The Lightning Rod: Austen Interview Gen. Discussion

DC, Marvel, Image, BOOM!, Dynamite and more! Discuss everything comics and related to comics. If it's comics and Nightcrawler isn't in it, this is the place!
User avatar
msgt
Bilge Rat
Bilge Rat
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 1:50 pm
Location: Jenkins KY

The Lightning Rod: Austen Interview Gen. Discussion

Post by msgt »

Ok here are my two cents. I hope I don't regret this hehe..

When Chuck Austen first got on the xbooks I did enjoy his first few stories. However that quickly changed, and I began to not enjoy them so much.

Though, I do think that it was horrible that Austen got threats, that people called him a racists, or any of those things. Fans who did that definitely went too far. Personal attacks like that are not good.

Sometimes I think a lot of this is just group behavior. This happens when you get a lot of people together. Almost every message board is the same. Sometimes they might start off really positive, but just from my observation they all turn out at the same place.

People like to criticize. Fans also seem to love to hate things that they are supposed to be fans of. I noticed this a long time ago.

But using ridicule to get people to stop hating doesn't seem to help either. Calling fans who complain a lot "losers" or implying they have no lives doesn't seem to help much. I don't know if labels like troll or troll behavior help much either. Like a lot of you said its a complicated matter.

I mean I get aggrevated with "haters" also. I post on the Jean Grey Message Board. Most of the posters there loved New X-men and Jean Grey's portrayal but a very extremely vocal minority who hated Grant Morrison's run made it unbearable sometimes to post there or to try and share excitment for the book.

I mean I see how fans of Chuck Austen would have to get very upset after a while.

Like others pointed out its just not xfan or a couple of boards who have members who absolutley did not like Austen's run.

I know I've criticised Austen's work before and I kinda felt like I was looked on as a troll.

So I think it gets out of hand on both sides. I see how big time fans of Austen can get so tired of it all, but I see hate everywhere on internet comic boards. When it comes to X-men boards there is a whole lot of hate for Grant Morrison.

It is seemingly never ending.

I tried to find something to appreciate about Austen's work on Uncanny and then came his "She Lies with Angels" story and there is where I quit reading.

I know it was said that the editors came up with the idea of the story. But if I ever could ask Austen one question it would be Why did he portray Kentuckians like he did? :?

I mean we can debate a lot of things about Austen's work... such as did he really write weak females or did he really not like Religion or whatever else it was that people kept saying about him and his run....

But one thing that seems plain is that he wrote some nasty stereotypes in the "She Lies With Angels" story arc.

I know I got flack when I posted about it when the arc came out but I just don't understand why he used those stereotypes. I do not know why he portrayed people from Kentucky as these backwater dumb racists hicks.

Most media images of Appalachian people are of these horrible stereotypes. I was hoping that when I learned that Austen was taking the Xmen to KY that we'd see a different side to the area that what we normally do in most media interpretations.

I didn't buy the whole arc, but i was half expecting an incest joke or reference. That is another big stereotype about East Kentucky.... that a lot of incest goes and marrying of cousins and that sort of thing.
:-

So in the end, though I did not enjoy a lot of Austen's Uncanny work, it was the She Lies with Angels story that really had me not a fan...


Mike
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

The Lightning Rod: Austen Interview Gen. Discussion

Post by Maelstrom »

Good Lord.... I just read this thread from front to back.... :surprise

I made sure to read Chuck's interview first, so I'd have a halfway decent basis for debate and discussion. What I haven't been able to read is all the flames that he's gotten. Maybe that's a good thing. Flames make me physically ill. :sick

I, also, think the interview could have gone better, but then again, I haven't been relentlessly flamed by a select group of trolls for the past few years. Even worse, I haven't had that flaming itself debated: some call it "flaming", others call it "constructive criticism". These two definitions are anathema. You have every right to be angry at flames, but if you can't take constructive criticism you're just a spoiled brat. One is sympathetic, and the other, pardon the pun, is downright inflammatory.

Outlaw... I'm sorry, but when the overwhelming opinion of a post is "flame", then the chances are it's flame. :shame I'm not sure you understand how incredibly painful it is for an artist to have his work shredded in a vindictive manner, and then have a flock of people come to the defense of the shredder, calling it "just constructive criticism". Congratulations: you've now got an entire flock of people not only hating your work, but calling you immature, unable to face reality, incompetent, and a host of other things. Even if you know your work is pure genius, that kind of personal attack makes you doubt yourself, feel emasculated and defensive, and gets you blindly angry, all at the same time. You'd have to either be as placid as the Dalai Lama, or as irrationally egotistical as Saddam Hussein, not to feel that way. And constant warfare, of any kind, will change a person.

