but you could just skip the middle man (me) and go directly to Dave. 519-576-0610, 519-576-0955 (that's the fax number), or Box 1674 Station C Kitchener, Ontario Canada N2G 4R2.
Third, yesterday I said the today would be "Boobies." And damn it, I'm a man of my word:
Next Time: Sunday. So, Genesis Question commentary (I've got these Sunday posts "in the can" until like, February of next year.)
8 comments:
Matt,
Thanks for the response.
Am I being inpatient? Perhaps. I'm satisfied that you are preparing yourself to ask the right questions, and understand that preperation takes time.
I do wonder if you would prefer me to ask my questions directly of Dave, as you reminded me that I have that option. If that is the case, please tell me and I will do so gladly. I do not wish to burden you unduly, and I can see this sort of thing falling under the Things For Which I Did Not Sign Up category.
But I will tell you why I did pose my questions here and would prefer to have them and their answers posted here.
1. I have no idea if Dave would answer my letter or return my phone call. I know he can and does limit his contact with the world for numerous reasons. I do suspect that if the admin of AMOC asked my questions and reported to Dave that several people were interested in the answers that he might be more likely to answer. And I am very interested in those answers.
2. There were several other people posting on AMOC who did have questions and concerns along the same lines as mine. It has been 10(?) days with no mention of the issue and I don't want the issue to die here.
3. I think the nature of AMOC, unofficial as it may be, that it serves as gathering place for folks interested in all things Cerebus and Dave Sim and a pulpit for him when he desires, is, short of a round-table discussion in meat-space, the perfect place for both Dave and visitors here to discuss comicsgate in general and Dave's thoughts on the subject in particular, especially given Dave's social views as regards to women, the homosexualist/marxist axis, the liberal agenda, his own immense experience and opinions on the nature of comics as an art-form and as a business, and his own experience as a self-proclaimed pariah of both comics and the liberal agenda. I mean, duh.
I can thing of a dozen reasons Dave would might rather not answer these questions. If he does choose to do so then I can't imagine why he wouldn't do so here.
Michael
Actually, Matt, I *do* enjoy burdening you, unduly, and then getting a cold one and easing into my lawn chair and watching you wriggle out from under the burden.
(It usually takes him about an hour, but his daughters do most of the heavy lifting. I think I saw Paula laughing once, but I won't swear to that.)
But, seriously, Michael? I am in no way speaking for Dave or AMOC, but, one reason why Dave might choose not to answer here is SDOAR.
Just sayin'.
You continue to attempt to drag Dave into this controversy (or "controversy", or "Controversy", or Controversy), despite what Carson posted about his phone conversation with EVS.
Is it, seriously, your intention to try to derail sales of SDOAR (whenever they actually are proffered) because your feminist (or "feminist", or "Feminist", or Feminist) and liberal (or "Liberal", or "liberal", or Liberal) ideas or ideology cannot tolerate the thought of one comics creator collaborating with another comics creator, when their ideas and political ideologies may not fully agree? Or, more to the point, may not fully agree with *your* ideas and ideologies?
I mean, have you ever talked *to* or with *Gerhard*?!?
I have had multiple conversations, in person, with both Dave and Gerhard, and (without divulging private details, 'cause, you know), I can tell you that Dave 'n Ger are *definitely* not on the same page, philosophically, politically, nor (I think) spiritually.
But, I love them both, as "friends" or acquaintances, or just good guys with whom to hang out. Limited as that is.
They're both forgiving, each in his own way, of my foibles and of the few times when I have overstepped my boundaries.
And, they are both good people, at heart, and I like to think that they, each in their own way, think that of each other and of me.
The point, you say? Dave may or may not agree with EVS, but I know Dave to be smart enough to be able to collaborate with EVS without selling himself out.
So, I would suggest that we should all wait and see.
Otherwise, you, Michael, are just being prejudicial, in the truest sense of the word.
I think we also need to respect the fact that Dave thinks he was indicted on trumped up charges so is going to really take his time feeling out any situation that would require him to essentially do to someone else what he thinks was done to him.
The age of Twitter demands immediate response. That is the culprit behind so many otherwise decent people acting like outraged assholes. Lets appreciate someone who is more cautious than the herd and give him time to truly do some deliberating.
Why is an answer NOW so important anyway? It isn't like there is a major product to boycott coming any time terribly soon.
Jeff,
Lots to address in your comic.
1. Why would feel the need to point out that you do not speak for Dave or for AMOC? Are there people who think that is the case?
2. I did write that, "I can thing of a dozen reasons Dave would might rather not answer these questions," and the potential to adversely effect sales of SDOAR specifically or his bottom line generally was certainly one of them.
