HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins)
Subject: Re: SAN DIEGO: r.a.c. gatherings
Organization: Pacific Data Products
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:47:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.230454.22644@zip.eecs.umich.edu> tyg@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Tom Galloway) writes:
>Also, look for Squid shirts. To distinguish myself, I'll likely wear my
>Parker Lewis Can't Lose cap a fair amount of the time with my shirt.

I don't have my squid shirt yet.  This makes it hard for people to use this
method to recognize me :-)  

jim


-- 
Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Harkins                         [ucsd|uunet]!pacdata!jim
Pacific Data Products               jim@pacdata.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
From: jed@matilda.vut.edu.au (Jed Bowtell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Popularity in Comics (was Liefield Throws Tantrum)
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:04:47 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:

>wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:

>> The company has been around for less than a year, and has only produced
>> about five or six comics (I'm not sure).  That is no reason to be scred
>> or frightened of a comic company. 

>There are plenty of reasons to be bothered by Image's success.  In case
>you missed it, Image has pushed Malibu -- a thoroughly undistinguished
>publisher no matter how you measure it -- up to the #2 slot in the comics
>industry for this month.  For the first time in just about forever, DC is
>number *three*.  All this on the basis of a handful of Image titles, most
>of which are complete unadulterated tripe.  Do you think that this in any
>way helps comics as a medium?  Do you think that this is something to
>embrace, to celebrate? 

>Of course people are frustrated when fools and no-talents like McFarlane
>and Liefeld rake in more money for a single issue of a comic than most
>people in the industry will see over the course of an entire career.  It
>confirms what many of us have always known or at least suspected -- that
>talent and hard work don't mean a damned thing in this business; that all
>that counts is how good you are at pandering to 12-year-old speculators
>and fanboys, most of whom don't even read the damned books after they
>take them home.  Of course that pisses people off.  Should it *not*? 

I don't really think that Liefeld is a great artist but he must 
have done something right to get so popular. I don't like
his art at all (his characters really are mutants) but just
because he is successful don't bag him. He does pander to
12 year old speculators and fanboys, so what! I realise that
there are other people in the industry more deserving but
thats the way it is and neither you or I can do anything
about it.

Jed
>"It's not the *gun* that kills you . . . it's these LITTLE HARD THINGS!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David VanDomelen)
Subject: Of Pearls and Swine
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:23:40 GMT

