tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post7293667862271391360..comments2024-03-28T21:17:45.398-05:00Comments on A MOMENT OF CEREBUS: HARDtalk: The Virtual Tour #9A Moment Of Cerebushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02718525538144698138noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-74244132008794747962012-10-04T15:43:26.442-05:002012-10-04T15:43:26.442-05:00I "worked" with Dave Sim in negotiating ...I "worked" with Dave Sim in negotiating reprint rights for images in CEREBUS THE BARBARIAN MESSIAH and DAVE SIM: CONVERSATIONS and I found him to be attentive, courteous, gentlemanly, honorable and generous. Now, that was for reprint rights only - he maintains a position that as long as you are creating new work you are allowed to use his work freely, as he does the same with his trace work, etc. and he does not want to subject himself to a lawsuit any more than he would want to subject someone to legal action for using his work for a similar purpose. It's a matter of consistency, so I understand where he is coming from. Had I been negotiating something along the lines of a reprint of the whole of CEREBUS well, that's a whole other enchilada (as the recent TCJ message board - which is now closed - attests).Eric Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04092745122835543138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-64728220096865795162012-09-27T19:47:28.240-05:002012-09-27T19:47:28.240-05:00I have watched a lot of CerebusTV epsiodes but one...I have watched a lot of CerebusTV epsiodes but one that stuck in mind was the one where Harvey Pekar almost worked with Dave Sim on something Pekar was doing for DC. I think there was supposed to be a Dave Sim cover. However, the continual back and forth and the constant hair splitting gave the impression that as bad as DC corporatism is or was, negotiations with Dave Sim could be endless and were not a productive use of time for people interested in actually making a deal and making money, but would be an exercise in futility that would be hard to justify to a boss. Even though it was Dave explaining it, it seemed more a game of dominance and conflict designed to make Dave look good in some sort of oneupmanship. This could contribute to a reputation of being difficult to work with and just not worth the hassle.Rocky Colehttp://drrochellecole.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-90896865177220909282012-09-26T17:12:48.430-05:002012-09-26T17:12:48.430-05:00I'll agree with you that this publishing deal ...I'll agree with you that this publishing deal has probably been put to bed, based on everything present (as of this writing). But the thought of Dave "toying" around is, in my view (and I don't mean any disrespect to your character here) way off base. I think, if anything, Dave has always been an astute strategist, which is very different than a manipulator. Very, very different, though on the surface there might seem to be a fine line. To that end, I'm just wondering what all the positives are in this, not whether there were ethically suspect motives. One (at least) potential positive would be if Drawn & Quarterly and/or Pantheon has become aware of Dave's willingness to work with a publisher, and having those entities step into the ring as potential suitors. Slumbering Agarthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926670297818515972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-47101478317858922632012-09-26T16:11:57.489-05:002012-09-26T16:11:57.489-05:00It wasn't the crux of my motivation. That was ...It wasn't the crux of my motivation. That was the apparent disconnect between, on the one hand, the glamourpuss editorial (my career's over, I'm liquidating everything, it might end up being hauled off by 1-800-GOT-JUNK), and , on the other hand, the various references to different opportunities--Hollywood message inquiring about rights, reference to deals with four publishers (when your career is over, you have deals with four fewer publishers than that). (and in this answer we learn of a fifth potential publisher, which I take as excellent news but which also makes me continue ot wonder about how seriousy to take the whole "my career is over" thing). <br /><br />The toying thing comes more from a) the general tone of Dave's repsonse, with its focus on Fanta as some sort of high-falutin' literary piblisher with access to the big leagues of literary respectability and, b) more specifically, from Dave's request that Kim "complete the following sentence," said sentence being a draft press release I can't imagine Dave seriously thinks is anything like what Fanta would actually draft. If he does seriously think they would, well then, yes, he's not toying with Kim, but the likelihood of them ever coming to terms would seem vanishingly small, much smaller, in fact, than if he actually was toying with Kim when he tossed that nugget in. Since he concludes his response to me by referring to it again, I guess I have to assume he's actually serious about that. If so, well, the game was really over before Kim drew a big red line through anything short of starting early in the run.Dominick Gracenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-61440669098556065192012-09-26T13:03:53.857-05:002012-09-26T13:03:53.857-05:00By the way, when I say "showing of openness&q...By the way, when I say "showing of openness", I'm not suggesting that people are agreeing with Dave's ideas, I'm suggesting that they are being reasonable about it instead of reacting emotionally to it. <br /><br />Slumbering Agarthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926670297818515972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-22380070575801757842012-09-26T12:15:40.507-05:002012-09-26T12:15:40.507-05:00I totally disagree that Dave is "toying"...I totally disagree that Dave is "toying" with Kim, that is just absurd, and it's hard to believe that was the crux/motivation of your questioning. Looking at positives: it's nice to know that these kinds of dialogs (between Kim, Gary and Dave) can even take place, as opposed to the "Dave is a misogynist and doesn't deserve the time of day from us" treatment he had been getting. At least there has been some semblance of evolution and a showing of openness and reason. And, at the end of the day, worse come to worse, at least it's good publicity for the digital stuff and whatever else is coming down the pike. I'm not suggesting - at all - that this is Dave's intention, it's just a positive that can be taken away from the dialogs. Slumbering Agarthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926670297818515972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-44042661917895788842012-09-26T09:43:46.696-05:002012-09-26T09:43:46.696-05:00"A doctor living in Texas has offered me $10,..."A doctor living in Texas has offered me $10,000 to fly down there and to document my religious views with a film crew and the whole works, including his minister and I've accepted."