Even if you're doing it "on spec", for the sole purpose of generating funds, you've got a much closer relationship with that script, or that sketch, than any cubicle dweller has with that "Gruntmaster 2000" project. (And some of us "cubies" can get very nasty when our pet projects are threatened.) By tearing into work in what can best be termed a "thoughtless manner", and at worst a spiteful slashing, you may as well have gone up to a little-league parent and yelled, "What the hell were you thinking?! Your kid can't play worth shit! He shouldn't be in here! You're the worst parent in the world!"

And then, when you try to defend your child, have a crowd gather and call you unsportsmanlike and whiny, and your child unfit to play any game at all.

If Chuck seems angry and defensive, and seems to have been lashing out in an "unjustified" manner, perhaps it might help to consider how you might feel if your best friend, child, or close relation was in a coma and being slandered repeatedly, and you were the only one who could defend them. After all, that script can't just get up and defend itself. It's all up to you. You'd start getting downright nasty after a while. That defensive reaction would remain just under the surface, simmering there, first in your mind and ready to pop up at a moment's provocation, like the trained defensive reflexes of a soldier during wartime. I know it may sound like a ludicrous juxtaposition, as no one's trying to kill Chuck (although, with those death threats, I'm not so sure....). But the defensive mechanism is the same. You get primed for it by constant combat of one kind or another, and it gains a life of its own.

Believe me, I know how this works: I carried a lot of anger towards my father for decades, and the mere mention of him would bring all that resentment to bear in the blink of an eye.

What I have read of Chuck's stuff seems a bit uneven to me, and I'm not sure how much of that is "his fault" and how much is the "editor's fault". With Holy War, for instance, I saw the glimpse of the coolest, most innovative, neatest idea... but it was smashed into just two issues, where three or four would have done so much better. But at this point, how I feel about Chuck's writing is immaterial: I'm defending the man himself, on a personal level, because it seems that a few of his detractors may not realize *WHY* he's "being such a prick" in the interviews. It's not because he's a spoiled brat. It's not because he can't take criticism. It's not because he's some sort of primadonna. It's because several of those people doing the main "critiquing" aren't so much trying to help Chuck to better his writing as tear him down, and then spin-doctor it into "Look! He's not willing to take constructive criticism! He's attacking me for it! He's lashing out! Help!" And when someone calls for help, and especially when they seem to be under attack, it's human nature to come to the defense... even if they've manufactured the problem so they can feel important.

And that's the nature of a troll, it seems: to feel they have power over someone's life by stirring up anger and resentment, then sitting back and gleefully rubbing their hands when the flames start flinging. It's like a slightly-more-benign version of a celebrity stalker; if they can't leave things outside their physical door, then they'll be sure to be seen at every virtual door, demanding attention. ANY kind of attention.

Maybe Morrison does have a more effective way of handling those stalkers. By not having forums of his own, he denies them any doors at all. People sling flame at him, and he ignores it. But that has its downside, too. It also closes himself off from other well-meaning fans... and breeds discontent among those who view him as "too good to bother with us". Armor keeps you safe, but it's also isolating. Chuck made the decision to leave himself less-defended so he could be more accessible... and some people have seriously abused that trust.

Outlaw, you mentioned that "what is flame here is only critiquing on Xfan". I think you need to look at that a little closer. That's the lynchpin to this entire problem. If you can't recognize a personal attack, then you're going to wind up stepping on toes all the way through life, pissing people off, and wondering why everyone's so damn touchy. Morrison has steel-toed shoes, so maybe he doesn't feel it as much. Chuck wore sandals. Both of them are less than happy with their club-footed "fans", but Chuck's the one with crushed feet, and he's going to lash out accordingly. Yes, maybe he went a little far in the interview. I felt uneasy at the implication that a few trolls could shut down every forum out there by threat of litigation. But after a few death threats, I'd be considering any method I could to get some peace. And I hope he finds some at DC. He deserves it.
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Winged Outlaw
Shoulder Parrot
Shoulder Parrot
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:18 pm
Title: Banned

The Lightning Rod: Austen Interview Gen. Discussion

Post by Winged Outlaw »

Originally posted by Maelstrom
Good Lord.... I just read this thread from front to back.... :surprise

I made sure to read Chucks interview first, so Id have a halfway decent basis for debate and discussion. What I havent been able to read is all the flames that hes gotten. Maybe thats a good thing. Flames make me physically ill. :sick

Interestingly, reading the interview had the same effect to me.

