What Really Killed VALIANT: Editorial Incompetence

[x-omatic]

Mistakes happen by accident, but letting them be published happens on purpose.

You can't be serious.
Do you really think and expect comics to be "perfect" and if they aren't that someone did it on purpose. Mistakes happen all the time. The people making the comcis are human after all.

[ManofTheAtom]

Mistakes happen by accident, but letting them be published happens on purpose.

You can't be serious.
Do you really think and expect comics to be "perfect" and if they aren't that someone did it on purpose. Mistakes happen all the time. The people making the comcis are human after all.

Letting the penciller draw the wrong character when you know it's the wrong character is not a mistake, it's a deliberate action.

Letting the colorist miscolor the same charater three times in the same issue is not a mistake, it's deliberate action.

They don't have to be perfect, they just need to be professional and have the courage to tell someone that they made a mistake instead of come up with excuses for it, like letting pencillers draw the wrong thing, colorists color wrong, or approving stories that contradict themselves.

[Dr. Solar]

Yeah, so?

You now understand our pain.

[ManofTheAtom]

Just to add to the irony, and show how the editors are afraid of writers.

This is from EW 36

".... writer-extraordinaire John Ostrander..."

Of all of the writers that worked at VALIANT, Ostrander was the one that made the most mistakes in everything he wrote, yet the editor called him "extraordinaire".

Way to lower the bar there...

[yardstick]

Sounds ta me like they were just there to get a paycheck. They didnt really care about the characters.

[ManofTheAtom]

Sounds ta me like they were just there to get a paycheck. They didnt really care about the characters.

Yep.

And when VH 2 came around, Acclaim was known as a publisher that paid more than DC or Marvel.

They were throwing money away.

[depluto]

Just to add to the irony, and show how the editors are afraid of writers.

This is from EW 36

".... writer-extraordinaire John Ostrander..."

Of all of the writers that worked at VALIANT, Ostrander was the one that made the most mistakes in everything he wrote, yet the editor called him "extraordinaire".

Way to lower the bar there...

Are you on the rag or something?

[ManofTheAtom]

Just to add to the irony, and show how the editors are afraid of writers.

This is from EW 36

".... writer-extraordinaire John Ostrander..."

Of all of the writers that worked at VALIANT, Ostrander was the one that made the most mistakes in everything he wrote, yet the editor called him "extraordinaire".

Way to lower the bar there...

Are you on the rag or something?

[x-omatic]

Mistakes happen by accident, but letting them be published happens on purpose.

You can't be serious.
Do you really think and expect comics to be "perfect" and if they aren't that someone did it on purpose. Mistakes happen all the time. The people making the comcis are human after all.

Letting the penciller draw the wrong character when you know it's the wrong character is not a mistake, it's a deliberate action.

Letting the colorist miscolor the same charater three times in the same issue is not a mistake, it's deliberate action.

They don't have to be perfect, they just need to be professional and have the courage to tell someone that they made a mistake instead of come up with excuses for it, like letting pencillers draw the wrong thing, colorists color wrong, or approving stories that contradict themselves.

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds and tell that they did something on purpose and simply just didn't catch the mistake. You could also just simply say they didn't do a good job or they were lazy and not as through as they should have been. It is a big jump to say someone did something on purpose.

[ManofTheAtom]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds and tell that they did something on purpose and simply just didn't catch the mistake. You could also just simply say they didn't do a good job or they were lazy and not as through as they should have been. It is a big jump to say someone did something on purpose.

The mistake here is that you're assigning a negaive connotation to the words "on purpose", like it was done for an evil motive.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it was done on purpose (i.e. deliberately) in lieu of telling the writer and colorists that they made a mistake.

There is no evil intent, just simple incompetetence brought upon by fear of telling an uber popular writer that he was wrong.

[x-omatic]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds and tell that they did something on purpose and simply just didn't catch the mistake. You could also just simply say they didn't do a good job or they were lazy and not as through as they should have been. It is a big jump to say someone did something on purpose.

The mistake here is that you're assigning a negaive connotation to the words "on purpose", like it was done for an evil motive.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it was done on purpose (i.e. deliberately) in lieu of telling the writer and colorists that they made a mistake.

