I don't see how this "context" argument holds any water. Stan Lee used nicknames throughout letter columns, captions, on covers, in the bullpen pages, in interviews... everywhere.

Would Stan say that he was allowed to do that beause he's a pro/the creator and the rest of us weren't because we're not? I doubt it. Everything I've seen of him and read that he's done (in forty years of reading comics) suggests that he's all about the fun. I'd be hard-pressed to find a less reverential outlook.

I think this is a silly argument. Why can't we just leave it at "I prefer this, you prefer that" rather than fighting to prove who's "right" and "wrong" about the proper respect for two-dimensional coloured drawings?

Giving them nicknames is nerdy.

Arguing over appropriate and properly respectful names just take it to a whole 'nother level.

JB wrote:
"First off, this board is dedicated to an American creator of superhero comics. When the term 'comicbooks. is used here it usually means American superhero comics, unless specified otherwise. Please do not turn into one of these utterly boring posters who must cry out in defense of his/her particular group if it is not 'properly' represented."

Ok, now that I know the shorthand of that, I won't get into that one any more. It just surprised me some is all.
And as I've said elsewhere, I'd love to see what other genres in the medium you could do with equal success to your previous (and current?) work. You've mentioned an interest in Westerns and something about a retelling of the story of Christ, both of which I'd love to read some day, JB.

More JB:
"As to superhero comics being the 'basic form' -- is MAUS a superhero comic? Is SIN CITY? If so I must have read them wrong."

Nope they're not, but I read your comment as objecting to them being looked on as an example of the "basic" form comics when that would be the superhero comic. If I misunderstood you on that one, I apologise.

More JB:
"You're agreeing, then, with those who insist comics are only for kids and should be treated as such?"

Nope, definitely not. I am just saying that a lot of us, if not most, started their relationship with comics in our wee years and that the official Marvel originated nicknames are as deeply ingrained in our view of these characters as their full names or secret identities.

More JB:
"Why is 'Thorie' an 'ugh' but 'Wolvie' and 'Maggie' aren't?"

I would agree on "Maggie" as a ugh as well. Wolverine as "Wolvie", however, was quite common in the comics when I turned to reading US comics in original in the early '90s, so I guess that affects my view of it. Also, it has better sounding wovel and consonant combinations, methinks.

Jason Powell gave a lot of horrid "Gally" references (thanks, Jason), and I truly agree that it doesn't sound good, but then again more than half of what was in those references is so bad spellingwise and languagewise in general that it has me cringing anyhow.
I utterly hope that this is not what anyone in here would aspire to. I for one definitely don't.

Wallace Sellars wrote:
"The 1999 Maggie Awards"

*shudder*
The more of these references I see the more I can understand JB's view, even though I think he's thrown the whole lot (official and bad unofficial) into the same basket. These do make me cringe a bit though.

 
JB again:
"Now put yourself in a group of civilians. Their only exposure to Spider-Man, Batman or the X-Men is the movies. You find yourself engaged in conversation with them about these, your favorite characters. And because you're "comfortable and familiar" with these imaginary guys, you naturally call them by these 'nicknames'. 'Bats' you say, when refering to Christian Bales' character in 'Batman Begins'. 'Wolvie' is how you refer to Hugh Jackman's* character."

I for one would not use "Wolvie" when talking to the group of civilians in question while I might do at times elsewhere, JB, but I'd put that down to context. We all use different language depending on when and with whom we're speaking.

As a literary scholar, I cannot abide when people in essays or in more official contexts (academic or otherwise) talk about authors on a first name basis, regardless of how close they feel that they're getting to the author by reading his text(s). In fact I wouldn't do it even I knew the author personally, it's just not the place for it.

 
Jonathon Thezler wrote:
"Giving them nicknames is nerdy."

Well, I guess that makes Stan "The Man" Lee one big nerd since he originated a heap of them. Seriously though, in most of the cases where the positive-towards-using-nicknames side in here actually defends the usage, it's not about "giving" nicknames at all, just using those that were already "given", and in official context at that.

Go ahead. Tell me you'd do that in a room full of civilians.

* * *

Not a chance.  I would make sure to refer to them as "civilians" at every opportunity, though.  :)

I'm guessing most of the people who actually would refer to "Gally" in polite company aren't IN polite company very often.  Those folks tend to have problems way deeper than their use of nicknames.  Associating them with the hobby at all casts us all in a bad light.

Now tell me that a fanboy calling Magneto "Maggie" or Galactus "Gally" is the same as Ben Grimm calling Iron Man "Shell-Head" or Mr. Mxyzptlk calling Superman "Supes". Make that "clear" for me, wouldja?
*****

Okay, this is a totally apples and oranges comparison.  So instead, could you make it clear how a fan calling Iron Man "Shell-Head" is different then Ben Grimm calling Iron Man "Shell-Head"?  Or, how is a fan calling Wolvering "Wolvie" different than Jubilee calling Wolverine "Wolvie"? 

I also want to say that I really agree with Stanton's point above.  I wouldn't start talking to a group of people about "Gally" when there is a pretty good chance they have no idea who that is.

Gosh -- is there an echo in here?