***

And to save time!

***

Never changed your mind about anything? When I was starting out in the Biz, I had little problem with most of the cutsey-poo abbreviations. For one thing, they were somewhat rare in those days. Good writers only occasionally used them in the books themselves, and the more typical fan affectation was calling the characters by their real names. ("It was so cool the way Bruce took down the Joker this issue!")

Jason Fulton wrote:
"Yep, because being a poster on a message board is exactly the same as being paid to work on the characters. You're a dumbass, Roger."

So if you're getting paid to have a relationship with a character you're allowed to be familiar and friendly, but if you've been paying for years you're somehow not worthy of it? Honestly.

And a question to everyone who obviously would never refer to these characters by nicknames out of "respect"... do you never refer to living breathing human beings by nycknames either? Whether we're talking athletes, famous people or family and friends? I am sorry if I seem hardheaded, which is not my intent, but I cannot see the distinct equation of "nickname = disrespect" that some in here seem to take. I'd be ok with noting that it equals familiarity and I could even understand if some might not think that familiarity appropriate in certain context – as a literary scholar I would never refer to an author by first name only in any academic piece I was working, no matter how close I felt to the author and his material, while I might do it in conversation among friends. But to equal that kind of familiarity with a lack of respect just seems so untrue.

Rafael Guerra wrote:
"The reason we're not 'allowed' to use those nicknames is because is because of respect, not for the characters, but for the wishes of someone like John Byrne who is nice enough to spend some of his time interacting here with his fans."

And that is the kind of respect that I for one am very much willing to show.

JB wrote:
"Okay -- show of hands here. How many of you guys staunchly defending your 'right' to call the characters by childish abbreviations of their names get all upset when civilians dismiss comicbooks as childish?"

Well, I don't find all of the nicknames that childish, I find them to be nicknames. Granted that some of them are inane and I don't think I would ever that I would ever use "Supes" or "Bats", while "Wolvie" is something I am positive I have used. Perhaps because of Marvel's own more nicknaming (in a respectful way) nature – having other characters call them that does pave the way.

I would definitely defend against comics as a medium being called childish as I for one do not even believe the full potential of the medium to be used yet. I've noticed that "comics" here on this forum sometimes seems to refer only to what is created within the American comic book industry and I don't believe the American industry is even the limit of what is out there, even less representative of what could be done within the artistic "limits" of the medium.

To conclude my argument, I think that there are some childish comics, and some that aren't. And then there are some comics, like superhero comics, that certain people have a difficulty with on account of not being able to accept the fantastic premises of the genre, much like people who degrade SF or fantasy.

***

Do you see a lot of STAR TREK fans helping those folk along by refering to the characters as "Kirkie" or "Spocky"? (I can hear Trek fans' heads exploding all over the world, just because I typed those names.)

This thread is a very clear forest/trees representation. The fans who use the derogatory names don't see them as derogatory (or do, and use them to be "cool" -- whole 'nother thread), while those who don't use them know exactly what I'm talking about.

"Comics aren't just for kids, you know! There are mature subjects addressed all the time. Like in the latest X-MEN, when Chuck and Wolvie team up to fight Maggie and Blobbie..."