****

Well, certainly I never have. Problem lies in those who think "this sucks" is a "genuine artistic critique". Note (as I mention above) how the word "rational" is applied to criticism that is more often anything but. Wander thru a few message boards and see how many times someone who asks "Why does your work suck so badly?" takes offense when the party questioned responds in kind. "All I did was ask a simple question," comes the defense.

Every artist truly worthy of the title works constantly to improve his product -- but the internet, alas, is harsh and stony ground when one is looking for seeds from which valid criticism can grow. (By the way, as Frank Miller delights in pointing out, any comment about the work of an artist is "criticism". Altho the word has acquired a negative connotation in the minds of many, it does not actually have one. If it did, a phrase like "negative criticism" would be an unnecessary redundancy. "This work is bad" and "this work is good" are both "critcisms" -- or, will be when they are properly fleshed out, at least!) From my own experience, we can put together a short list of the kinds of useless comments that quickly transform themselves into mantras:

All his faces are the same ----- demonstably not true

He never draws backgrounds ---- also demonstably not true

The work looks rushed ---- impossible to tell by looking at it how much time is invested in a piece of artwork

His old stuff was better ---- a matter of taste, not undeniable fact

++++

That's not fans, rather snobs who simply wont like whatever is approved of by the general public at any given time.

*****

*****

The people who say my old stuff was better are right. The people who say all my faces look the same are right. The people who say I don't draw backgrounds are right. The people who say the work looks rushed -- well, they are wrong and they always will be. That's far, far too subjective. But the others are all right.

Just at the wrong time.

I've mentioned this before. All the criticisms of my work seem to kick in when I am not actually doing the things I am criticized for doing!

There was, indeed, a point at the beginning of my career when all my men tended to have the same face, all my women tended to have the same face -- but I was aware of it, and I worked hard to overcome it. Hardly anyone complained about it at the time. It was something I saw as a flaw in my own work, and struggled to correct. Later, when it was no longer true, it became a fan mantra to say all my faces look the same.

There was a fairly prolonged period on FF and ALPHA FLIGHT when the backgrounds became -- to put it kindly -- sparse. I have explained this many times as being due to my unconsciously dropping backgrounds to leave room for the lettering, when I was sending in inked pages. Again, there was barely a whisper of complaint at the time, and only much later, when I was lettering my own work and so knew exactly where the lettering would be, and so returned to fully rendered backgrounds, did this chant begin. And, as is so often the case, it only takes a couple of panels in an issue to "prove" that I "never" do backgrounds.

When these folk were of the more rational variety, I would engage them in conversation as best I could, and quickly discovered what I already suspected: most of them had not been reading Marvel comics from Day One, and did not realize how much of that "perfect" history was, in fact, retcons.

This is not all that surprising. When I was getting back into fandom, in the early 70s, I devoured everything I could in the way of back issues and (significantly) books relating the history of the industry. Perhaps I was just lucky. It has been a while since someone has published a history of comics that was not just an opinionated grouse-fest, but when I was coming back it seemed like the floodgates had opened, and the shelves of my local bookstore were full of the likes of "All in Color for a Dime", Jules Feiffer's "The Great Comic Book Heroes", a couple of quite scholarly European books, and, of course (tho not on the book shelves) Steranko's brilliant "History of Comics".

Plus, as a reader who had been "present at conception", I also had my own memory to work from, and I knew how many times the Hulk had changed, for instance, or what Herculean efforts had been deemed necessary (something I dispute to this day) to make the return of Captain America fit with what was previously known about the character.

CHAPTER ONE banged into this "logic" full force -- and, of course, it had the misfortune of being published at a time when the Byrne Bashers were learning how to use multiple names on the internet, and also learning that others who posted there tended to have among their number a lot of people who were, frankly, too dumb to check the facts. If something was said [u[loudly enough and often enough, it became "true". I cite the "microscope" issue as the most obvious (and bewildering) example of this.