Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
From: [m--ck--y] at [bach.udel.edu] (Mickey)
Subject: McReviews: David v. McFarlane (in Philly!)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 07:44:26 GMT


On the David v. McFarlane Matter of October 8, 1993 in Philadelphia
at the First Annual Comicfest '93:

I had planned to write something of a formal article on the David-McFarlane
debate for r.a.c.m., but have since decided that (1) I don't have
the time to write a full-blown, colorful piece, and (2) this format
is more suited to the newsgroup anyway.  So, without further ado,
some highlights of the Peter David v. Todd McFarlane debate on whether or
not Image has received fair media treatment.  (David saying 'yes' and
McFarlane 'no.')



The Opening:

George Perez moderated the debate, and he explained to everyone the general
debate rules, including who gets how many minutes to talk and when.  Perez
seemed very familiar with the format, and was an adequate moderator, but
not terribly effective at times.  (Perez proved a poor public speaker and on
the one or two occasions that needed it, failed to enforce the time limits.)
The debate started about twenty minutes late.

Peter David entered in a grey suit and made it clear from the start that he
thought this entire thing was silly.  From the beginning, he appeared
well-spoken, thoughtful, and quick.  Although I had the feeling he hasn't
done it very often, PAD proved a capable and charming public speaker.  

Todd McFarlane stepped up to his podium in a cap, towel, and shorts,
mimicking a prize fighter, and I am fairly certain that it was the Rocky
Theme he intended to have blaring through the radio that did not work for
him.  His opening remark was somewhat coherent, if rather irrelevant at
times.  He seemed to handle the public well, but it was clear from the start
that his statments needed more thought behind them.

A guy in a Bedrock (from Youngblood) suit and four LA Rams cheerleaders
entered during PAD's opening statement and gave a short cheer for Todd once
Peter was done.

Highlights One:

The debate followed the classic format where One asks Two a Question
(actually, the moderator delivers it), Two gives a response, and One gives a
bit of a rebuttal.  Todd's first move was to attack PAD's journalistic
integrity by pointing out that in the process of writing any of his columns
on Image, PAD never once called the Image offices, nor did he ever talk to
McFarlane, Liefeld, or Larsen.  (Peter tells us that about 4% of his
articles have been on Image, btw.)  This was McFarlane's most effective and
relevant moment.

Peter's response was that his column is simply a reaction to things that
occur, and more specifically, *his* reaction.  PAD inferred that since the
column reflects his opinion, that he can do his research selectively, using
those sources that seem relevant to him at those times he wants to use them.
While I certainly do not disagree with PAD's right to utilize his own
methods, I still think McFarlane made a rather effective point, based on
journalistic principles.  My own training has told me that editorials are
still bound by many of the principles of news, and that fair coverage (even
in an opinion) involves collecting data from all sides involved.  (Whether
or not any statements from Image would have failed to impact on PAD's
opinion is beside the point for me...)

Highlights Two:

The most memorable moment was when PAD responded to the fact that he and
John Byrne were labeled "psychotic" by McFarlane.  He denied that he
exhibits any psychotic behavior (and rightfully so :) ) and pointed out that
should have been considered before Todd went around making silly statements.
PAD then went on to cite a famous 1907 Bueller study on some psychiatric
disorder (whose name I missed: paralanguia?) and identifed McFarlane with it
(and the specific case wherein the patient of the study believed he was the
country Switzerland) with several comments.  He summed up the argument 
paralleling the Bueller case (paraphrasing):  The patient identified himself
with freedom and knew that the nation Switzerland identified itself with
freedom.  Therefore, the patient believed he was Switzerland.  (Peter in
reference to Todd) Ladies and Gentleman, I present SWITZERLAND!

The audience reaction to this was hysterical laughter.  McFarlane's reaction
was a good-natured brush-off with "He's good."

Highlights Three:

Peter accused Todd of contradicting himself many times, specifically in
interviews where Todd talked of sales and what makes a good comic book.
Peter made a circular argument in which he proved Todd was inconsistent in
the views he offered.  (I'm afraid you'll have to wait for transcripts or
PAD for those references.)  This was when PAD was attacking McFarlane's
position on firing the "non-founder creators" that were let go from IMAGE.

McFarlane did manage to respond that the creators failed to live up to their
contracts of producing monthly books.  He said that they had plenty of good,
late books, and that what they were looking for were good, on-time books,
which apparently creators like Grell failed to provide for Image.  He even
went so far as to say that Image founders could now be fired for poor
performance in their areas.  However, McFarlane provided his worst moment
here as well.

In response to contradictory statements, McFarlance actually said that Peter
obviously hadn't been interviewed enough and that during individual
interviews it was sometimes necessary to develop a "ghost personnae."  The
implication was that the "ghost personnae" should be able to say something,
and that should not be taken as something stated by the actual person Todd
McFarlane.  (Peter later made a humorous remark to the effect that he didn't
know if he was speaking to the real Todd or a "ghost" Todd.)  I think the
audience was too stunned by this reasoning of Todd's to actually react to
it.

Highlights Four:

From various points in the debate:

Todd confessed that he is sometimes arrogant and that he would hope that
people would not let that effect their view of what he and Image are trying
to do.

Peter confessed that he does not read Spawn when Todd asked him how could
he, TM, be a better writer.  PAD did, however, say that TM's Spider-Man was
the worst drivel he was exposed to at the time.  Peter suggested that Todd
read more to become a better writer.  Todd confessed Spider-Man's writing
was relatively poor and said he is even now still trying to improve his
writing.

