PDA

View Full Version : glamourpuss Dave Sim



Talon T M
02-08-2008, 07:56 AM
For gp discussion....

Talon T M
02-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Also for those here, here's a link that Margaret Liss, the notoriously intelligent Cerebus Fangirl has so graciously provided, that helps track all the internet sites which Dave has visited (and will re-visit), including special links to "Dave only" comments:

http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/artists/100hours/

Thanks, Margaret!

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:06 AM
RICK!

:wave:

T

Talon T M
02-08-2008, 08:10 AM
Tony!! Is this where you hide out? :)

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:10 AM
Tony!! Is this where you hide out? :)

:Oops:

It gets me through the day, lemmetellyawhat.

T

Michael Wagner
02-08-2008, 08:14 AM
I have all of the Cerebus Phonebooks(and #0 and World Tour), have yet to start them. Will GP be put in trade fairly quickly? Sim said there were copies sent out to preview. Where could I see a preveiw of it in Oregon?

WillieLee
02-08-2008, 08:16 AM
Welcome Dave,

Can you tell me the basic storyline of Glamourpuss? Also, what's the status of the CBLDF lithograph with Neil Gaiman and are you still mailing out the Sandman parody issues?

Talon T M
02-08-2008, 08:18 AM
I have all of the Cerebus Phonebooks(and #0 and World Tour), have yet to start them. Will GP be put in trade fairly quickly? Sim said there were copies sent out to preview. Where could I see a preveiw of it in Oregon?

Dave will be here shortly...he plans to do 20-25 issues of glamourpuss (if all goes well) and then create the trade after the run, in 2012...keeping all issues of gp in print during that time.

All comics retailers will be getting a preview copy soon...make sure to ask to see it!

Roger
02-08-2008, 08:19 AM
I have all of the Cerebus Phonebooks(and #0 and World Tour), have yet to start them.

you bought all the phone books and have never read any.
you better hope you like it...lol

but i know you will, cerebus rules!!!!

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 08:19 AM
I did have a non-gender question for Dave, actually. First, welcome, Dave, this is a highly energetic board with a lot of good folks and pop-culture insanity. Lots of current creators drop by, predominantly from Marvel, I think.

Okay, regarding the photo references.

I'm just curious, but are the clothes you put on the women directly from the magazines you're using for reference? Are the models, designers and photographers credited in any way?

That sounds like a leading question, but I'm just honestly wondering how it works, exactly, as some recent lawsuits regarding unauthorized use of photos have actually favored the photographers, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of Perez Hilton, for one example.

I don't believe you're obligated in any way to credit them, but I'm not a lawyer at all, and I don't know what the legal questions might be, if there ARE any, in fact. But if a photographer goes to the intellectual and financial process of creating an image at some great expense, that is their art, correct? And is taking that image so directly completely kosher? Do you feel the use of any image and likeness is okay, as long as it's illustrated and not simply a photographic representation of the original image?

So I guess the follow-up question is, do you alter the clothes, in particular, and if so, to what degree? Do you alter the image to remove it from the inspiration?

And I say again for the millionth time, I think the art looks fantastic. I wish I had better questions about craft to ask you, but I have to admit I like puzzling out my own theories about your artistic and writerly choices based on your work itself, which I think is absolutely worthy of long study.

Best,

Gail

eatless2slim
02-08-2008, 08:20 AM
Hi Rick, Hi Tony, and when he gets back from his prayer time greetings to Dave!

Looking forward to looking in on how the discussion developes later on.

Of course Dave may just stick to the Gail Simone vs Dave Sim thread?!

Billy

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 08:22 AM
That one's long already and goes into considerable tangents.

Of course, it's Dave's choice, but he might want to keep his chat separate for those who aren't interested in gender issues.

Gail

Cth
02-08-2008, 08:29 AM
Welcome Dave,

Can you tell me the basic storyline of Glamourpuss?

Not Dave, but..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamourpuss



glamourpuss is an independent comic book written and illustrated by Canadian artist Dave Sim. Sim promises that the comic will ship promptly bimonthly, with 24 pages of story and art. Back issues will remain available throughout the comic's printrun, at which time an all-in-one trade paperback will be made available (the series collected in one volume upon completion).[1]

The premise of the book is threefold: a parody of fashion magazines, a history of photorealism in comic books, and a surreal super-heroine comic.[2]

1. ^ Sim, Dave, Previews (Timonium, MD: Diamond Comics Distributors) XVIII (2): FS-2, 30 January 2008

2. ^ a b c Sim, Dave, Previews (Timonium, MD: Diamond Comics Distributors) XVIII (2): 202, 30 January 2008, <http://previewsworld.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=23&s=126&ai=65750&ssd=>.