There is no evil intent, just simple incompetetence brought upon by fear of telling an uber popular writer that he was wrong.

I am not reading any "evil" into your words. Only taking them at their meaning.

You said "on purpose"." ie deliberately". You are assuming that the editor knew about the mistake and did nothing.

[ManofTheAtom]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds and tell that they did something on purpose and simply just didn't catch the mistake. You could also just simply say they didn't do a good job or they were lazy and not as through as they should have been. It is a big jump to say someone did something on purpose.

The mistake here is that you're assigning a negaive connotation to the words "on purpose", like it was done for an evil motive.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it was done on purpose (i.e. deliberately) in lieu of telling the writer and colorists that they made a mistake.

There is no evil intent, just simple incompetetence brought upon by fear of telling an uber popular writer that he was wrong.

I am not reading any "evil" into your words. Only taking them at their meaning.

You said "on purpose"." ie deliberately". You are assuming that the editor knew about the mistake and did nothing.

I'm not assuming, I'm seeing it. The editors did absolutely nothing to prevent the mistakes from getting published.

Editors are paid to have an active involvement in the production of the comic, not just to sit by while the writer gives the penciller the script and the penciller gives the colorist the art.

(competent) Editors read the scripts and review the art as it comes in to make sure that it's right. Incompetent editors sit back, cash a paycheck, and don't do nothing.

[x-omatic]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds and tell that they did something on purpose and simply just didn't catch the mistake. You could also just simply say they didn't do a good job or they were lazy and not as through as they should have been. It is a big jump to say someone did something on purpose.

The mistake here is that you're assigning a negaive connotation to the words "on purpose", like it was done for an evil motive.

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it was done on purpose (i.e. deliberately) in lieu of telling the writer and colorists that they made a mistake.

There is no evil intent, just simple incompetetence brought upon by fear of telling an uber popular writer that he was wrong.

I am not reading any "evil" into your words. Only taking them at their meaning.

You said "on purpose"." ie deliberately". You are assuming that the editor knew about the mistake and did nothing.

I'm not assuming, I'm seeing it. The editors did absolutely nothing to prevent the mistakes from getting published.

Editors are paid to have an active involvement in the production of the comic, not just to sit by while the writer gives the penciller the script and the penciller gives the colorist the art.

(competent) Editors read the scripts and review the art as it comes in to make sure that it's right. Incompetent editors sit back, cash a paycheck, and don't do nothing.

Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".

[ManofTheAtom]

Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".

They must have been working with blinders on to not have noticed a character who changed color three times in the same issue, or that the writer used the wrong name of a place more than once, or that the same writer invented a new character that never existed before by combining two characters.

[x-omatic]

Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".

They must have been working with blinders on to not have noticed a character who changed color three times in the same issue, or that the writer used the wrong name of a place more than once, or that the same writer invented a new character that never existed before by combining two characters.

Mistakes happen. People are not perfect. They could have been lazy and not cared enough to check every page. They could have trusted the colorist to color the same character the same way on each page.

To say someone let a mistake happen "on purpose" is being very judgemental.

[depluto]

Maybe he's right. Valiant should definitely hire a bunch of anal, bean-counting nitpickers to move the universe forward. People love reading what anal, bean-counting nitpickers have to say. Besides, everyone else is just incompetent.

But anal, bean-counting nitpickers never make mistakes, so they are in a position to judge the efforts of everyone else.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Maybe he's right. Valiant should definitely hire a bunch of anal, bean-counting nitpickers to move the universe forward. People love reading what anal, bean-counting nitpickers have to say. Besides, everyone else is just incompetent.

But anal, bean-counting nitpickers never make mistakes, so they are in a position to judge the efforts of everyone else.

Kinda OT, but I've always wondered where anal, bean-counting nitpickers get the actual beans.

[yardstick]

Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".

They must have been working with blinders on to not have noticed a character who changed color three times in the same issue, or that the writer used the wrong name of a place more than once, or that the same writer invented a new character that never existed before by combining two characters.

Mistakes happen. People are not perfect. They could have been lazy and not cared enough to check every page. They could have trusted the colorist to color the same character the same way on each page.