Comic books are a medium like any other, an art form like any other, in that 
there are three basic categories into which all examples fall: Stuff that is 
liked by the "unwashed masses", stuff that is liked by the "cognoscenti" and 
stuff that is liked by neither group.  Things in the first category make money,
things in the second category win acclaim, things in the last category get 
squat.  Only rarely is there a "crossover" hit, one that appeals to both groups
at the same time.  Rob Liefeld is to comics what Marky Mark is (or was, I don't
follow pop music much anymore) to music: loved by enough of the artistically 
unenlightened to make a profit...but don't expect High Art from either.  Most 
people spend their entire life without gaining an appreciation for real art, 
and generally don't mind the fact either.  And they often resent being told 
that their tastes are not terribly refined.  Here on racm, we have a sort of 
"cultural elite" of comics (yes, I'm now making a subtle comparison between 
Liefeld and Quayle) that looks down its nose at the pap ladled out to the 
masses, or at best defends it on the basis of "well, *I* don't like it, but 
that's no reason to slam it all that hard".  The few "non-elite" that venture 
here tend to get flamed or roundly lectured on how their favorite book is 
drivel (but not always in such harsh terms, we can be a gentle group of 
censureres).  There are also a few who defend the mass-produced fanboy-bait as 
being high art, but only if it's produced by a pet creator of theirs (Lee, 
McFarlane, whatever).  Such is their right.
     I guess the point I should make before anyone preemptorily pens me an 
inflammatory email missive is that it's not a crime to like stuff produced for 
the lowest common denominator (heck, I buy all the x-books myself and usually 
get some entertainment out of them), nor is it necessary to become a higher 
denominator than you are, but you should realize that you are suited to a 
particular level of art.  Nothing looks more ridiculous than a boor pretending 
to be sophisticated, unless perhaps it is a sophisticate arguing that point 
with the boor.  Sophistication is not necessary or even preferable...but 
dignity is both.  Taking airs is not the act of a proud person.
     Dave Van Domelen, does anyone have a crane to get me out of the high horse
I seem to have written myself onto by accident?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: cerebus@engin.umich.edu (Joe Gorde)
Subject: Re: Cages
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 02:07:18 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Aug21.173545.16276@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> louzon@aplcen (Louzon ronald g) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.152758.11726@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> wesselak@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu (Erik Wesselak) writes:
>>mgq@inel.gov (Michael G McKellar) writes:
>>
>>>I'm very impressed with his writing.  The stuff that I have that
>>>McKean has done are:
>>>Arkham Asylum
>>>Black Orchid
>>>Violent Cases
>>>A double issue special of Hellblazer, the one just before Ennis
>>>took over.
>>>Cages
>>>And of course the Sandman covers.
>>
>>McKean also did the first 20 or so covers for Hellblazer, and a handful of
>>covers for Swamp Thing (inked, not painted) around the time of Veitch's run.
>>
>>Also the covers for Miracleman Book IV (#17-22)  And the cover for the paper-
>>back, I think.
>
>And don't forget the HELLBLAZER issue he did with Neil Gaiman.  I think
>it was in the late twenties and was called "Cold Heart" ?
>

"Hold Me".  For some reason I think it's issue #31, but don't quote me on
that.

>And also the soon to be released SIGNAL TO NOISE with Neil from Dark 
>Horse in October.

                                    *Joe Gorde*

***Warning:  Do not Reply directly to this posting; instead,
             please either post replies or send them to one
             of the following addresses:

email to: cerebus@warhol.art.umich.edu
      or: Joe_Gorde@um.cc.umich.edu

                          "What is strong wins; that is the universal law.
                           If only it were not so often precisely what is
                           stupid and evil!"
                                        -Nietzsche
From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the CON
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:56:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <rdippold.714058156@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> 
>> It was a BLAST!  Big hint - register in advance.  The lines on
>> Saturday and Sunday stretched back from the door, down the block to
>> the light, took the corner, and then started spiraling around a
>> parking lot.  We're talking an hour to get in at around noon.  But if
>> you have your badge already, you can just walk by all the suckers and
>> enter.  Also, get your good stuff done on Thursday and Friday.  It's

Better yet, get in free, as a "Pro."  It seems rediculously easy
to get a free membership; all you need to do is know someone remotely
involved in comics, movies, etc.  Plus, with your "Pro" badge, you
can get in to the con while the doors are still closed and thumb
your nose at the ordinary scum.

> Some of the panels were fairly boring, others were great.  The most
> "exciting" had to be the one on "Do Writers Need Artists?" in which
[...]
> audience was really getting into it...  Peter David, although not a
> member of the panel, was in the audience, and summed things up nicely.
> 
Actually, the "What's in store for Star Trek" panel was pretty wild.
Peter David strikes again...

> The products available were just too much to talk about.  Good hint:
> Come with as much money as you can afford.  Shred your credit cards
> and ATM card.  Tell your friends to slap you if you try to borrow
> money from them.  Even so, the temptation is too much.  Don't bring
> any children, lest you attempt to sell your firstborn.

Actually, I didn't buy very much.  There was plenty of stuff I 
would like to have, but not at the prices.  If I was still a
collector, I might have had a different opinion.

-steve
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: sta2534@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: The Care and Feeding of Comics
Reply-To: sta2534@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:49:12 GMT



>>AND DON'T MENTION MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE!


