[B5JMS] JMS' lateness (was Re: My Pull List for Marvel)

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "David Rose" <dcrose01 at earthlink.net>
Lines: 62
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 05:08:55 GMT


"Steve J." <sjone1 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41dfb175.0201051445.23e35910 at posting.google.com...
> A few comments to Joe A., Jim W., and David R.:

> 2. You guys are way too uptight over the tardiness of ASM as written
> by JMS.

Perhaps, I am a bit too upset.  Bottom line: I don't like being lied to or
disrespected.  Marvel's (and JMS') behavior in this situation strikes me as
a bit of both.  Being told a title will be available at a certain time only
to have it come out 5 months later is disrespectful to the reader/consumer.
It might not actually have been a lie, but the resultant feeling is the
same.  I'm now more reluctant to buy continued stories written by JMS,
because he has proven himself unreliable on delivering the ending in a
timely manner.  I may give him another chance, but my trust will need to be
regained.

> 4. Patrick has stated repeatedly that ASM's lateness does not bother
> him, yet you seem to want to convince him that it should.

Not at all.  There have been situations (and titles) where I felt much the
same as Patrick.  This is not one of them.  When creators of a title makes
the commitment to deliver on a given schedule, I trust them to deliver
according to that schedule.  Conversely, when they clearly state their
philosophy will be one of, "when it's done, it's done," I can accept that as
well.  I simply expect people to live up to their commitments.

ASM #36 should have been a separate publication (a "9/11 Special") rather
than an edition of the regular series.  There shouldn't have been a 5 month
gap (4.5 for the more picky people) between issue #35 and what is now #37.

> 5. You are arguing with the wrong person about this.

I haven't argued with anyone.  I've merely stated my opinion.  Rather, it
seems Patrick (and others) have chosen to turn that opinion into something
to argue about.


> 7. I read the JMS interview at Newsarama, and honestly I don't have
> much sympathy for him. He made a lot of commitments, got bogged down,
> and the lowest-paying commitment, comics, suffered. That stinks.

I agree 100%.

> Does the AMS's tardiness bother me? On a literal level, not really,
because
> I read in multi-issue chunks as opposed to monthly. On principle, it's
> pretty lousy and way too common at Marvel. Nonetheless, Marvel
> editorial feels it's worth it to keep JMS on ASM, so my loyalty to the
> title remains.
>
> Jones

I don't understand this attitude - as you're rewarding the very behavior you
find "pretty lousy".  However, I respect your right to have that attitude -
whether
I or anyone else understands (or agrees) with it.

Dave



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lines: 60
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 07 Jan 2002 06:43:31 GMT

>Perhaps, I am a bit too upset.  Bottom line: I don't like being lied to or
>disrespected.  Marvel's (and JMS') behavior in this situation strikes me as
>a bit of both.  Being told a title will be available at a certain time only
>to have it come out 5 months later is disrespectful to the reader/consumer.

Just one cotton picking minute here....

The 9/11 issue was written after the events of September 11th.  That issue came
out November 15th.  How, pray tell, is that 5 months between issues?

The one preceding that was out October 4th.

So we've got 

Issue 35 - October 4th
Issue 36 - November 15th
Issue 37 - January 9th

So we're talking here 6 weeks between issues 35 and 36, and a bit over 7 weeks
between issues 36 and 37 (and 37 would've been out earlier but for holiday
stuff that got in the way of finishing production on the issue that had NOTHING
to do with the writing), not 5 MONTHS for chrissakes.  So who's the one
stretching the truth here?

You're taking 36 out of the mix as if it doesn't count to stretch this out, and
that is profoundly unfair and untruthful on every level.

>ASM #36 should have been a separate publication (a "9/11 Special") rather
>than an edition of the regular series.  There shouldn't have been a 5 month
>gap (4.5 for the more picky people) between issue #35 and what is now #37.

It wasn't a separate issue, so you have to leave it where it is, as noted
above, and even if we DO allow you to delete an entire issue out of the
schedule, Mr. Einstein, between October 4th and January 9th there is a tick
over 3 months, NOT 4.5.

But your desire to take out 36 doesn't wash.  It was an issue of ASM, period,
and we're talking about frequency of output on that book, not what you did or
didn't think should BE in that issue.

You're taking your opinion of what should and shouldn't be in an issue and
using it to attack my frequency of work as a professional, that somehow by
doing an issue you didn't think should be there that resulted in a delay that
DOESN'T EXIST anywhere but your own mind.

If the only way to win your argument is to make shit up, you don't really have
much of an argument.

It's been an average of 6-7 weeks between issues instead of the usual 4-5. 
That's it.  

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)