I, also, think the interview could have gone better, but then again, I havent been relentlessly flamed by a select group of trolls for the past few years. Even worse, I havent had that flaming itself debated: some call it "flaming", others call it "constructive criticism". These two definitions are anathema. You have every right to be angry at flames, but if you cant take constructive criticism youre just a spoiled brat. One is sympathetic, and the other, pardon the pun, is downright inflammatory.

But if you can write what you don’t like about the story, without talking shit about Austen directly (something that isn’t, and never was tolerated at ComiX-Fan), then you have a right to express those views. Constructive criticism, when written properly, is not a flame.

Outlaw... Im sorry, but when the overwhelming opinion of a post is "flame", then the chances are its flame. :shame Im not sure you understand how incredibly painful it is for an artist to have his work shredded in a vindictive manner, and then have a flock of people come to the defense of the shredder, calling it "just constructive criticism". Congratulations: youve now got an entire flock of people not only hating your work, but calling you immature, unable to face reality, incompetent, and a host of other things. Even if you know your work is pure genius, that kind of personal attack makes you doubt yourself, feel emasculated and defensive, and gets you blindly angry, all at the same time. Youd have to either be as placid as the Dalai Lama, or as irrationally egotistical as Saddam Hussein, not to feel that way. And constant warfare, of any kind, will change a person.

Wait wait wait now, let me try to understand you. If I don’t like something I’m not allowed to voice that opinion just because it’ll hurt someone’s feelings? I’m sorry, I can understand that sentiment when we’re talking about a picture someone drew in art class or something, but Chuck Austen is a professional writer, and with that comes criticism from people who have bought the comic and walked away unsatisfied. You may say “don’t buy it”, and I agree with you, but once people do that, they do have the right to say “I stopped buying this series because I didn’t like the writing.” Either way its criticism, and a good writer should be able to take it, without resorting to insulting the intelligence of his readers.

Even if youre doing it "on spec", for the sole purpose of generating funds, youve got a much closer relationship with that script, or that sketch, than any cubicle dweller has with that "Gruntmaster 2000" project. (And some of us "cubies" can get very nasty when our pet projects are threatened.) By tearing into work in what can best be termed a "thoughtless manner", and at worst a spiteful slashing, you may as well have gone up to a little-league parent and yelled, "What the hell were you thinking?! Your kid cant play worth shit! He shouldnt be in here! Youre the worst parent in the world!" And then, when you try to defend your child, have a crowd gather and call you unsportsmanlike and whiny, and your child unfit to play any game at all.

And here is where you’re getting tripped up. I’ve never torn into Austen’s work in a thoughtless manner. I put a lot of thought into what I wrote before I wrote it, even going so far as to spell-check it and also edit it from time to time specifically to get rid of comments that might be uncalled for.


If Chuck seems angry and defensive, and seems to have been lashing out in an "unjustified" manner, perhaps it might help to consider how you might feel if your best friend, child, or close relation was in a coma and being slandered repeatedly, and you were the only one who could defend them. After all, that script cant just get up and defend itself. Its all up to you. Youd start getting downright nasty after a while. That defensive reaction would remain just under the surface, simmering there, first in your mind and ready to pop up at a moments provocation, like the trained defensive reflexes of a soldier during wartime. I know it may sound like a ludicrous juxtaposition, as no ones trying to kill Chuck (although, with those death threats, Im not so sure....). But the defensive mechanism is the same. You get primed for it by constant combat of one kind or another, and it gains a life of its own.

Death threat. Singular. Anyway, you’re taking this stuff way too seriously. No one is picking on Chuck Austen’s scripts just because he wrote them. His scripts come under fire because a large number of people hold the opinion that they’re poorly written. If I were to use your way too dramatic comparison, I’d say that I’m insulting the boy in the coma because right before he fell into a coma, he kicked me in the balls and burnt my house down. Just because he’s in a coma doesn’t mean I’m not still pissed.

