I'm sure my statement is what "provoked" Larsen -- not because it was "wacky", but because it was true. Unless you were actually working at Marvel at the time (and at other times) you have no frame of reference. However, if you paid even the smallest amount of attention you would notice that it is really difficult to get "banned" from Marvel Comics. (Steve Gerber sued them and came back without a ripple.) Larsen can pull his "working class hero" crap as much as he likes -- but reality will always stand in evidence against him.

tick..tick...tick...BOOM!

It had to happen!   look at the books today!  there not made to develop the character. Writers today write books in hopes of making lighting in a bottle

they are looking for the next blockbuster movie they want to pose for cameras and take these artistic dark photo to market themself as screen writers.....comics have become jumping boards for these guys. it's almost over everything so many have put there souls into are just about to die ......it's a true shame!.............Growing roses my backend!!.........it's taking more time trying to figure how i can take this story and make it a movie!

Now i will go back to my gameshow thread!  (shamless plug!)

Erik Larsen said, "I never said they weren't good books. On an artistic level they certainly started off looking stronger than his Superman stuff did by the end. My
point was NOT that they were lousy--my point was that the common
perception was that going from Superman to She-Hulk as a career move was
a step down. I preferred them to much of his Superman run."
**************************************************

Talk about another loaded statement. "On an artistic level they certainly started off looking stronger than his Superman stuff did by the end."  This is two slams in one. Not only are you implying his Superman stuff didn't look good at the end of his run, but his WCA, Namor and She-Hulk all suffered the same artistic failing by the end of their runs.

Another point of contention is that you keep saying it was common perception that it was a step down. At this time you were not a common fan, who were a pro. I and most of us on the board were the common fan. How many of us felt it was a step down? Then compare that number to how many of us ran out and bought WCA for the first time because John Byrne was doing the book? It was the rub of him being a star that worked on WCA. It wasn't that he was a failure begging for scraps.

This feels silly I have to say this since you are a former publisher. However, it is about keeping sales high on your "big" titles and trying to make your smaller titles into big ones. If that means putting you on Defenders or JB on WCA to try to generate interest, then for a publisher it is the smart thing to do. You can make a guy big by working on Spider-Man and move him to something else to help sales. Isn't that the same theory you used when Image was formed? You used your rub to sell books that were unknown. Marvel used JB to help out a "third rate" Avengers spin-off.

While I'm ranting. Let me cover some other ground about this "step down" in JB's career. Without JB's WCA how much of current Marvel would not have existed? Bendis might not have captured that genie in a bottle with his New Avengers relaunch based on JB's Scarlet Witch story. A story that also influenced House of M. Or how about Alex Ross' upcoming relaunch of the original Human Torch? Without JB's WCA their could be no original Human Torch. There was only The Vision. Plus those great Dan Slott Great Lakes Avengers mini-series and one shots would not have existed without JB's run on WCA.

She-Hulk became a viable character under JB. Used either as a good supporting character for The Avengers, FF or Hulk. Also used in another great Dan Slott written series. Maybe she doesn't have the history of being a top seller, but she would be a forgotten character without JB's "step down" run. (Tho I know JB won't take credit for it.) She is now a player in the Marvel universe, before JB she was in the forgotten category of The Dazzler.

End of side rant.

"Talk about another loaded statement. "On an artistic level they certainly started off looking stronger than his Superman stuff did by the end."  This is two slams in one. Not only are you implying his Superman stuff didn't look good at the end of his run, but his WCA, Namor and She-Hulk all suffered the same artistic failing by the end of their runs."

I didn't read it that way. To me it read like he was saying that he saw the She-Hulk, Namor and WCA runs as being artistically stronger than the work that preceded it. As in "Byrne kept getting better." If he slammed Superman in any way it was by saying "your new stuff is artistically better than your old stuff."  When he says that it looked better than the Superman stuff Byrne did at the end it is possible to read it as "His first Superman issues were good, by his last Superman issues he was better, and when he started She Hulk he had improved even more."

It looks like Erik's words are being read with the most negative interpretation in mind. Certainly, JB has information and a history of disagreements with Erik that I don't have that may inform that interpretation. It's just not the only possible interpretation. Given that I cannot mindread and don't have the same information or perspective as JB, I don't go to the interpretation that he does, and that you do.

I honestly don't think Erik's deliberately trying to offend JB.

I'm not mind reading, Knut. I'm just reading what he wrote.

Let me be clear. I enjoy Erik's work and have no axe to grind with him. I enjoyed his run on Spider-Man and Defenders. (Probably the reason I keep refering to the Defenders.) I like Savage Dragon. I won't say I buy every issue, but I pick up issues from time to time. I like the fact that he has gone back to writing stories that I can easily pick-up from time to time and not need a lot of backstory to be up to date. I am waiting for more of The Next Issue Project and hopefully his relaunch of Silver Star and Captain Victory.

Erik is an outspoken guy when it comes to his criticism of John's work. Or even the work of guys like George Perez. If he wants to give me reasons why he thinks John's later Superman work was less than his earlier Superman work, or how WCA started off artistically strong and where it went after that, I'm open to listen to that. I may not agree, but I'll listen. I've already read many of his critiques in various articles he has written about John's career on other sites. I don't, however, enjoy reading little digs and innuendos he makes in regards to JB's supposed failings on titles that were not failures. This was a time where JB was still one of the most popular creators in the business. Why deny him that credit?

As I noted upthread, McFarlane is the master of the Big Lie. He spouts utter bullshit and then scampers off. Larsen tries to do the same thing -- but foolishly sticks around to be called on it. Lucky for him he has his defenders ready to cry foul when he's called on it. God forbid he should have to justify what he says.

Keep in mind, I could end this any time by simply punting Larsen off this Forum. That I do not, despite his snide little jabs and thinly disguised insults (not to mention his constant "I didn't say what I said when I said what I didn't say" blather) demonstrates, I should think, a far greater degree of "professional respect" than he has bothered to show me.