••

Ah, yes. That would explain McFarlane's essay about what idiots Kirby, Ditko, and others, including myself, were, for not starting our own Image-like companies "back when they were hot". In my case, according to the Toddler, 1975. (You all remember how I burned up the stands with WHEELIE AND THE CHOPPER BUNCH, right?)

"In my case, according to the Toddler, 1975. (You all remember how I burned up the stands with WHEELIE AND THE CHOPPER BUNCH, right?)"

Hahaha!

The Image guys only had the money to start their own company, on the backs of Malibu comics no less, using the increased royalties that Marvel paid them because other creators and editors had fought hard for better royalties. They also greatly benefited from the insane speculator boom that had idiots buying multiple copies of X-Men and X-Force and Toddler's Spider-Man series. The first issues of which aren't worth the paper they're printed on now because there weren't millions of comics fans in existence. The first decade (or more) of Image comics was absolutely god awful unreadable crap with, for that most part, badly drawn pin ups (with the exception of Jim Lee whose comics were still badly written but pretty). 

Image is putting out some good stuff these days (Saga, Fatale) but none of it is from the founding seven members. It's by writers who can write and artists that can draw.

You mean there weren't any Charlton company wide crossovers that showcased WHEELIE AND THE CHOPPER BUNCH that helped moved that book during that time?!?!?!   ;-)

...damn.....

The same essay in which McFarlane chided me for not creating my own "Image" in 1975 was the one in which he described the Direct Sales Market as having been around for thirty-five years, at a time when the actual number was more like 15.

Image was created by an extraordinary confluence of effects, built up over many, many years. (I remember Frank Miller grumbling whenever one of the Image boys would start waving the banners of "Creator's Rights". "Didn't we already WIN that one?" Frank would ask.)

As I have said many a time, McFarlane likes to present himself as a completely Self-Made Man, but doing so is very much like a championship surfer taking credit for the wave.

______

* Terry Austin tells the story of getting into an argument with a young staffer up at Marvel. Terry was complaining about the extra work in inking unlettered pages. The young Assistant Editor insisted that all comics were done without lettering on the pages AND ALWAYS HAD BEEN!!!

I think intent is important when it comes to criticism, but it's hard to read intent.  Sometimes even for the person delivering the criticism!

I think the important thing is context.  Roger Ebert is a film reviewer - he is paid to not have an alliance with a film company so he can be as objective as possible.  His job is to cut through the publicity BS and give an unvarnished opinion.

Erik Larsen is an artist, but he is also a publisher, so his criticism has a much different context.  What is his intent?  To show other artists “don’t cross me or I will publicly go after you”?  JB is critical of Image, so from a business point of view, he may be need to marginalize JB to defend his company.  Or maybe he feels personally wounded that a childhood hero won’t give him the respect he feels he deserves.  And he knows that JB will never work for him, so he can criticize him and not jeopardize a professional relationship.

JB is an independent artist who is rare in his outspokenness.  Most artists in this genre don’t speak out, as there could be consequences.  I like that JB accepts the consequences and also walks the walk – he makes really excellent books and stunning commissions, always striving to improve.

The criticism of the art also needs context.

Larsen criticizes JB over years and in a cruel way.  So when he messes with the art multiple times, it fits everything he has said and done before.  It's malicious, and the art corrections are that of a hectoring school teacher.

JB corrected Neal Adams' art once.  Compare that to the many, many times JB has praised Adams' work and cited him as a key influence.  There was even a time when Adams and JB had a disagreement online - it hasn’t stopped JB from praising Adams over the years.

••

More of a misunderstanding than a disagreement.

Tom Palmer had mentioned to me that the pencils he got from Neal on later issues of X-MEN were very loose, and closer to what today we might call breakdowns. When I mentioned this here -- as a comment, not a criticism -- Neal joined the Forum and posted some stunning scans of his AVENGERS pencils from the same period. But, of course, it wasn't the AVENGERS Tom had been talking about. A misunderstanding.

It all boiled away in just a few days, but the trolls still like to remind us, from time to time, that Neal and I "hate" each other.