I posted this in case Dave hasn't seen the link yet.

AndrewG
02-08-2008, 08:31 AM
Dave will be here shortly...he plans to do 20-25 issues of glamourpuss (if all goes well) and then create the trade after the run, in 2012...keeping all issues of gp in print during that time.

All comics retailers will be getting a preview copy soon...make sure to ask to see it!

I was plesantly surprised to see that my retailer had it available for preview right next to the register for all to see. I didn't have time to 'read' the whole thing but the art was fantastic. The retailer, who wasn't too up on his Cerebus knowledge, spoke very highly about the book and the fact that I guess Dave called him to tell him about it.

I can't wait to actually get to buy a copy (or 3) for myself.

William Joseph Dunn
02-08-2008, 08:33 AM
I did have a non-gender question for Dave, actually. First, welcome, Dave, this is a highly energetic board with a lot of good folks and pop-culture insanity. Lots of current creators drop by, predominantly from Marvel, I think.

Okay, regarding the photo references.

I'm just curious, but are the clothes you put on the women directly from the magazines you're using for reference? Are the models, designers and photographers credited in any way?

That sounds like a leading question, but I'm just honestly wondering how it works, exactly, as some recent lawsuits regarding unauthorized use of photos have actually favored the photographers, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of Perez Hilton, for one example.

I don't believe you're obligated in any way to credit them, but I'm not a lawyer at all, and I don't know what the legal questions might be, if there ARE any, in fact. But if a photographer goes to the intellectual and financial process of creating an image at some great expense, that is their art, correct? And is taking that image so directly completely kosher? Do you feel the use of any image and likeness is okay, as long as it's illustrated and not simply a photographic representation of the original image?

So I guess the follow-up question is, do you alter the clothes, in particular, and if so, to what degree? Do you alter the image to remove it from the inspiration?

And I say again for the millionth time, I think the art looks fantastic. I wish I had better questions about craft to ask you, but I have to admit I like puzzling out my own theories about your artistic and writerly choices based on your work itself, which I think is absolutely worthy of long study.

Best,

Gail

Generally, the rule is that is the art has been change by at least 40% its O.K. Since Dave is doing a story involving fashion, I can't see how he can do it without directly referring to it visually.

Cth
02-08-2008, 08:33 AM
Any chance we'll see glamourpuss in other mediums?

Like say, prose or audio drama, etc?

Would you be opposed to any of these, given your stance on Cerebus fan-fiction and things of that nature in the past?

Michael Wagner
02-08-2008, 08:34 AM
you bought all the phone books and have never read any.
you better hope you like it...lol

but i know you will, cerebus rules!!!!

I read the first two years ago, but I got rid of them beacause a huge chunk of the pages were out of order and upsidedown. I have wanted to read Cerebus since 1993 but just never got around to picking them up.

Michael Wagner
02-08-2008, 08:36 AM
Is each issue going to have two covers?

Doug
02-08-2008, 08:37 AM
I have not seen the Glamourpuss preview yet, but I'll ask about it the next time I'm in my LCS.

I have not yet read Cerebus, but from what I hear it is a remarkable book.

I'll invest in the phonebooks someday.

No real question I just wanted to drop by.

mike black
02-08-2008, 08:37 AM
I did have a non-gender question for Dave, actually. First, welcome, Dave, this is a highly energetic board with a lot of good folks and pop-culture insanity. Lots of current creators drop by, predominantly from Marvel, I think.

Okay, regarding the photo references.

I'm just curious, but are the clothes you put on the women directly from the magazines you're using for reference? Are the models, designers and photographers credited in any way?

That sounds like a leading question, but I'm just honestly wondering how it works, exactly, as some recent lawsuits regarding unauthorized use of photos have actually favored the photographers, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of Perez Hilton, for one example.