>doing that.  Is MST3K really such an incredibly powerful cultural icon that a 
>single bad reference to comic bags can drive the whole institution of comic 
>collectors into the closet on the issue, or is there some deeper issue here 
>that I'm just missing?

Well, I'm not surprised people flamed you and called you a fanboy
for asking about this type of thing.  It's very easy to insult and
attack someone in this medium.  I doubt many of them would be willing
to say those things to your face.

As for MST3000, there was a thread about the comics collecting 
reference a short time ago, and I didn't want to start another one.


>Internet: phaedrus@u.washington.edu        (University of Washington, Seattle)
> "If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs,
>    consider an exciting career as a guillotine operator!"

Steve A.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: kieran@cmatter.physics.indiana.edu (kieran)
Subject: Re: CEREBUS: chess (spoilers)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.164940.1904@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> gls@windmill.ATT.COM (the Colonel) writes:
>In <BszpqM.4y5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, ndj20710@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> If you look at the chess board near the end, you can see that Po had indeed
>> been setting up a fool's mate. With Cerebus pushing his queen's bishop, it
>> would appear that he is going to successfully counter it though. Congratula-
>> tions to everyone that guessed right on that.
>
>You're wrong on three counts.
>
>1. Dave and you are both misnaming the bishop; it's King Bishop to Queen's
>   Bishop 4.
>2. It's a Scholar's Mate, not a Fool's Mate.
>3. Aardvarksky is playing right into it:  1. P-K4 P-K4; 2. B-B4 B-B4; 3. Q-R5
>   N-QB3 (or 3... P-Q3); 4. QxBP mate.
>

     I'm rather surprised that Cerebus is playing by the rules at *all*.
I would expect that he would simply walk over to Po's King and kick it 
over.  After all, why play into Po's strength?

     On the other hand, Cerebus also has a history of enduring situations
forced upon him by others, even though he may complain a lot.  

     I mentioned this to Sim when I saw him in Bloomington, and he didn't
say too much.  He did say that Bran died for a good reason though.  (I 
asked him why he threw away a rather interesting and intelligent character.
It seemed a bit of a waste.)   He said he that he was writing the explanation
just the night before...

                   Kieran Mullen
                       
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Thoughts on the CON
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:29:16 GMT


Is this just to piss off everyone who didn't go?  Possibly.  

It was a BLAST!  Big hint - register in advance.  The lines on
Saturday and Sunday stretched back from the door, down the block to
the light, took the corner, and then started spiraling around a
parking lot.  We're talking an hour to get in at around noon.  But if
you have your badge already, you can just walk by all the suckers and
enter.  Also, get your good stuff done on Thursday and Friday.  It's
bad enough on those days because school is out, but the weekends are a
madhouse.

Some of the panels were fairly boring, others were great.  The most
"exciting" had to be the one on "Do Writers Need Artists?" in which
Mark Bagley from Marvel (Spiderman Artist) and Steve Gerber (Howard
the Duck, ex-marvelite) got in a spite match about working for someone
like Marvel, and Bagley postulated that turning out shit was fine as
long as you could do it monthly.  Then there was Todd McFarlane vs.
Doug Murray and members of the audience, and several exchanges which
involved "Fuck," "Fucking," and other conjugations of the word.  The
audience was really getting into it...  Peter David, although not a
member of the panel, was in the audience, and summed things up nicely.

The products available were just too much to talk about.  Good hint:
Come with as much money as you can afford.  Shred your credit cards
and ATM card.  Tell your friends to slap you if you try to borrow
money from them.  Even so, the temptation is too much.  Don't bring
any children, lest you attempt to sell your firstborn.
-- 
The customer isn't always right, but they do get an unnatural amount of slack
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Popularity in Comics (was Liefield Throws Tantrum)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:49:54 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

hgarcia@sw.stratus.com (Henry Garcia) writes:

>> Of course people are frustrated when fools and no-talents like McFarlane
>> and Liefeld rake in more money for a single issue of a comic than most
>> people in the industry will see over the course of an entire career.
>
> I can't disagree with you on more on the talent of Todd McFarlane...