To say someone let a mistake happen "on purpose" is being very judgemental.

Just out of curiosity, have you any proof that the errors under discussion were not, in fact on purpose?

Or are we talking here about the difference between incompetence and negligence? Negligence could be construed as "on purpose" couldn't it? Similarly, incompetence could be construed as "making a mistake"?

Since when has judging something on its merits been a bad thing? I could see judging someone/something hypocritally as being a problem, but I doubt seriously that MOTA has produced a product which fell under the auspices of "incompetence" or "negligence".

Perhaps x-omatic could produce evidence of MOTA's incompetence/negligence in the manufacture of a comic book or some other product?

MOTA appears to have produced at least circumstantial evidence to suggest negligence (and thus, "on purpose") on the part of the editor, yet x-o wishes it to appear that such evidence in fact suggests incompetence ("by mistake") instead. Does this sound accurate?

Seems to me that, in either case, such actions are worthy of being judged unacceptable.

[TKWill]

Maybe he's right. Valiant should definitely hire a bunch of anal, bean-counting nitpickers to move the universe forward. People love reading what anal, bean-counting nitpickers have to say. Besides, everyone else is just incompetent.

But anal, bean-counting nitpickers never make mistakes, so they are in a position to judge the efforts of everyone else.

[Heath]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds ...

Where have you been??

[x-omatic]

Nope. You are assuming they saw the mistake and did nothing. In your mind it is not possible for them to not have noticed becasue they should know everything about Valiant characters. In your mind it is not possible they were lazy and didn't do a good job. In your mind the only answer is the did it on "purpose".

They must have been working with blinders on to not have noticed a character who changed color three times in the same issue, or that the writer used the wrong name of a place more than once, or that the same writer invented a new character that never existed before by combining two characters.

Mistakes happen. People are not perfect. They could have been lazy and not cared enough to check every page. They could have trusted the colorist to color the same character the same way on each page.

To say someone let a mistake happen "on purpose" is being very judgemental.

Just out of curiosity, have you any proof that the errors under discussion were not, in fact on purpose?

Or are we talking here about the difference between incompetence and negligence? Negligence could be construed as "on purpose" couldn't it? Similarly, incompetence could be construed as "making a mistake"?

Since when has judging something on its merits been a bad thing? I could see judging someone/something hypocritally as being a problem, but I doubt seriously that MOTA has produced a product which fell under the auspices of "incompetence" or "negligence".

Perhaps x-omatic could produce evidence of MOTA's incompetence/negligence in the manufacture of a comic book or some other product?

MOTA appears to have produced at least circumstantial evidence to suggest negligence (and thus, "on purpose") on the part of the editor, yet x-o wishes it to appear that such evidence in fact suggests incompetence ("by mistake") instead. Does this sound accurate?

Seems to me that, in either case, such actions are worthy of being judged unacceptable.

Saying someone did something "on purpose" suggests intent. There is no eveidence anywhere that person "x" said "yeah I saw the mistake but choose to ignore it".

[x-omatic]

I never realized that you were able to read peoples minds ...

Where have you been??

Just sitting here with my head wrapped in fiol.

[ManofTheAtom]

Saying someone did something "on purpose" suggests intent. There is no eveidence anywhere that person "x" said "yeah I saw the mistake but choose to ignore it".

The evidence is the printed comic.

You know very well how long it takes a comic to get made. It's long enough for mistakes to get noticed and fixed.

[X-O HoboJoe]

All this time I thought low sales killed it.

[x-omatic]

Saying someone did something "on purpose" suggests intent. There is no eveidence anywhere that person "x" said "yeah I saw the mistake but choose to ignore it".

The evidence is the printed comic.

You know very well how long it takes a comic to get made. It's long enough for mistakes to get noticed and fixed.

The printed comic is only evidence of a mistake. Nothing more.
There is no way to know hwo the mistake happened. Maybe you want to blame teh editor for the pages being out of order in Magnus 57. I am sure he must have done that on purpose because there is no other possiblity. Unless someone else made a mistake. I mean, maybe the printer did it on purpose.