Believe me, I know how this works: I carried a lot of anger towards my father for decades, and the mere mention of him would bring all that resentment to bear in the blink of an eye.

Not sure how that applies to this situation but for what its worth, hope you’re able to get past that someday (if not already)

What I have read of Chucks stuff seems a bit uneven to me, and Im not sure how much of that is "his fault" and how much is the "editors fault". With Holy War, for instance, I saw the glimpse of the coolest, most innovative, neatest idea... but it was smashed into just two issues, where three or four would have done so much better. But at this point, how I feel about Chucks writing is immaterial: Im defending the man himself, on a personal level, because it seems that a few of his detractors may not realize *WHY* hes "being such a prick" in the interviews. Its not because hes a spoiled brat. Its not because he cant take criticism. Its not because hes some sort of primadonna. Its because several of those people doing the main "critiquing" arent so much trying to help Chuck to better his writing as tear him down, and then spin-doctor it into "Look! Hes not willing to take constructive criticism! Hes attacking me for it! Hes lashing out! Help!" And when someone calls for help, and especially when they seem to be under attack, its human nature to come to the defense... even if theyve manufactured the problem so they can feel important.

I hardly feel that the problem has been manufactured, because I’ve heard two “main” complaints about Chuck’s writing. First, and of course this was entirely opinion (though a widely-held one) is that the plots of both Holy War and the Draco were ridiculous. We can discuss whether or not you agree with that elsewhere, though. The other, far more objective complaint, is that the very craft of Austen’s writing is flawed. Sure, there are times when editors mandate how long an arc can be (which is why I don’t really care about Holy War anymore). However, a good writer can still make things like pacing and dialogue and transition work within these boundaries. They may have told Chuck to make the Draco six issues long, but no one forced him to make almost nothing happen in the first five issues, only to clumsily rush everything to a conclusion in the last issue. They may have asked Chuck to deal with Northstar’s sexuality from time to time, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the dialogue between him and Juggernaut sounded unnatural and forced. Austen may have thought he gave good reasons for why Iceman and Lorna were acting so weird, but they didn’t make sense in light of the fact that Iceman easily dealt with the exact same problem before, and Lorna was more traumatized than she was psycho in the issue of New X-Men that Austen fans like to quote as the “source” of Lorna’s insanity.

And of course there’s always the third big complaint… things like why the HELL Paige and Jubilee would have such a graphically sexual conversation while standing on the gravesite of their good friend… and I don’t see how the hell any editor could have mandated something like that…

But regardless, you’re trying to say that Chuck’s detractors are not justified, and the comments are spawned for entirely petty reasons. I respectfully disagree… the vast majority of posts written by a number of people I respect very highly indicate that their feelings of discontent are quite justified, and that Austen is the one who is appearing petty as a result.


And thats the nature of a troll, it seems: to feel they have power over someones life by stirring up anger and resentment, then sitting back and gleefully rubbing their hands when the flames start flinging. Its like a slightly-more-benign version of a celebrity stalker; if they cant leave things outside their physical door, then theyll be sure to be seen at every virtual door, demanding attention. ANY kind of attention.


Those kind of posters exists, but believe me, they get even less respect at ComiX-Fan than they do here. The two biggest ones I can think of, who someone else mentioned in a previous post here, is one rabid Austen fan who takes every opportunity to trash Chris Claremont for some reason, and some jerk who talks shit about Igor Kordey and Joe Casey’s Wildcats 3.0 without bothering to make even the slightest variability in his posts. Their names are Iceman_Xtreme and D4773T, by the way… and we all hate them very much.

However, I take offense to being put in the same camp as these idiots. I take offense to pooling the large majority of ComiX-Fan posters into the same group as these idiots. I’ve done my best to make sure that I stayed within the realms of common decency and respect within my posts, something that trolls like the ones I’ve just mentioned never bother to do. To claim that everyone who doesn’t like Austen’s work is a troll is just as ignorant a comment to make as the bile that these guys spew every day.


Maybe Morrison does have a more effective way of handling those stalkers. By not having forums of his own, he denies them any doors at all. People sling flame at him, and he ignores it. But that has its downside, too. It also closes himself off from other well-meaning fans... and breeds discontent among those who view him as "too good to bother with us". Armor keeps you safe, but its also isolating. Chuck made the decision to leave himself less-defended so he could be more accessible... and some people have seriously abused that trust.