Both men spent some time accusing the other of being a liar.
Peter asked Todd to cite a sample of a bold-faced lie and a difference of
opinion in from PAD's own "But I Digress..." column in CBG in order to
illuminate what Todd considered the difference between the two.  Todd's
response was something along the lines of "Believe it or not, I don't happen
to carry copies of your columns on me at all times" (although it should be
pointed out that Todd seemed to have at least one of Peter's columns before
this point).  PAD's response was to hold out a fistful of columns, which
Todd declined.

One example of contradictory statements made by Todd and cited by Peter was
that in an earlier interview, Todd said that he achieved a wonderful
writer-artist relationship with Peter while working on the Incredible Hulk.
Later, Todd accused Peter of "controlling" him while they were working
together.

Highlights Five:

The focus of Peter's attack on IMAGE was centered on McFarlane, Liefeld, and
Larsen.  There was the now famous reference where Peter explained that he
openly criticizes his own bosses at Marvel and that others leave the company
and do it anonymously (at which point Erik Larsen 'flicked him off' from the
audience).  The thrust of Peter's criticism was that the three do not think
before they act and generally say stupid things.

Anyway, Jim Lee eventually entered into the point as well.  PAD pointed out
that he does not attack Lee at all in his columns.  McFarlane took the
opportunity to say that the other IMAGE founders give Lee a little friendly
trouble every week because he does not make 'party line' statements all of
the time in order to reflect IMAGE's attitude.  PAD's response was a
vivacious remark that Jim Lee simply "is not an idiot!"  

Peter said that McFarlane, Liefeld, and Larsen's major fault lied in the
fact that they were not courteous and respectful to others in the business.
He accused McFarlane of talking about, but not practicing respect, and said
that Jim Lee was a good example of someone who did demonstrate proper
respect and that is why he is still well-liked.  McFarlane said that one
can't fight the industry and remain well-liked, therefore he was glad if
people did not like him, and implied that Lee would be more effective if he
were not so well-liked.  A somewhat belligerent argument.

Highlights Six:

The audience:

The audience seemed to heavily favor Peter David.  The response to Todd
McFarlane has been cited as "polite applause," and I would call this largely
accurate.  A significant percentage of the Comicfest attendees went to the
debate, which was held in a fairly medium-sized room (with lots of chairs
and cameras) on the third floor of the Philadelphia Civic Center.  Peter's
satire and one-liners kept the audience laughing a fair amount of time.

The fanfare:

There was a lot of media there, and there was a statement in the beginning
that permission was granted for tapes to be distributed, used on the news,
etc.  Cameras and camcorders were in force in the front third of the room
before the podiums.  I'm not certain if anyone was attending to personally
support Peter, but Todd had both Erik Larsen and Al Simmons there.  (Al
Simmons being the man he named Spawn after.)  

Closing:

Basically, PAD said that he felt this entire affair was silly and that
nothing would be resolved.

Todd McFarlane said that he felt the debate was a lot of fun, a good
experience, and that he would like to see one every year.

The judges said 2:1 that Image has indeed received fair treatment from the
media, making PAD the de facto winner of the debate.  (The details of that
ruling have already been posted to r.a.c.m.)

Mick's General Impression:

I don't think the entire thing was as pointless as PAD inferred, taken in a
certain light-hearted nature.  Peter proved himself terribly effective and
funny.  He was well-researched, bright, and witty (not at all what you would
expect from someone who rights one of Marvel's Rolling Slugfest Mags).
McFarlane had trouble making coherent points, and hesitated too long at
times.  He addressed issues directly about 70% of the time, and skirted
around them the other 30%.  Both gentlemen seemed to keep a very
good-natured attitude throughout the entire debate, but PAD seemed more
easily annoyed by McFarlane than TM was by PAD.  Todd sometimes carried an
air of dopey ignorance you would expect from Barney Fife of the Andy
Griffith Show, and I think that was what grated on PAD the most.  

I walked away from the debate with one thing very much confirmed in my mind.
Both men enjoy their own work immensely and seem very happy with what their
work is doing.  (PAD's own pride appears a bit more subdued to McFarlane's,
but I'm not one to say whether or not it might rival TM's jaded arrogance in
some way?)  That was the important thing to me:  that they both seemed to
enjoy the experience in some way or another.  In this context, I must
confess, although I personally abhor IMAGE comics, I cannot wish any ill
upon Todd McFarlane himself as he seems to be on the road to fulfilling a
dream.  (Not that I looked for reason to wish ill upon TM :].)  

Congratulations to Peter for a brilliantly played debate (and for winning
for his side, I suppose, although he made his opinion on that clear!).  My
only disappointment in the whole matter was that I had brought with me a
copy of Incredible Hulk #340, which I had hoped to find some way to have
both PAD and TM sign (if nothing else, for the sheer irony).  However, it
was very obvious by the end that neither of them would be doing autographs
afterwards.  C'est la vie.

Mick
 
-- 
Mickey McCarter, unemployed actor         |[m--ck--y] at [chopin.udel.edu]     __
"Law?  This is the only law:  the law     |[m--ck--y] at [pecan.cns.udel.edu] / |  
 of averages." - Harvey Dent, Batman: TAS |Weep not for Camelot...  /__|_ 
Existential Disclaimer: Believe what you like, nothing matters         |