Wanted: Amazing Spider-Man Reviewer-Position Filled

16 Comments

1. +1. Практически со всем согласен, но всё это ерунда, по сравнению с размерами Африки ©

2. Автор, как долго вот такой текст сочинял? Очень интересно….

3. Ага, теперь понятно…А то я сразу не очень то и не понял где тут связь с самим заголовком…

4. No no no… stillanerd, I thought you were referring to ME. I apologize as well if I gave you the wroong idea there.

   And let it be known that while I state that I can understand why he quit, I TOO don’t fault Brad’s decision.. and said so in the message board.

5. This got some attention at cbr. My comments there…

   Having now read the explanations on the Crawl Space forum, it seems that the reviewer dismissed Stern’s work in the past, saying “when have Stern’s stories ever been really notable. Sure, he had some fair times on Superman and Captain Marvel, but I really can’t think of anything that really stood out.” He had no obligation to acknowledge well-received work in the past, but that line made him seem ignorant, considering Stern’s notable work on Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Captain America and the Avengers.

   If the guy thinks Stern’s run on ASM was overrated, he could have said so.

   If he had never read an issue of Stern’s stuff, he should have said so, rather than dismissing it in such a manner.

   If he enjoyed Stern’s work in the past, he could have said so, and then explained why the review was still negative. If a critic says that Spielberg is one of the best film directors, that’s not a guarantee that a review of one of his movies will be positive.

   Or he could have just avoided mentioning Stern’s previous work (or Weeks’s previous work for that matter) and focused entirely on his thoughts about the actual quality of the issue. Which seems to be the best course of action if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

   Instead, the reviewer said something that was objectively false (that Roger Stern had no notable comic book stories outside of Superman and Captain Marvel.) That does put the editor in a weird situation.

   I moderate the Comic Book Resources forum. In there, I’d point out how the guy’s wrong. And keep the post intact.

   But when it’s commissioned work and it can reflect poorly on you and a website you founded, it’s a different situation, and it’s not out of line to edit out portions that are demonstrably false, and detract from the actual review.

6. Dang, look what happens when I stop stalkin’ CrawlSpace for less then a day!!! Thanks for the coolest Spidey site on the web, Brad! I love this board.

   I have a question, Brad, but of course it’s ok if you’re too busy to answer: Reviewing ASM three times a month seems to be very challenging. Have you ever thought about two reviewers for this book? Thanks again.

7. To Kevin Cushing: Very excellent point and well stated. As another poster on CBR stated, BJohns could have said this any number of different ways or not at all even if he did have a point. And Brad, without question, was being fair.

8. To Enigma_2099: I was not even attempting to be insulting to BJohns or Brad AT ALL, and if it came across that way, I apologize. And no, I am not calling Brad a “know-it-all” in the slightest. My “know-it-all” comment was more about how, sometimes, some writers look upon editors as such when they feel that their work is being compromised by someone who didn’t take the time to create it. Sometimes they forget that an outsider’s perspective can be an asset and make someone a better writer. Also, I put “know-it-all” in quotes to try and say that I didn’t think that Brad or most editors are “know-it-all”s in any way shape or form.

   Long and the short of it is this: BJohns is perfectly within his rights to quit for the reasons he did and Brad was perfectly in his rights to edit BJohns review. Maybe I should have said that from the outset to avoid any unnecessary confusion.

9. … not as much as someone implying that while you were trying to make an observant point, you were also being insulting while doing it… which I was NOT. Where did “know-it-all” come from?

   Or are YOU calling Brad a know-it-all?

10. To Enigma_2099: Oh I can understand it, too. Being an aspiring writer myself and having worked in journalism and editing jobs, I know it sucks to have some “know-it-all” edit your work and feel as though they’re “ruining” your piece. Even so, it does come with the territory and should be expected.

11. Hey, I didn’t say he was wrong in what he did, I’m just saying that I can understand that making him want to quit…

12. BJohns has a valid point about not reviewing an issue based upon the author’s past successes is a valid one. After all, even award winning authors can churn out very bad novels or acclaimed movie directors can make really bad movies. Just because the author is notable and celebratory doesn’t guarantee a favorable review every time. However, (and this is for Enigma_2099) Brad has every right to edit the review as he sees fit. Not only is the Crawl Space HIS website, but also anything that a reviewer or a commentator posts on this website isn’t just reflective of the author of the review; it is also reflective of the website as a whole. If Brad felt that the comments about Stern in the review were libelous against Stern, then he has the right and the responsibility to edit out such comments.

13. BLAST IT!!! I still accidentally typed the same thing twice thing twice…

    …D****T!!!

14. Disclaimers, reviewers. I suggest that from now on, be sure from now on to let the readers of the reviews know that said review basically reflects your own opinion and not the general opinions of all Spider-man readers as a whole… maybe that will help you sleep better.

    However, Brad, and I hate to say this, but if you had to go that route, I can see why he quit. Doing so, it’s no longer “his” opinion of the comic, is it?

15. Check out this link for an explanation of what happened.

    http://spidermancrawlspace.com/wwwboard/viewtopic.php?p=50417

16. Has the new guy quit already? Or does he just need help?