I have decided to post this final item after replies I've received about some of my own posts - most recently from Dagwan, on the "Thor material published 2009-2011" and "Fear Itself."

My great sorrow is seeing things happening on this board that I wouldn't have countenanced when I was Admin... ah, but we all know that what's done is what's done, and "shut up and get out" was the order of the day.


Regarding my comments and Dagwan's:


Interesting that I haven't heard from any of the admins yet... well, except for Dagwan, of course.  (Still an admin, Dags?  I know that when I was leader of the band, we extended you an invite.)


ELS (from Fear Itself thread):  Another summer crossover event, to go with Avengers books crossing over into Avengers books, FF crossing into Spider-Man (at least), Spider Island, and all these books requiring mini-series...  Wow, I am SO glad I'm not collecting this crap anymore.  And from the look of the posted panels above, I'm obviously not cool enough to get them anyhow.  Good luck to Marvel Comics, the house of idea.


Dagwan:  You went out of your way to post in a thread about Fear Itself that you're not reading it, and that it's crap. If you want to read something and don't like it, that's fine. Post about how you didn't enjoy it. What didn't work for you. Calling something that others on this board enjoyed quite a bit crap -especially sight unseen- is not just a judgment on the comic but on the opinions of the other members of the board who did like it.


You're right.  I DID go out of my way to post something, because I didn't have to come to the Captain Comics board, didn't have to read that posting, and didn't have to comment on it.  Same as anyone else who posts anything on this board.


But so we get our facts straight:  I wasn't criticizing Fear Itself as I haven't read it (which you very accurately noted.)  And I criticized Spider Island, and the FF/Spider-Man crossover, and Marvel's general concept of company wide crossovers - which you obviously didn't infer.  Okay, that happens.  I was criticizing the trend of mini-series, and crossing  through several issues of several titles, requiring readers to pick them up as well. I have said the same thing about Secret Invasion, Seige, that Avengers junk, etc.  Shucks, I wasn't all that fond of it back in Secret Wars (and, to be fair, not so hot on it in Crisis on Infinite Earths either.)


As to the opinions of those who did like it - what, is it the rule now to not upset the sensibilities of other posters by disagreeing with them?  Then shame on me.


Dagwan:  On a related note, do you have anything nice to say about any comics anymore?


This was in response to a comic which I think would have failed the standards of a lot of comic book companies, and I thought I gave the reason - characters out of sync with the current continuity (and damn ME for a fool for expecting continuity, right?), art that I really think is little better than high school level... y'know, a critical observation instead of "It sucks because I say it sucks!"  But again, you might not have gotten that - it happens, and although not everyone is happy and pleased with comics today, it seems to be the mandate on this board anymore.


Is this mean?  Some people might think it's mean, and some people - like, y'know, those who used to post on these boards - consider it discussion.  I was posting strongly about it because I feel strongly about it... my opinion, and it used to be implicit that that included " YMMV".  But I guess Dagwan didn't get that - okay, that happens.


I could go on, but this is obviously a comment on my postings, and, I think, a comment on my presence on the board from Dagwan and, implicitly (even by their silence) from the Admins.  What I think, due to whatever is going on with me, is what I think, and people used to be able to post such around here.


Instead, when I asked for what I thought was a reasonable action - if you think I've gone over the line, get the Admins to contact me about it, and if it really upsets you, please ignore it - got a biting, sarcastic reply, and a "don't tell us, go tell the comic book publishers, and stop whining."


Nice.  I probably wasn't going to be able to post here for a lot longer anyhow, but this does make it a little easier to decide.


So, after everything that has happened to me on this board - Dagwan's comments, the Administrator crap, etc. etc. etc., I will go away with one last comment for the admins.


Good riddance to every last one of you.


I remain,

  VERY disappointendly,

Eric L. Sofer

The Silver Age Fogey


Views: 725

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mark, you are a lucky man if you got to argue about BND and Civil War with its architects on the internet, and received very straightforward, honest answers too, from the sound of things.  Isn't fandom great, these days?


I did comment at the time that to your credit, you'd realised that Marvel were fundamentally changing the gears with their characters, while everyone else was offering excuses or playing 'wait and see'.  But repeating your objections over and over was a dead end.