3. As to the charge that I "continue to attempt to drag Dave into this controversy.": Dave was dragged into the comicsgate orbit by Ethan Van Sciver's announcement that Dave was working with him on CyberFrog. I asked via AMOC three questions: Is Dave working on CyberFrog? Does Dave understand what comicsgate is? And if so, does he support it? Matt asked for help gathering info to present to Dave and I gladly helped. Other people chimed in here on AMOC and some discussion was had over a period of a few days. Then more than a week went by and I asked again. So I suppose I do "continue" to do something (ask the three questions), but that something isn't "dragging" Dave into anything,
4. Speaking of questions, you had one for me: "Is it, seriously, your intention to try to derail sales of SDOAR (whenever they actually are proffered) because your feminist (or "feminist", or "Feminist", or Feminist) and liberal (or "Liberal", or "liberal", or Liberal) ideas or ideology cannot tolerate the thought of one comics creator collaborating with another comics creator, when their ideas and political ideologies may not fully agree? Or, more to the point, may not fully agree with *your* ideas and ideologies?"
a] It is not my intention to derail the sales of Dave'S or any other comics creator'S products for any reason. Whatever, seriously, gave you that idea?
b] You make the odd assumption that I should I want to derail SDOAR's sales (see "a" above as to whether that is the case) that I would choose to do so because I, as a feminist and a liberal (it would be more accurate to call me a socialist, actually, but your point is taken), held political ideologies that make me against comics creators of differing political views working together. Your odd assumption says a lot more about what you think feminism or liberalism actually is than it does getting to the heart of my nonexistent motive for an intention I do not have. You could have saved a lot of writing by simply asking me what my intention is in raising the questions I do, or you could have simply reviewed my comments on the subject as my reasons are spelled out clearly there.
5. No, I have never had the pleasure of speaking with Gerhard, or with Dave. Congratulations on your close personal friendships with them both. I imagine they are rewarding. Are you trying to give me a lesson in tolerance and/or civility? If so then why? Have I demonstrated my intolerance and/or incivility? Do you imagine I only communicate or socialize with people who hold my exact political views? Again, this may have something to do what you think it means to be a feminist and a liberal.
6. About what, exactly, am I being prejudiced? If you mean comicsgate or Ethan Van Sciver then I disagree utterly. On their counts I am, if anything, post-judiced, as I have learned enough about both of them to know what it is I think of them. If you mean Dave then I am at a loss as to what conclusions as regards to him you think I have made. If it is something else...well, then you'll really have to be more specific.
So, until Matt gives me the ol' heave ho', I will continue to ask the questions to which I would like answers from time to time. I would hope that anyone else who wishes to take me to task for doing so not make as many baseless assumptions as you have while doing so.
Michael Hunt
Carson,
I don't need an answer NOW, as I think I have demonstrated by helping to gather information for Matt and biding my time for 10 days before broaching the subject again. I do think that if Dave has not decided whether or not he is working with Van Sciver then he could make that known, given that Van Sciver has announced that it is happening.
I would like answers to my questions relatively soon, as they will certainly effect the level at which and the ways in which I support Dave Sim as an artist, and I'm well aware that the only way to get answers is to ask questions. But if Matt thinks my raising the questions here on AMOC is something he would rather I not do, I have offered to bugger off.
I did read with interest your report of your conversation with Van Sciver. It is my own opinion that he is no ideologue, but a simply an opportunist who has found an audience that only requires him to stroke their bigotries in order to loosen their purse-strings. That he doesn't understand or care about the consequences of that makes him worse than the comicsgate fan-base he is exploiting.
Michael Hunt
crazyyears--I said I don't speak for Dave or AMOC because I don't want anyone to think that I think that I do, especially Dave, and I *really* don't want the Dow-meister mad at me. To be more succinct about my arguments against you, why don't we all just wait and see? I think that EVS jumped the gun in making his announcement about Dave. Diamond's Previews would be plenty of advance notice of such a collaboration, should it ever be printed and solicited.
Dave has collaborated with many artists and writers over the years and I'm guessing that at least a few of them were people with whose views he didn't agree, or with whose political views you would agree.
So, I'm just sayin': Chill the fuck out. Wait and see.
And, then if you don't like it, well, then, put those #1s back on the market and profit from your vehement dislike.
Jeff,
Dude! I'm chill.
I'm so chill that I've not implied anyone is uncivil or intolerant. I'm so chill that I've not accused anyone of trying to damage another's livelihood. I'm so chill I am going to take up a practice you yourself sensibly endorse and end this comment with a statement designed to clear up any confusion as to for whom I think I speak, and I encourage every commenter to do the same.
I do not speak for Dave or AMOC, and by that I mean that I don't want anyone to think that I think I speak for Dave or AMOC.
Vehemently Chill,
Michael Hunt
Post a Comment