I don't believe you're obligated in any way to credit them, but I'm not a lawyer at all, and I don't know what the legal questions might be, if there ARE any, in fact. But if a photographer goes to the intellectual and financial process of creating an image at some great expense, that is their art, correct? And is taking that image so directly completely kosher? Do you feel the use of any image and likeness is okay, as long as it's illustrated and not simply a photographic representation of the original image?

So I guess the follow-up question is, do you alter the clothes, in particular, and if so, to what degree? Do you alter the image to remove it from the inspiration?

And I say again for the millionth time, I think the art looks fantastic. I wish I had better questions about craft to ask you, but I have to admit I like puzzling out my own theories about your artistic and writerly choices based on your work itself, which I think is absolutely worthy of long study.

Best,

Gail

Not to take a swipe at anyone, but I assume Dave said to himself "If Greg Land can do it..."

Blandy vs Terrorism
02-08-2008, 08:38 AM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

Michael Wagner
02-08-2008, 08:38 AM
Not to take a swipe at anyone, but I assume Dave said to himself "If Greg Land can do it..."

I was thinking the same thing, just did not want to be the one to break the glass.

Cth
02-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Just for fun, what would Cerebus think of glamourpuss?

Any phrases or quotes would be ideal :D

KingMob
02-08-2008, 08:41 AM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

:lol:

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:45 AM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

I'm going to start calling you Pud Withers.

T
:cool:

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 08:47 AM
Not to take a swipe at anyone, but I assume Dave said to himself "If Greg Land can do it..."

Right, but it's safe to assume whatever porn Greg gets his reference from (kidding, Greg, if you're out there), the model isn't wearing an Emma Frost outfit while Sentinels attack in teh background.

In other words, the clothes at least will be completely different.

Which, I THINK, is not what Dave's doing, but I don't want to speak for him, that's why I asked.

Gail

RebootedCorpse
02-08-2008, 08:48 AM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

Symbolic hilarity.

AndrewG
02-08-2008, 08:49 AM
Dave,
Will you have time to go to any of the Cons this year and if so, which ones might we be able to see you at?

Artie Pink
02-08-2008, 08:50 AM
Dear Dave,

Cerebus is an amazing accomplishment - congrats!

But there are only 298 physical issues, aren't there? Double issues don't count, man. Daredevil #181 (death of Elektra) was a double, but only counts as one. Give the fans two more!

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:50 AM
Dave,
Will you have time to go to any of the Cons this year and if so, which ones might we be able to see you at?

SPACE con for sure (in Columbus, Ohio).

T

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:51 AM
Dear Dave,

Cerebus is an amazing accomplishment - congrats!

But there are only 298 physical issues, aren't there? Double issues don't count, man. Daredevil #181 (death of Elektra) was a double, but only counts as one. Give the fans two more!

I've been waiting for you/this.

T
:lol:

mike black
02-08-2008, 08:51 AM
Right, but it's safe to assume whatever porn Greg gets his reference from (kidding, Greg, if you're out there), the model isn't wearing an Emma Frost outfit while Sentinels attack in teh background.

In other words, the clothes at least will be completely different.

Which, I THINK, is not what Dave's doing, but I don't want to speak for him, that's why I asked.

Gail

First of all Gail, :rofl: .

Second, I see where you're coming from. In addition, Greg has Marvel's legal department behind him. I would assume, given the history Dave has with towing the line of parody (The Roach) he will most likely be able to dance around it.

William Joseph Dunn
02-08-2008, 08:52 AM
Right, but it's safe to assume whatever porn Greg gets his reference from (kidding, Greg, if you're out there), the model isn't wearing an Emma Frost outfit while Sentinels attack in teh background.

In other words, the clothes at least will be completely different.

Which, I THINK, is not what Dave's doing, but I don't want to speak for him, that's why I asked.

Gail

Right, but in comics (or any other visual medium) when you see a M16, or a BWM, usually the artist doesn't put in "generic gun" or "generic car". Why would clothes be any different?

Artie Pink
02-08-2008, 08:52 AM
I've been waiting for you/this.

T
:lol:

I'm trying to get you two more dang issues!

TIP
02-08-2008, 08:53 AM
I'm trying to get you two more dang issues!

You know I've got nothin' but Lurve for ya, dude.

T
:heart:

mike black
02-08-2008, 08:54 AM
Right, but in comics (or any other visual medium) when you see a M16, or a BWM, usually the artist doesn't put in "generic gun" or "generic car". Why would clothes be any different?