<br /><br />Now that's something I wanna see!Adam Ellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-22524495817729014932012-09-26T09:40:02.771-05:002012-09-26T09:40:02.771-05:00Asking Kim, as part of the negotiation, to complet...Asking Kim, as part of the negotiation, to complete Dave's manufactured idea of what a press release might look l;ike, th efocus of which is Kim Thompson, not Sim or Cerebus, is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I said it looke dlike Dave was toying with Kim....Dominick Gracenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-62454672505900834652012-09-25T21:53:38.136-05:002012-09-25T21:53:38.136-05:00Not sure about that. What I read was Dave's co...Not sure about that. What I read was Dave's comment: " As Kim Thompson pointed out, the NEW YORKER has been running pieces unfavourable to people like Lady Gaga whom you would expect them to be favourably disposed towards."<br /><br />He seems to be saying that Kim has reported that the New Yorker is writing negative things about Lady Gaga. <br />Fine. <br />Then he adds commentary that we would expect the New Yorker to be in favor of Ms. Gaga.<br /><br />I would never expect the New Yorker to be predisposed to be favourable in regards to lady Gaga. If they are, it's news to me. It seems to fly in the face of everything I've ever experienced whilst reading the New Yorker. But, stranger things have happened.<br /><br />His analogy is interesting. That there is a crowd around him, albeit small, watching him. And he wants to attract the crowd that is outside that crowd who may be watching and wondering, "what are they staring at?"<br /><br />Thing is, Dave knows the crowd that is watching him and DOESN'T mingle with the crowd that is "out there". I submit that he is miscalculating. <br /><br />But it's his calculation to miss. <br /><br />I get what Dave is attempting to do here. he wants a broader base and he wants credibility. Above those of us who have supported him and his work lo these many years. <br /><br />That's fine. This is not the way to get it, I believe. The New Yorker/NYT set doesn't want a comic illustrator's take on a bio of other authors. Ho fucking hum. <br /><br />They want Art Spiegelman. Well, I would submit that HS & C&S are Art Spiegelman worthy and should be treated as such. <br /><br />Lots of people read Cerebus. Lots of people stopped reading Cerebus. When was that? I don't buy that it was all Tangent related. It didn't stop me. 186 didn't stop me (but it did help me get out of a bad marriage so, thanks!)<br /><br />I never stopped reading. I have all the issues. I stopped caring. That's more important. And that was the time of these issues of which he wants TNY and NYT to take notice. The issues that were perceived as impenetrable and did little to advance the plot. We stuck by it because we were invested. In the title character. And we knew he would pay it off. Hybrid baby or not. <br /><br />Oh, well. <br /><br />Allen Luluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12572137416801958769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-49330716428905132842012-09-25T19:54:57.831-05:002012-09-25T19:54:57.831-05:00There were a couple of discrepancies I wanted to p...There were a couple of discrepancies I wanted to point out. Maybe I'm misreading, but I think Kim agreed to split the first two books (CEREBUS, HIGH SOCIETY) into 4 newly printed books, but has zero interest in starting out this venture past HIGH SOCIETY (so Form and Void is off the table). Also, I think Kim wasn't indicating that Lady Gaga received a bad review, I think he was indicating that the New Yorker's standards have sunk closer to the lowest common denominator if they're willing to non-ironically critique someone as unworthy as Lady Gaga, and thus shouldn't be of all that great an interest to Dave if he is looking to get literary cred. That was what I got out of reading Kim's comment, at least. Slumbering Agarthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926670297818515972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-23480023651533986602012-09-25T19:49:54.484-05:002012-09-25T19:49:54.484-05:00Sigh.
I understand Dave's perspective re: Hemi...Sigh.<br />I understand Dave's perspective re: Hemingway and Fitzgerald, but it smacks of pandering to an audience that he thinks he's attempting to mine. The trouble is, he proves his own ignorance in just a few sentences before. As someone who has read The New Yorker off and on for 30 years I would never have assumed them to be "favourably disposed towards" Lady Gaga.<br /><br />Dave, you want the New York literary intelligentsia to shower you with acceptance so as to open the door to a larger, or at least, more desirable (1%-ish) audience. That's boorish. <br /><br />The truth is, what you need is an agent and/or a publicist who understands how to get quality material to those sources. I wouldn't start with Cerebus, that's true, but the humor and satire in High Society is nearly as timely today as it was 30 years ago. It's brilliant. And those people would see that.<br /><br />What they would see in F&V or the other, later, material, is someone attempting to biograph Fitz or Hemingway and that would relegate your character and the enormity of your undertaking to second class. <br /><br />If you do a softcover printing of Cerebus, there are people who will buy it, obviously. It's the next volumes that should be leatherbound and preserved and presented to the literary intelligentisia. Not a pandering (and impenetrable at times) piece about those authors. Why not pander completely and toss Melmoth in there as well? Really make them think, eh?<br /><br />If I was someone who had no idea what Cerebus was about I would look at those issues and think; interesting idea to do a graphic novel biography about these authors...but why is there a talking rabbit in there?<br /><br />Sometimes it seems that you don't see or understand what your own creation is. But, that's your viewpoint. Whatever.<br /><br />You REALLLLY wanna get The New Yorker on your side? Then you should screw off the Hemingway, Fitz , et al, and give them what they understand: Woody Allen. Give them Konigsberg. They LOVE him. <br /><br />And you can bore the shit out them with something they actually admire. <br /><br />Or you can take your place as a creator of a masterpiece and get an agent and some external support who understand that business and take your work to the next level. Even though it's old. <br /><br />My 2 cents.Allen Luluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12572137416801958769noreply@blogger.com