This is true, but from every indication I’ve gotten from Chuck’s interview, he only wanted to have an online presence if the only thing people ever said about him were good. That strikes me as unrealistic, and setting yourself up for failure. The seemingly huge amount of disdain for Chuck’s work would have, in my opinion, been much less pronounced had he been able to compose himself the way Chris Claremont or Gail Simone or any number of other creators are able to do all the time at ComiX-Fan.

By the way… as to why some creator forums are not very active on CXF… the sad truth is that many of these forums are simply not populated by big names that draw a lot of attention. The guy who wrote the X-Factor mini series last year or the guy who wrote Namor a while back isn’t going to draw the kind of attention that Simone, Larrocca, DeFillipis, Claremont, etc. manage to draw.


Outlaw, you mentioned that "what is flame here is only critiquing on Xfan". I think you need to look at that a little closer. Thats the lynchpin to this entire problem. If you cant recognize a personal attack, then youre going to wind up stepping on toes all the way through life, pissing people off, and wondering why everyones so damn touchy. Morrison has steel-toed shoes, so maybe he doesnt feel it as much. Chuck wore sandals. Both of them are less than happy with their club-footed "fans", but Chucks the one with crushed feet, and hes going to lash out accordingly. Yes, maybe he went a little far in the interview. I felt uneasy at the implication that a few trolls could shut down every forum out there by threat of litigation. But after a few death threats, Id be considering any method I could to get some peace. And I hope he finds some at DC. He deserves it.
I’ve never personally attacked the man, except possibly to say that I don’t personally have much respect for him, and that has little to do with his work in comics. However, I still do my best to keep my posts respectful, and those who do not are, as I said, warned or worse at ComiX-fan. Any problems that existed while Chuck was there HAVE been taken care of. I’ve noted that if anyone seems to have trouble moving on, its been people here, who I’ve noted have posted some rather exaggerated, if not flat out false statements about what a supposed “hell-hole” the site is. Its not, its one of the most civil message boards on the web, and one of the most heavily moderated as well. As such, I find Chuck’s current claim’s to be completely ridiculous and uncalled for, and though I may sound somewhat mean for saying this, he just needs to get the hell over it. I think he’d be a much better writer for it.
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

The Lightning Rod: Austen Interview Gen. Discussion

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Originally posted by Maelstrom
After all, that script can't just get up and defend itself.
That script no, but some can. (Couldn't resist... flip... comment... okay, no more.)
Morrison has steel-toed shoes, so maybe he doesn't feel it as much. Chuck wore sandals. Both of them are less than happy with their club-footed "fans", but Chuck's the one with crushed feet, and he's going to lash out accordingly.
"I must admit to being increasingly deranged by the kinds of bizarre myths which have grown like moss around my name in comics fan circles - I keep coming up against this idiot savant image; me reflected back at myself as a shambling, incoherent drug addict, wanking and drooling out meaningless gibberish which can only be understood by 'those lying bastards' who claim they can see 'Magic Eye' 3-d pictures and wee men reading the news on the TV. I can hardly read my name in Wizard without some reference to illicit narcs stuck on the arse end. Mainstream comics fashions jump when I whistle but the US comics industry still treats me with nothing but disdain and suspicion even after all these years; I can't fathom why my name's always so conspicuously absent from Awards Nominations forms, why my obvious peers and imitators crawl miles over glass to avoid mentioning my name and influence in interviews, why my long service record and my achievements are often overlooked or mocked. Trying to smile through that kind of wearying, inexplicable prejudice can sometimes be hard work and if, as I often suspect, I'm being dissed for some imagined drug-related sins which violate Puritan ethics, they're picking on the wrong writer." - Grant Morrison lashes out

So, you know, he's not immune. I don't know if he actually checks up on messageboards, or where he's getting this from, or anything really except that most people here don't even bother to read his interviews so they don't notice when he says stuff like this... but seriously. Read it again. That is a brilliant bit of writing. :D

And then...

And then we have Austen: "Someday, and it's happening already to a degree, creators are going to stop talking to you, and someone with money is going to come along and close you down for the things you allow to be said under your banners. It's not a threat, it's a guarantee."

What. The. Fuck. Where's the charm in that? Consider me uncharmed!

Thoroughly uncharmed, dammit.

And I guess you could argue that it's wrong and shallow to judge WRITERS by their WRITING instead of, I don't know, the respect they deserve just being members of the human race, but, I mean, for god's sake. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Post Reply