Clothes are the IP of designers. So, if someone were "ripping off" that property, they would be inclined to take legal action.

St.-
02-08-2008, 08:56 AM
Dear Dave Sim

Thanks for giving me that free cerebus comic (with sketch) awhile back with that mail a letter to you offer.

St.-

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 09:08 AM
Clothes are the IP of designers. So, if someone were "ripping off" that property, they would be inclined to take legal action.

Yeah, exactly. Dave's no chump, I'm sure he's figured all that out already, I'm just curious how it works. It may be that it's not actually an issue at all, once it goes from photo to illustration.

But additionally, I wonder a little bit about the ethics of it. These are living (I assume) photographers, models, and designers, and the work is the property of whatever magazines the references are taken from. Do they not deserve credit at all, or even to be asked permission?

And that's why I asked if the images are altered away from the original enough to make that question invalid, or if the very act of making it into pen and ink alone is legal protection enough, letting alone issues of fair use and credit.

I know a few photographers, they take their art pretty seriously, in my experience and photo rights are fiercely protected.

Dave may have covered all this already, I'm really just curious how it all works.

Gail

mike black
02-08-2008, 09:12 AM
Yeah, exactly. Dave's no chump, I'm sure he's figured all that out already, I'm just curious how it works. It may be that it's not actually an issue at all, once it goes from photo to illustration.

But additionally, I wonder a little bit about the ethics of it. These are living (I assume) photographers, models, and designers, and the work is the property of whatever magazines the references are taken from. Do they not deserve credit at all, or even to be asked permission?

And that's why I asked if the images are altered away from the original enough to make that question invalid, or if the very act of making it into pen and ink alone is legal protection enough, letting alone issues of fair use and credit.

I know a few photographers, they take their art pretty seriously, in my experience and photo rights are fiercely protected.

Dave may have covered all this already, I'm really just curious how it all works.

Gail

You know, Gail, some years ago, when I first read the Deadpool soliloquy on how cruel being a peanut in love is, I don't think I ever assumed I would be talking to you on the internet about fashion photography copyrights.

Roger
02-08-2008, 09:16 AM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

like most holy says, you can get what you want and still not be happy...

oh oh, i think my nostril hair is starting to burn

Talon T M
02-08-2008, 09:20 AM
Dave plans to be at the Gail Simone vs Dave Sim thread today:

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?p=4239047&posted=1#post4239047

And he will be at THIS one tomorrow...so get over there already! :)

PhilipClark
02-08-2008, 09:34 AM
Is this one of those "speak of the devil and he appears" things?

Welcome, Dave.

Cth
02-08-2008, 10:02 AM
One of my favorite things about Cerebus was the indy spotlight that ran in the back of the book from time to time.

Do you currently have any plans to spotlight/cross promote other indy creators/books in the book?

TIP
02-08-2008, 10:05 AM
One of my favorite things about Cerebus was the indy spotlight that ran in the back of the book from time to time.

Do you currently have any plans to spotlight/cross promote other indy creators/books in the book?

NICE.

Some great stuff got premiered in the back:

Journey
Neil the Horse
Cutey Bunny
A lil' tale called BONE

and so on.

T

Cth
02-08-2008, 10:17 AM
NICE.

Some great stuff got premiered in the back:

Journey
Neil the Horse
Cutey Bunny
A lil' tale called BONE

and so on.

T

I agree.. if it wasn't for Cerebus, I probably would have missed out on a lot of books like Tyrant, Bone, Sandman, Strangers in Paradise, Beanworld, Starchild, etc.

In fact, I had the unfortunate luck of discovering Cerebus and Sandman at the same time. The one and only credit card I ever owned mostly got maxed out by buying phonebooks and TPBs to get caught up on both.

I seem to remember picking up two or three Graphitii Cerebus t-shirts as well with it, but that's beside the point. :D

Anyways, I just didn't know if the whole Jeff Smith thing might have had any impact on the possibility of such a feature returning.

Adrian B AWESOME
02-08-2008, 12:40 PM
I enjoy this thread, simply because we can show the Cerebs Yahoo Group another, and even more unfortunate side, of TIP.

Adrian B AWESOME
02-08-2008, 12:41 PM
NICE.