Part of the problem was that you were only coming at it from a continuity perspective.  "But the Spider-Man/Iron-Man, Captain America of 1975 wouldn't do that!"


Continuity itself is a dead end.  Discussions about comics framed only in terms of (often not very good) comics of many years ago.  It's circular and insular. 


Just now, in contrast, you raised all those great points.  Civil War was a reaction to the politics of the time.  Marvel allowed their creative staff freedom in interpreting the law depending on the stories they wanted to tell.  Some storylines result from power-struggles between different echelons of the creatives at Marvel (- and guess who's always going to win those?)


Those are all much more fascinating avenues of conversation than continuity arguments.  Conversations about how comics are made, what influences them, what influence the comics themsleves have in making people think about the world they live in.  How the content is affected by the office politics and power differentials of the companies that make them.


Arguing that a fictional character in a 2005 comic isn't acting like his fictional counterpart in a 1975 comic is just ... childish.


Some of the discussion on this thread has been about the lack of credibility when people argue against things that they have never read.  Perhaps, Goerge should look at least at even the first page of the Micronauts thread, and see that most of us participating on that thread didn't read Micronauts comics as kids, or played with the toys.  (Deprived childhoods!  Sniff!)


Rather we've been looking at the comics simply as comics rather than reliving a part of our childhood that none of us experienced in the first place, which seems to be the approach you are arguing for on this thread.


No pleasing some people.

"And another one centering around discussions about teen and pre-teen superheroines."


I can see a forum called "I Am Curious (Kitty)." Devoted to the circa-1983 Kitty Pryde.


The forum for guys -- and gals! -- whose favorite song is Neil Diamond's "Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon."  ;)

Some quick comments:

  • I read most of Civil War and found it thought-provoking and generally well-done as was Dark Reign. But I stand on record by being dismayed by Tony Stark's actions and inactions and Marvel's clumsy way of "redeeming" him.
  • The only Heroes Reborn title I got was The Avengers because it was The Avengers. We must always hope that our favorite books can rise from their slumps and be great again. And it did!
  • Do I care about continuity? Perhaps a tad but OMD wasn't disconcerting because it's not what the 1975 Peter Parker would do but that it shouldn't be what ANY Peter Parker should do!
  • The gist of OMD (I think) is Peter not wanting Aunt May to die. Well since the Lee/Dikto days, she's been on death's door and never fully entered. I think that she's an Eternal!
  • Comics are as serious as we want them to be!
ClarkKent_DC said:

Mark, it's not fair to say no one here was sympathetic with your position of "Civil War." It just isn't. It also is not fair to say "everyone seemed to be OK with it but me." It just isn't. I know for a fact that I, Randy, and several others at one point or another had some of the same criticisms you did.

Mark S. Ogilvie said:
In reality unfair, but the feeling that I got was comparable to the famous W.C. Fields line "Go away kid, you bother me".  It wasn't only that I was talking to an empty room, at a certain point I felt that the room was soundproofed so that on one outside would be bothered. 

In a nutshell, I'd guess that Civil War was popular because -- whether you agreed with any faction's actions or not -- it addressed a subject that was on a lot of people's minds. Whatever the specifics of who did what to whom, it was relevant. 

I wouldn't take its high sales as an endorsement of Tony's actions. Far from it. But I would take them as evidence ofinterest in Tony's actions, and the exploration of the consequences thereof. 

As for the more recent stuff you're concerned about posting, Mark, no one's stopping you but you. You're certainly not obligated to post your thoughts, and no one's obligated to respond if you do. (I probably won't -- I'm not reading any of the books you list, so what could I say?).

"Oh man.  Thanks for that.  Laughed my a$$ off!"


How about a forum called "Cousinly Love," exploring the "between the panels" relationship between Superman and Supergirl?


If that doesn't increase traffic here, nothing will! The site will probably crash!

Mark, disagreeing with you is not telling you "Go away kid, you bother me."  The same holds true for pointing out when you are repeating yourself, as you are now doing in this thread.  No one is saying "don't post about this" or "you can't talk about that".  Perception isn't reality in this case.


