Things to keep in mind when concocting behind-the-scenes conspiracy theories...

[wleakr]

Dang, the thought I could be contributing to a conspiracy never even occurred to me!

For one, I really don't write that well, so that's an automatic insult if anyone thinks I'm Mr. Slott (meaning insulting to Mr. Slott; it's a compliment to me!).

And I guess I'm not helping making even more comments in this thread. Another dang!

So does this mean I can't continue to enjoy Superior and Spiderboy, cuz that would NOT be good!

Which reminds me, why am I still paying for books if I'm Mr. Slott???? I'll see myself out now.

[SturdyMike89]

Follow this internet logic:

"Dan Slott hasn't denied he's Lee in a while. That means he IS Lee."

"Okay, Slott just said he's NOT Lee. That means he IS Lee."

"Also, wleakr just defended Slott. That means wleaker is ALSO Slott."

Attachment 138883

Please send ALL your complaints to EVERY single moderator on CBR.
Do it.
Send every last one of them a complaint about me being ANY and ALL posters here who are even remotely nice to either me or my work.
Do it.
Have them check if it's me for EVERYTHING morning, noon, and night.
You won't find squat. Why? Because I don't have an alt account here on CBR, you loons.

And the fact that people believe that you had an alt account at all proves how stupid the internet can be. Why would you need to do that? Unlike everyone else, you (and Kurt Busiek though no one seems to trouble him) are the only person on this board who actually has written Spider-Man professionally. Writing Spider-Man books RIGHT NOW. You are the last person who needs to lie. I won't lie, I haven't always liked some of the things you said, but I never doubted what you said was the truth.

As for not talking smack about other creators well all I can say is that you are a much better person than me.

[Conn Seanery]

Well, I guess there's only one place it can go from here.

Excuse me, I've got some comics to write...

[Dan Slott]

HA! Perfect post. No notes.

[Alan2099]

Follow this internet logic:

"Dan Slott hasn't denied he's Lee in a while. That means he IS Lee."

"Okay, Slott just said he's NOT Lee. That means he IS Lee."

"Also, wleakr just defended Slott. That means wleaker is ALSO Slott."

I'd just like to say for the record that I am not Dan Slott.

To the best of my knowledge anyway.

[JustLuke]

...You SURE you aren't his clone or something?

[bob.schoonover]

Maybe he was in Manhattan during Slott-er Island?

[Tapioca Blitzkrieg]

Reposting this.
Because some people are being idiots.
Again.



Out of all the mods here at CBR, Conn Seanery is the one who doesn't put up with my nonsense the MOST. There are some that give me a wide berth because I'm a comic creator and it's cool to have me around on boards. Not Conn Seanery. If I screw up over here, they're the one who usually smacks me on the wrist. So when they use their moderator powers to check things out, especially something like this, you can take that as an impartial call.

To be as blunt and straightforward as possible: I do NOT have an alt account at CBR. This is not a thing.

The poster in question has been posting the past few days.
I have NOT.
I have been writing a script (which is now in).
This poster has also (apparently) posted some negative things about another Spider-Man writer.
I would NEVER do that.
Especially online.
Especially with any kind of "alt account".
Why? Because if I did it would eventually get found out and I would be in a world of sh*t. Creators do NOT slag other creators online. Not if they want to keep working regularly for the Big 2.

Sometimes I wish that the same posters who can sift through a zillion interviews and online posts and find the smallest clues to this, that, or the other, would use a tiny fraction of that online sleuthing to figure out when I'm in another country on a comic con or in a different time zone-- or on a long flight-- or am internet dark for a week because I'm camping with my future in-laws, or what have you-- to see that I'm not leading a double internet life that they'd so love to imagine I'm leading here at CBR. (I have absolutely NO idea if that would work, but I'm not even going to look to see if it does, because-- Dear Sweet Jesus-- who has the time for that?)

So let's just go back to the original point: Conn Seanery wouldn't post that original post if he hadn't done his due diligence.

We good? Because, Dear Lord, some of you are insufferable idiots about this non-thing.

The part in bold stuck out to me. As i imagine, it's pretty standard etiquette as a fellow Co-worker/Creator, especially in a business where you are granted influence to promote opinions on a more public platform, to not ''slag'' or generally deride said Creators for their work, no matter how strongly you feel about it. However, is it something contractual or institutional of the Big 2 that creators are not to be critical in any instance or in any tone or capacity of storylines or beats they find problematic or worthy of critique?