Some great stuff got premiered in the back:

Journey
Neil the Horse
Cutey Bunny
A lil' tale called BONE

and so on.

T

And we can't forget Flaming Carrot's issue-long cameo!

TIP
02-08-2008, 01:50 PM
I enjoy this thread, simply because we can show the Cerebs Yahoo Group another, and even more unfortunate side, of TIP.

:lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/tiptone/cerebus-1.gif = http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/tiptone/Photo25.jpg

As unfortunate as a man with a wife knit Cerebus doll?


And we can't forget Flaming Carrot's issue-long cameo!

:thumb:

Joshzilla
02-08-2008, 02:09 PM
I really need to read Cerebus, it sounds great and TIP's certainly championed it forever. I am on board for Glamourpuss, though and I'll probably grab a 2nd copy for the missus.

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 02:35 PM
"I don't have any friends. I find that it an extremely politically correct world such as we have, there really isn't much point when, ultimately, everyone at some point is going to say "That's it. I can no longer be around you or talk to you." I just take it as a given that that's what's going to happen and steer clear of it. I enjoy the time I spend with people in whatever context, but they're all pretty weird to me in that "getting offended" thing. It lasts longer with some people than others, but it's pretty much inevitable."

I'm glad this philosophy works for you, Dave, but I confess I can't help but find it a little discouraging. I have some friends I value quite highly who are hardcore Conservatives, and I can't imagine our friendship being destroyed over some spirited debate. Or even worse, the peceived POTENTIAL for spirited debate.

At the risk of sounding emotion-based here, it does strike me as unfortunate, I admit. Isn't it our 'natural inclination' to be social to some degree?

But it's not my place to judge, as success in life is measured by the one who lives it, not by the casual observer. And this is what works for you.

Best,

Gail

meowwcat
02-08-2008, 02:54 PM
Also for those here, here's a link that Margaret Liss, the notoriously intelligent Cerebus Fangirl has so graciously provided, that helps track all the internet sites which Dave has visited (and will re-visit), including special links to "Dave only" comments:

http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/artists/100hours/

Thanks, Margaret!

Hey, any time boyo! And I'm trying to keep that link current with Dave's "itinerary" as it gets updated on a daily basis.

Gail Simone
02-08-2008, 06:13 PM
I really need to read Cerebus, it sounds great and TIP's certainly championed it forever. I am on board for Glamourpuss, though and I'll probably grab a 2nd copy for the missus.

A lot of people sort of dismiss the first book as not being a 'serious' work, but it's actually good fun. And High Society is where things really start cookin', I think.

You'll enjoy them!

Gail

meowwcat
02-08-2008, 06:36 PM
Also for those here, here's a link that Margaret Liss, the notoriously intelligent Cerebus Fangirl has so graciously provided, that helps track all the internet sites which Dave has visited (and will re-visit), including special links to "Dave only" comments:

http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/artists/100hours/

Thanks, Margaret!

You're welcome Rick.

See guys, Rick can be nice when he wants. ;)

And I just updated it with all the goodness from today too.

btw Rick ~ nice avatar. :D

St.-
02-08-2008, 07:13 PM
I really need to read Cerebus, it sounds great and TIP's certainly championed it forever. I am on board for Glamourpuss, though and I'll probably grab a 2nd copy for the missus.

I'm only on the first book but I would highly recommend picking up the following cerebus books if you don't mind spoilers. GREAT reads that are way more then just cerebus.

mike black
02-08-2008, 08:13 PM
A lot of people sort of dismiss the first book as not being a 'serious' work, but it's actually good fun. And High Society is where things really start cookin', I think.

You'll enjoy them!

Gail

Yeah, High Society is so awesome, especially this year as the Presidential race kicks in.

I would recommend reading the first book, though, otherwise you're going to sit there and go "Who the fuck is this Jaka chick?"

stanleylieber
02-08-2008, 09:56 PM
THE John Tesh? THE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT a hearbeat away from Mary Hart's chair John Tesh? In a Cerebus shirt?

Stanley, stanley. Don't torture me like that.

It's true!

From CEREBUS #18:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/2251430039_4f9100138d_o.jpg

Gail Simone
02-09-2008, 07:36 AM
Yeah, High Society is so awesome, especially this year as the Presidential race kicks in.

I would recommend reading the first book, though, otherwise you're going to sit there and go "Who the fuck is this Jaka chick?"