Just to clarify: Liefeld's the no-talent.  McFarlane's just the fool.

(I like McFarlane's drawing style -- his baseball stuff in the art show at
SDCC this year was great -- but he makes a much better cartoonist than he
does a "comic artist" and he can't write worth a *damn*.)  

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: hachiman@milton.u.washington.edu (Matt Downer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Magnus #0 Variants
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:03:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug14.220329.5629
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug14.121944.17996@bnr.ca> rutled@bnr.ca writes:
>Kerrin Rhys Jones (Kerrin.Jones@comp.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
>: 
>: I think the deal here was something like this; Stores who'd ordered the regular
>: Magnus title in bulk could apply to Valiant and recieve ONE copy of Magnus #0
>: without the card in it, for every FIFTY copies they ordered of the regular title.
>: Something like that, but don't quote me.
>: 
>: 					-Kerrin
>
>The reason I originally posted the question is that I received my 
>copy of Magnus #0 from Mile High Comic's NICE Subscription service
>ie.  I didn't send in the coupons.
>
>The Magnus #0 I received, however, does have the card.
>
>I wonder if Mile High got a special deal?
>
I don't think  so, 'cuz Shooter mentioned in one of his editorials that 
someone had wrote to him complaining that Mile High had advertised copies
for sale when they were supposed to be limited to customers who had bought
Magnus 1-8.  Shooter replied that since Mile High had bought so many, they
certainly had enough complete sets available to get their own copies of #0.
Since the Mile High back issue catalog lists seperate entries entries for 
Magnus issue with and without cards, they probably cut up some of their sets
to get some BWS versions of #0 in addition to the BWS-less copies they were
entitled to. 

 _______________________________
|  Matthew B. Downer       	|
|  hachiman@u.washington.edu	|
|  				|
|  Ore no denwa bango wa 911 da.|
|_______________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: Popularity in Comics (was Liefield Throws Tantrum)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:22:27 GMT

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:

>wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:
>> The company has been around for less than a year, and has only produced
>> about five or six comics (I'm not sure).  That is no reason to be scred
>> or frightened of a comic company. 
>There are plenty of reasons to be bothered by Image's success.  In case
>you missed it, Image has pushed Malibu -- a thoroughly undistinguished
>publisher no matter how you measure it -- up to the #2 slot in the comics
>industry for this month.  For the first time in just about forever, DC is
>number *three*.  All this on the basis of a handful of Image titles, most
>of which are complete unadulterated tripe.  Do you think that this in any
>way helps comics as a medium?  Do you think that this is something to
>embrace, to celebrate? 

	Nope, what going to hapen is alot of stores are going to wind up with
alot of Image comics left over. This is going to hurt their bottom line, for
the market is going to be full of Image books, and they won't be able to off
load them at a $1.00 a pice. I still see some of the X-men 1(a-d) covers going
for .50

	Image books are going to be worthless for a long time.

James
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: jed@matilda.vut.edu.au (Jed Bowtell)
Subject: Re: Popularity in Comics (was Liefield Throws Tantrum)
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:47:47 GMT

scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:

>If this were true, one helluva lot of bad books would have gone into
>the dumper long ago.  Someone keeps quoting the line that the general
>readership of comics turns over in about three years.  This means there
>are always new slavering fanboys.  Let's face it, the comics world has
>been that way for the 28 years I've been following it.  It has its ups
>and downs as the popularity of the field waxes and wanes, but it's
>almost always remained a classic example of Sturgeon's Law.

True, for every fanboy that grows up there are five more to 
start buying Punisher and Ghost Rider.

