"Again--it's almost "outsider art" because of its faults."

In regards to Scioli's stuff, it appears to be fan art.

Lots of publishers have been presenting fan-fic as stuff worth paying for, but they at least get professional artists to draw the stories. Godland short cuts that process altogether.

Said "affection" not extending to respect for the author's wishes?

Nope. Not unless the author is the living legal owner. Society doesn't work that way.

There's the example of Arthur Conan Doyle "having" to bring back Holmes. Sure, publicly, he claimed to have agreed to restore Holmes after much convincing; but the post- Reichenbach falls Holmes stories are inferior to the earlier work, and not because the author's capacilities were diminished. Clearly, there was much reluctance in writing further Holmes tales. Doyle likened his relationship to his creation has having too much pate at a party and finding little tolerance for it afterward.

Then there's the fact that Kirby created the Silver Surfer and endured Stan Lee and John Buscema stamping their "origin" on his creation. Neither Kirby, Lee, nor Buscema had ownership of the character yet Kirby was the author and Lee pulled rank as editor to "finish" off in his way what someone else had started. (Kirby got smarter as he went along and delivered his origin of Galactus in the pages of Thor, much to Lee's iritation.)

Once authors becomes popular (meaning that they now have a steady revenue stream attached to their work), they have sold part of their souls to the public. Particularly if we are talking about a pay for play situation. Authors who plan to make a living out of peddling their particular species of work to a market, must conform to the market's whims or see the demand for their product disappear.

Many illustrators and writers might think of their work as existing purely in the air-rarefied plateau of high art but the moment they take money for their work, they place the work in the realm the economics of supply and demand. It's all about the money. Author's that achieve financial independance (full bellies and fat bank accounts) are in the best position to impose their wishes.

In Stout's case, the Wolfe property went to the hands of his estate as a valuable commodity (money!). It was the managers of his estate that decided to further the work because it is product. They own it, they can do what they want with it.

Scioli draws Godland. People buys copies of Godland. Scioli gets money for his work on Godland. That makes Scioli a PROFESSIONAL which is, after all, someone who makes a living (or part of it) at a profession.

A spectacularly talented -- but wealthy -- artist who draws a book and gives it away just for the pleasure of nurturing an admiring audience, is not a professional.

Refering to Scioli's work as fan-art is semantically incorrect and critically disingenous.

While Mr. Scioli's work is certainly professional in a business sense, I don't know if it can be seen as such when compared to most professional comic art.

There must be a market for Scioli's level of work and there's nothing wrong with any publisher to pursue that segment. Many of us fans have an affection for other fans' stuff, and we look past the flaws. But after a while the affection wears thin, just as when Rob Liefeld's art stopped looking interesting to many of us.

Gerry Turnbull

Conan Doyle allowed other authors to write Holmes while he was still alive,most notably the play by William Gillette, where Doyle famously said "you may do what you like with him"

True. But what Doyle objected to was not having his character's stories being told by other authors but to having to produce them himself. He wished not to be further encumbered with having to think up Holmes stories and his wishes were thwarted. Probably, he felt he had to "earn" the right to submit his less popular historical work for publication by keeping the Holmes cash-cow in a state of lactation.