It's still my favorite of the phone books, though I can see that most Cerebus readers like the more 'ambitious' collections. I just think it's an astounding story full of wit and insight.

Gail

Jeff Tundis
02-09-2008, 05:45 PM
Dear Dave,

What was the symbolic meaning of Cerebus (while he was Most Holy) throwing the baby?

Sincerely,
Blandy

Sometimes you can get what you want and still not be very happy:blah:

-Jeff

Jeff Tundis
02-09-2008, 05:48 PM
Dave,
Will you have time to go to any of the Cons this year and if so, which ones might we be able to see you at?

http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/secretproject1.jpg

http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/NYC_AD.jpg

also:

http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/gpevent-toronto-ad.jpg

-Jeff

Jeff Tundis
02-09-2008, 06:29 PM
NICE.

Some great stuff got premiered in the back:

Journey
Neil the Horse
Cutey Bunny
A lil' tale called BONE

and so on.

T

Don't forget Hepcats and MILK AND CHEESE!!!

-Jeff

AndrewG
02-09-2008, 10:24 PM
http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/secretproject1.jpg

http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/NYC_AD.jpg

also:

http://www.jazzbastards.org/AV/gpevent-toronto-ad.jpg

-Jeff

New York! Whoo-hooo!

RebootedCorpse
02-10-2008, 06:14 AM
This is going to be a very strange book.

TIP
02-10-2008, 08:41 AM
This is going to be a very strange book.

:rock:

Steve Q
02-10-2008, 09:05 AM
I did have a non-gender question for Dave, actually. First, welcome, Dave, this is a highly energetic board with a lot of good folks and pop-culture insanity. Lots of current creators drop by, predominantly from Marvel, I think.

Okay, regarding the photo references.

I'm just curious, but are the clothes you put on the women directly from the magazines you're using for reference? Are the models, designers and photographers credited in any way?

That sounds like a leading question, but I'm just honestly wondering how it works, exactly, as some recent lawsuits regarding unauthorized use of photos have actually favored the photographers, if I understand correctly. I'm thinking of Perez Hilton, for one example.

I don't believe you're obligated in any way to credit them, but I'm not a lawyer at all, and I don't know what the legal questions might be, if there ARE any, in fact. But if a photographer goes to the intellectual and financial process of creating an image at some great expense, that is their art, correct? And is taking that image so directly completely kosher? Do you feel the use of any image and likeness is okay, as long as it's illustrated and not simply a photographic representation of the original image?

So I guess the follow-up question is, do you alter the clothes, in particular, and if so, to what degree? Do you alter the image to remove it from the inspiration?

And I say again for the millionth time, I think the art looks fantastic. I wish I had better questions about craft to ask you, but I have to admit I like puzzling out my own theories about your artistic and writerly choices based on your work itself, which I think is absolutely worthy of long study.

Best,

Gail

Gail, and i mean this with all due respect, if you don't like the creator, just don't buy the book.

Hawkdevil
02-10-2008, 10:09 AM
Gail, and i mean this with all due respect, if you don't like the creator, just don't buy the book.

...what? :mistrust: the post you quoted said absolutely nothing about her not liking Dave Sim... She even compliments him...

Gail Simone
02-10-2008, 12:33 PM
Gail, and i mean this with all due respect, if you don't like the creator, just don't buy the book.

Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.

Joe Q or Dan D says a SENTENCE that people disagree with here and there are threads that go on for DAYS. And are quoted MONTHS later. A creator does some interviews the zeitgeist doesn't like and they are literally pushed out of the industry.

But a creator, a respected, talented creator, spews bigoted nonsense for 13 years, and somehow mentioning that fact is considered bad form. Is "Spider-man is more interesting single," REALLY worthy of hundreds of hours of discussion, but the direct quote, "women don't think," somehow off-limits?


Everyone's fine with being outraged as long as it's outrage they personally agree with. If not, then it's all silly over-reaction.

I'm not trying to pester Dave. My last serious question wasn't about gender at all, it was about the lack of scrutiny and reason being brought to his theories, and the tendency to shut down any questioning voice with insults and labels.

I repeat, does EVERY question in a hundred hours of chat have to be an adoring softball? Many of the same folks are showing up at nearly every chat, and they're already converted.

I personally think some straight answers would do the promotion effort a lot of good, but that's just me.