I see a pattern when you post.  You weigh in on a discussion, you make your points as we all do.  You wait for responses, and if other posters agree with you or share your opinion, everything is okey-dokey - and the discussion continues or maybe concludes.  But if someone disagrees with you or has a different opinion, you get defensive and you re-state your position.  Your posts get longer and longer but are still repetitive, and you keep doing it.  I don't think you realize the effect - it derails discussions when you are saying the same thing over and over.


None of which makes you a bad person, or a bad poster.  I consider you a pal, which is the same way I look at most people here.  But we're going to disagree sometimes, and have different opinions ... let me put it to you this way.  The two people I love most are my wife and my stepdaughter.  My wife and I are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum politically.  My stepdaughter is almost 15 and sometimes the verbal warfare is not for the faint of heart.  None of that changes how we feel about each other.  So please understand that disagreeing is not disliking.


ClarkKent_DC said:

ClarkKent_DC said:

Mark, it's not fair to say no one here was sympathetic with your position of "Civil War." It just isn't. It also is not fair to say "everyone seemed to be OK with it but me." It just isn't. I know for a fact that I, Randy, and several others at one point or another had some of the same criticisms you did.

Mark S. Ogilvie said:
In reality unfair, but the feeling that I got was comparable to the famous W.C. Fields line "Go away kid, you bother me".  It wasn't only that I was talking to an empty room, at a certain point I felt that the room was soundproofed so that on one outside would be bothered. 

"I can see a forum called 'I Am Curious (Kitty')."  


"How about a forum called 'Cousinly Love,' exploring the 'between the panels' relationship between Superman and Supergirl?


"If that doesn't increase traffic here, nothing will! The site will probably crash!" 



Though I have been following this thread with interest, I have refrained from commenting because, so far, my thoughts on the matter are too inchoate to form a cohesive post.  The one contribution I wish to make for the present, though, is this:


It's no state secret that I have like precious little of what has come out in comics since the Silver Age.  I usually refrain from discussions of comics after that time, especially post-Crisis.  Because it's not a contribution to the discussion to simply state "I don't like it.  Feh!"


Sometimes, I do have to comment upon comics of later eras, or at least make reference to them, and when I do---here is the important part, the point I wanted to make---no matter how much I might dislike something, I endeavour mightily to make it clear that those who do like that same something are not foolish or stupid for liking it, nor do I consider them so.


That's not just consideration for others (though that reason alone would be sufficient); it's also the plain fact that, if I've made you feel stupid or foolish for liking that comic/film/television show/whatever that I hate, or if you take away the notion that I consider you as such, then I've lost you as a reader.  At least, as an objective one.  And that's counter-productive.


That said, I'll move on to why I cited those excerpts from George's posts.


Some of you may remember---George, I believe, does not because I don't think he was around then---but one of my earliest Deck Log enties was a commentary on what the Good Mrs. Benson should do with my comic collexion, if I predeceased her.  She had questions about accurately estimating their worth and then disposing of them.  And I asked for suggestions from you, my fellow Legionnaires.


Now, I titled this entry "Please Don't Screw My Wife Over After I'm Dead".  Some of you might see where this is going.


On the old board, the number of hits by any given blog post was recorded next to the index of blog-entry titles.  Thus, I could see how many people, or at least how many times, any given Deck Log entry of mine had been accessed.  The number of hits for "Please Don't Screw My Wife Over After I'm Dead" soared and hit four figures in less than a month.  It continued to increase at a remarkable pace for the rest of the life of the old board.


It was a pleasant little article, but it wasn't that good.


About a month or so after I posted it, I got an private message from Rich Lane.  He informed me that the record of activity for the board had reached an incredibly high peak for the month in which that Deck Log entry had appeared.  It didn't take long for us to figure out the answer.  Anyone seeking a site of, shall we say, a more adult content who happened to Google the words "screw" and "my" and "wife" was getting directed to Captain Comics.


All I can say is---it's a good thing I never wrote an article on Black & Decker.



Reminds me of an old job where one of my co-workers made the mistake - innocent, I'm sure, she wasn't the kind of person to make that kind of remark - of referring to the Sales and Marketing as the "S & M Department".
I am ashamed to say that I had to look up B & D...

I had to look that up, Alex -- I was only familiar with "for the win."


Obviously, you're not an ECW fan.

Reply to Discussion



No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.









© 2021   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service