In simpler terms, is there some kind of official or unofficial rule in the Big 2 that denotes ANY kind of public critique, be it the most objective, respectful and reasonably expressed one, is taboo or bad work ethics? If a writer DID want to express dissatisfaction publicly with the work of a fellow creator is there any way to do it without getting blackballed?

I ask, but i'm betting on the answer being ''mostly no'', as i'm sure on the internet there is no such thing as a ''resonable critique'' due to the nature of ppl taking simple statements and running with them as something overblown and even fabricated.

[Mister Mets]

The part in bold stuck out to me. As i imagine, it's pretty standard etiquette as a fellow Co-worker/Creator, especially in a business where you are granted influence to promote opinions on a more public platform, to not ''slag'' or generally deride said Creators for their work, no matter how strongly you feel about it. However, is it something contractual or institutional of the Big 2 that creators are not to be critical in any instance or in any tone or capacity of storylines or beats they find problematic or worthy of critique?

In simpler terms, is there some kind of official or unofficial rule in the Big 2 that denotes ANY kind of public critique, be it the most objective, respectful and reasonably expressed one, is taboo or bad work ethics? If a writer DID want to express dissatisfaction publicly with the work of a fellow creator is there any way to do it without getting blackballed?

I ask, but i'm betting on the answer being ''mostly no'', as i'm sure on the internet there is no such thing as a ''resonable critique'' due to the nature of ppl taking simple statements and running with them as something overblown and even fabricated.

I would guess there's a distinction between slagging someone online, and polite critique.

Plenty of writers and artists mention what they don't like about other series, and they keep getting work.

I doubt there's anything contractural either way. If a pro is nasty talking about someone else, it doesn't violate a contract but it could convince editors that this is not someone they want to work with.

There are some considerations, though.

Sometimes another comics pro might be thin-skinned, so there may be a sense that any critique is more trouble than its worth.

It could send signals that limit job opportunities. If an artist critiques a comic book a writer thinks is incredible, the artist may think they won't get along. (Alternatively, the writer could use this to inform scripts.) If a writer complains about books that are about spinning the wheels, editors might not want to assign them fill-in work.

[Lee]

The nastiest, cruelest, most vile thing I've said about a comic pro this week is that Amazing Spider-Man's civilian cast was at its most diminished during JMS's run. I think it's funny that on a forum where creator bashing is practically a daily occurrence, that could be considered slagging off a creator.

I also observed that in Dan Slott's Amazing Spider-Man run a lot of the civilian cast were in an extraordinary workplace (therefore making them a bit less ordinary than say, the Daily Bugle cast). I guess I was slagging off Dan Slott as well. As a double bluff?

[Mercwmouth12]

The nastiest, cruelest, most vile thing I've said about a comic pro this week is that Amazing Spider-Man's civilian cast was at its most diminished during JMS's run. I think it's funny that on a forum where creator bashing is practically a daily occurrence, that could be considered slagging off a creator.

I also observed that in Dan Slott's Amazing Spider-Man run a lot of the civilian cast were in an extraordinary workplace (therefore making them a bit less ordinary than say, the Daily Bugle cast). I guess I was slagging off Dan Slott as well. As a double bluff?

Wouldn't this be better served for a different thread dedicated to the civilian cast of Spider-Man as whole?

[SturdyMike89]

Wouldn't this be better served for a different thread dedicated to the civilian cast of Spider-Man as whole?

Yeah agreed. Getting the feeling that we may be getiing lost in the weeds here.

[Lee]

Wouldn't this be better served for a different thread dedicated to the civilian cast of Spider-Man as whole?

No, my opinion on Spider-Man minutia isn't the point. The point is it's fucking ridiculous that people hate and obsess over a comic writer so much that they've dragged an ordinary fan into it, over the most innocuous things. Will any of them have an "Are we the baddies?" moment? Somehow, I doubt it.

[wleakr]

It's unfortunate that even needed an explanation.

[Mercwmouth12]

It's unfortunate that even needed an explanation.

I think we should move to another subject. This current conversation has run it's course it seems we have a new topic to veer to

https://x.com/comicsxf/status/1780264928928018919?s=46