Anyway, I'm off this thread, back to those probing and hard-hitting questions about fashion and staples!


I'm not offended, I am just sort of surprised that these questions seemingly didn't exist before I brought them up, mean ol' me! ;)

Honestly, I'm not mad, I'm just trying to ask Dave in his own words what his positions mean. All my questions but two yesterday (I believe) were simple questions about his work, past and present. And the two that weren't were just to clarify things he himself said in that thread.

Big deal! None of the rest of us get to have a Bush-esque DO NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS disclaimer at the head of every interview or thread.


Gail

JLTeichtman
02-10-2008, 12:42 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.

Joe Q or Dan D says a SENTENCE that people disagree with here and there are threads that go on for DAYS. And are quoted MONTHS later. A creator does some interviews the zeitgeist doesn't like and they are literally pushed out of the industry.

But a creator, a respected, talented creator, spews bigoted nonsense for 13 years, and somehow mentioning that fact is considered bad form. Is "Spider-man is more interesting single," REALLY worthy of hundreds of hours of discussion, but the direct quote, "women don't think," somehow off-limits?


Everyone's fine with being outraged as long as it's outrage they personally agree with. If not, then it's all silly over-reaction.

I'm not trying to pester Dave. My last serious question wasn't about gender at all, it was about the lack of scrutiny and reason being brought to his theories, and the tendency to shut down any questioning voice with insults and labels.

I repeat, does EVERY question in a hundred hours of chat have to be an adoring softball? Many of the same folks are showing up at nearly every chat, and they're already converted.

I personally think some straight answers would do the promotion effort a lot of good, but that's just me.

Anyway, I'm off this thread, back to those probing and hard-hitting questions about fashion and staples!


I'm not offended, I am just sort of surprised that these questions seemingly didn't exist before I brought them up, mean ol' me! ;)

Honestly, I'm not mad, I'm just trying to ask Dave in his own words what his positions mean. All my questions but two yesterday (I believe) were simple questions about his work, past and present. And the two that weren't were just to clarify things he himself said in that thread.

Big deal! None of the rest of us get to have a Bush-esque DO NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS disclaimer at the head of every interview or thread.


Gail


Gail I too am disapointed in you. You should know better than to take anything here personal. You a have a valid if sometimes strong voice on this board and others from what I've seen. Keep it coming along with WW. I thinks its so cool that you got that title can't wait to see what you do with her.

Gail Simone
02-10-2008, 12:46 PM
I also want to add, the reason I asked that about the photo thing is two-fold.

First, I recently had to have art redrawn in the tpb of a book that had already been published. Neil Googe had drawn a piece in the book similar to a famous photograph. It went through as a comic because apparently people weren't familiar with it. For the tpb, the lawyers insisted the page be redrawn so that it no longer referenced that photo.

Truthfully, I think Dave's on tricky ground here, and I think he may be unaware how seriously photographers and magazines take their reproduction rights. At DC/Warners, it is a HUGE deal, even when a sister company owns the rights.

So I was asking partly out of curiosity, and partly because I can easily imagine a scenario where it might come back and bite glamourpuss in the butt.

That's all. I believe there's an ethics question, as well, but I don't have a clue what the answer to that is, either.

Gail

Gail Simone
02-10-2008, 12:48 PM
Gail I too am disapointed in you. You should know better than to take anything here personal. You a have a valid if sometimes strong voice on this board and others from what I've seen. Keep it coming along with WW. I thinks its so cool that you got that title can't wait to see what you do with her.

???

Thanks for the kind words, but...

...I don't get it, where am I taking anything personally? I won't say I haven't in the past, but I certainly didn't take what he said as a personal attack. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm not the least bit mad or offended.

I just think people are responsible for what they say. Is that really such an odd position?

Nothing personal about it!

No worries, the internet often gives the wrong impression.

Gail

RebootedCorpse
02-10-2008, 12:50 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.

Joe Q or Dan D says a SENTENCE that people disagree with here and there are threads that go on for DAYS. And are quoted MONTHS later. A creator does some interviews the zeitgeist doesn't like and they are literally pushed out of the industry.

But a creator, a respected, talented creator, spews bigoted nonsense for 13 years, and somehow mentioning that fact is considered bad form. Is "Spider-man is more interesting single," REALLY worthy of hundreds of hours of discussion, but the direct quote, "women don't think," somehow off-limits?