>them at things that are like what they're already buying.  Face it,
>somebody who buys McFarlane and Liefeld will probably be unutterably
>bored by Gaiman and Sim.                     ^^^^^^^^

Luckily you put probably. The comics I read are Animal Man, Sandman,
Cerebus. I don't think I'm the big independent man like some people.
I also collected McFarlane's Spiderman because it had nice art. I
also picked up Spawn because it had nice art. I don't really care
what sort of personality the artist has or how much they get paid,
I just get a comics because (a) I like the story OR (b) I like the
art OR (c) I like the character OR (d) any combination of these. I
used to get Uncanny X-Men but cannot stand the stories or the art.
You could not call the zombies in it characters. That is why I
wont buy it. It has nothing in it I like.

Jed
From: hgarcia@sw.stratus.com (Henry Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Popularity in Comics (was Liefield Throws Tantrum)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:01:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <-y#nc5_@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan) writes:
> 
> > The company has been around for less than a year, and has only produced
> > about five or six comics (I'm not sure).  That is no reason to be scred
> > or frightened of a comic company. 
> 
> There are plenty of reasons to be bothered by Image's success.  In case
> you missed it, Image has pushed Malibu -- a thoroughly undistinguished
> publisher no matter how you measure it -- up to the #2 slot in the comics
> industry for this month.  For the first time in just about forever, DC is
> number *three*.  All this on the basis of a handful of Image titles, most
> of which are complete unadulterated tripe.  Do you think that this in any
> way helps comics as a medium?  Do you think that this is something to
> embrace, to celebrate? 
> 
> Of course people are frustrated when fools and no-talents like McFarlane
> and Liefeld rake in more money for a single issue of a comic than most
> people in the industry will see over the course of an entire career.  It
> confirms what many of us have always known or at least suspected -- that
> talent and hard work don't mean a damned thing in this business; that all
> that counts is how good you are at pandering to 12-year-old speculators
> and fanboys, most of whom don't even read the damned books after they
> take them home.  Of course that pisses people off.  Should it *not*? 
> 


	I can't disagree with you on more on the talent of Todd McFarlane
	I think his work is a LARGE cut above the work Liefield puts out 
	(which in and of it self is not a big endorsement), but he is also
	better then a lot of other people in the field.  The thing about 
	McFarlane is that his stories tend to unfold a little slower then
	alot of other works.  I have felt that, since his run on spider-man, 
	McFarlane was more suited to a longer form for doing comics (i.e.
	a graphic novel or some such) because it sometimes takes time for
	him to get his point across and waiting three issues for it tends
	to slow things down.

	I think alot of the clamor over Image comics will die down when 
	people buying 10 issues of each comic realize that they aren't going
	to be able to sell it a year later and make a BIG profit. (Simply
	because there will not be much demand for the stuff).  And you start
	seeing the less worthy books drop off. (So would say all of them :) )

				--Henry
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: morrow@fnalo.fnal.gov (Dan Elmoe)
Subject: Re: DC's plans
Organization: The Democrats' Best Hope in '96
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:30:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug18.231402.18655@news2.cis.umn.edu>, lsmith@mega.cs.umn.edu (Lance "Squiddie" Smith) writes:
> Oh I like this! Squiddy is constantly trying to "get a date."
> 
> Death: "For the last time, I'm not taking you until I get a black SS T-shirt!
>         And stop playing with my goldfish!" 

	Funny you should mention this; I ordered a second-printing black SS tee
specifically to give to Neil Gaiman when I finally meet him.  Black is, of
course, the only color he wears.
	Tanaqui, has he moved to Minnesota yet?
-- 
"Here we find a thriving city:  Brand new buildings, a bustling economy.  A    
scenic thoroughfare winds through this happy municipality.  Here, a farmer     
drives his livestock to market.  Tragically, this serene metropolis lie        
directly beneath THE HOOVER DAM."                                              
--Calvin at play                                                               
  
elmo (morrow@physics.rice.edu,morrow@fnal.fnal.gov)