John has said before he doesn't mind constructive criticism,

but Erik seems to take it to the next level, he makes it personal.

I think some fans are up in arms because Erik is the last person to correct John on human anatomy.

Out of all of artists that have come before and after John, why pick on his art and composition time and time again to deface?

Seems childish to me.

••

Before the coming of the rose-growers, a piece of advice I was given many a time, in different forms, by the Old Pros was "Get it right the next time."

The idea here is that nothing is really gained by laboring over something if it seems not to be working. For one thing, 99.99999% of the readers won't know it's not what the artist intended, and for another, work that is labored over tends to look. . . labored over. Better to move on and try to avoid the mistake next time.

(The rose-growers, of course, have created an illusion among gullible fans. The idea that a book is months late BECAUSE THAT TIME WAS USED IN WORKING ON IT, when the reality, in most cases, is that the time was used in working on just about ANYTHING else. There was one artist who was notoriously slow even before the rose-growers arrived. When asked at a con why the latest issue of his book was later, I would say "You know those Slurpie cups/posters/fill-ins on other books he's been doing? Those are all pages of his own book that didn't get drawn.")

These are the artists that Larsen thinks he is superior to, enough to criticize them regularly?

Erik's latest posts are obviously in response to this thread, and are a pretty blatant attempt to stir things up over here. 

I don't think Erik would claim that he's a superior artist to JB, Perez and Adams, anymore than Roger Ebert thinks that he's a better filmmaker than Martin Scorsese if he's criticizing one of his films, or that Dave Marsh thinks he's a better musician than Bruce Springsteen if he's critical of one of his albums, or suggests that The Boss might have improved one of his songs if he'd tackled the production differently.  I don't think I'm a better cook than the trained expert at my favorite restaurant if I think he put too much salt on the green beans, and I don't think I'm a better painter than Alex Ross if I think one of his compositions could be improved with a few little tweaks.

••

Been going on FAR too long for it to be anything but a personal grudge.

I agree that Larsen makes it sound personal. I think what he is doing is wrong, anyway, but if it didn't sound so personal, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. His behaviour makes it sound like he's got an axe to grind.

I can just picture him sitting in his studio, unshaven, in his Youngblood t-shirt, boxer shorts, and socks & sandals, drinking a Super Big Gulp Moutnain Dew, poring through his once-revered collection of vintage JB books from the 70s and 80s, looking for anything and everything he can use to "fix" and make himself feel superior. 

All the while, his wife and kids are banging away at the door, wondering when The Savage Daddy is going to come out and rejoin the family.

I smell a new Reality TV series, "Playing God With Erik Larsen."  Check your local cable stations for the debut.   

••

It gives me a warm and cuddly feeling, every time I remember McFarlane describing how he could "shit out a book in a month" if he HAD to, but he was "growing roses".

Ah, such respect for what has gone before! I'm kvelling!

••

If he did, he had EARNED THE RIGHT to do so.

I remember when Harlan Ellison unleashed his wrath upon STAR WARS. Not a good word to say about it. I didn't agree, of course, but Harlan had certainly EARNED THE RIGHT to express his opinion.

In Larsen's case, it's akin to something Aaron Sorkin said about the internet having given everybody "a turn at the microphone", but adding that not everybody has EARNED a turn at the microphone.