Everyone's fine with being outraged as long as it's outrage they personally agree with. If not, then it's all silly over-reaction.

I'm not trying to pester Dave. My last serious question wasn't about gender at all, it was about the lack of scrutiny and reason being brought to his theories, and the tendency to shut down any questioning voice with insults and labels.

I repeat, does EVERY question in a hundred hours of chat have to be an adoring softball? Many of the same folks are showing up at nearly every chat, and they're already converted.

I personally think some straight answers would do the promotion effort a lot of good, but that's just me.

Anyway, I'm off this thread, back to those probing and hard-hitting questions about fashion and staples!


I'm not offended, I am just sort of surprised that these questions seemingly didn't exist before I brought them up, mean ol' me! ;)

Honestly, I'm not mad, I'm just trying to ask Dave in his own words what his positions mean. All my questions but two yesterday (I believe) were simple questions about his work, past and present. And the two that weren't were just to clarify things he himself said in that thread.

Big deal! None of the rest of us get to have a Bush-esque DO NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS disclaimer at the head of every interview or thread.


Gail

Good for you!
I think you did us all proud here.

JLTeichtman
02-10-2008, 12:58 PM
???

Thanks for the kind words, but...

...I don't get it, where am I taking anything personally? I won't say I haven't in the past, but I certainly didn't take what he said as a personal attack. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm not the least bit mad or offended.

I just think people are responsible for what they say. Is that really such an odd position?

Nothing personal about it!

No worries, the internet often gives the wrong impression.

Gail


Yes it was meant so. I misinterpreted what you posted.
Ex'' Originally Posted by Gail Simone
Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.''


I mean the negative comments you are getting for posting your opinions, I thought you were getting sick of it. I know I am. Again sorry for the misinterpretation.

Gail Simone
02-10-2008, 01:02 PM
Yes it was meant so. I misinterpreted what you posted.
Ex'' Originally Posted by Gail Simone
Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.''


I mean the negative comments you are getting for posting your opinions, I thought you were getting sick of it. I know I am. Again sorry for the misinterpretation.

Oh. I see!

Well, no, it's fine. I don't mind people disagreeing in a civil manner at all, and I don't think what Steve Q said was the least bit offensive or intended to be, either.

I just want to make it clear, I DO like Dave. I like his work, I like a lot of what he does outside of his work, and I'm very much enjoying his thoughts on craft and history.

So it's not quite as simple as, "then don't buy it!"

That's all! Now worries.


Gone for real, I hope!


Gail

PimpSlapStick!
02-10-2008, 01:24 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake.

Look, a little reality check, here.

Joe Q or Dan D says a SENTENCE that people disagree with here and there are threads that go on for DAYS. And are quoted MONTHS later. A creator does some interviews the zeitgeist doesn't like and they are literally pushed out of the industry.

But a creator, a respected, talented creator, spews bigoted nonsense for 13 years, and somehow mentioning that fact is considered bad form. Is "Spider-man is more interesting single," REALLY worthy of hundreds of hours of discussion, but the direct quote, "women don't think," somehow off-limits?


Everyone's fine with being outraged as long as it's outrage they personally agree with. If not, then it's all silly over-reaction.

I'm not trying to pester Dave. My last serious question wasn't about gender at all, it was about the lack of scrutiny and reason being brought to his theories, and the tendency to shut down any questioning voice with insults and labels.

I repeat, does EVERY question in a hundred hours of chat have to be an adoring softball? Many of the same folks are showing up at nearly every chat, and they're already converted.

I personally think some straight answers would do the promotion effort a lot of good, but that's just me.

Anyway, I'm off this thread, back to those probing and hard-hitting questions about fashion and staples!


I'm not offended, I am just sort of surprised that these questions seemingly didn't exist before I brought them up, mean ol' me! ;)

Honestly, I'm not mad, I'm just trying to ask Dave in his own words what his positions mean. All my questions but two yesterday (I believe) were simple questions about his work, past and present. And the two that weren't were just to clarify things he himself said in that thread.

Big deal! None of the rest of us get to have a Bush-esque DO NOT ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS disclaimer at the head of every interview or thread.


Gail


You tell'm baby girl, say what you want.

Just like I do, OMD sucked balls yay