Comments on: Meth vs. Deppey: Meth responds

By: JK Parkin

JK Parkin — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:51:04 +0000

And …. we’re done. Comments are now closed.

By: Chad Anderson

Chad Anderson — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:07:48 +0000

For the record, Michael R., I have absolutely no idea who’s right or wrong in this lawsuit. I’m not a lawyer, I haven’t read all the legal filings, and I’ll leave it to the courts to decide. (I can decide for myself that Meth’s essay, as written, was a poorly conceived cheap shot, just as plenty of Deppey’s retort went over the line. Maybe there should just be a moratorium on comment until the suit’s decided?)

I enjoy the work of Harlan Ellison and I enjoy much of the output of Fantagraphics. That said, I think it’s safe to say that plenty of the supporters for either side of this lawsuit are marching in lockstep depending on their rooting interest, and the Nazi reference is laughable.

By: Michael R.

Michael R. — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:41:36 +0000

Say what you want about Netzer (and I’m sure they will) but he hits the nail on the head.

By: Michael R.

Michael R. — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:39:10 +0000

“obligatory comparison to nazis”

If the shoe fits, goose-step.

By: Chad Anderson

Chad Anderson — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:03:05 +0000

“Groth’s brownshirts should have a field day with Michael Netzer’s take”

And we made it to the obligatory comparison to Nazis in just 12 comments. Take a bow, people!

By: Pity NickW

Pity NickW — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:28:58 +0000

“Groth and Thompson are frank, out-spoken, critics of what’s garbage in the comics medium” — which is inferior to the porn the publish.

By: Pity NickW

Pity NickW — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 05:19:15 +0000

(trying this again)
No one in the entire industry is more jealous of comics creators than Groth the Abandoned. John Buscema, John Romita Sr., Harlan Ellison, and so many other TOP TALENTS have pointed this out. Those aren’t “fanboys who’ve gotten their toes stepped on,” darling. This has nothing to do with superheroes and everything to do with ethics, a value-system Groth’s poor parents failed to instill in their sorry runt. It’s hard to believe there’s people stupid enough to believe that “Groth and Thompson are frank, out-spoken, critics of what’s garbage in the comics medium.” Groth only criticizes people he can’t exploit by other means. Was Gil Kane’s art really superior to Will Eisner’s or even Don Heck’s? It’s all business to Groth; he believes controversy sells and bile is attractive. And to a certain extent, he’s right. That’s the appeal of an Ann Coulter… 100 years from now, Harlan Ellison and Julie Schwartz will be remembered for their contributions to culture. No one will remember Groth. At least not on purpose.

By: NickW

NickW — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:43:16 +0000

This is a crock.
All of these whiners that are spouting “Oh Gary Groth’s so mean to us, he deserves this!” have zero objectivity. It’s a bunch of fanboys who’ve gotten their toes stepped on by someone who points out that their objects of obsession (i.e. superheroes and other power fantasy genres) are adolescent and puerile with little to no redeeming value. Now they are coming out of their holes and collectively shouting “OH YEAH! WELL HARLAN’S GONNA SUE THE PANTS OFF YOU, BUD!” Then hiding behind the skirts of a crotchety old jerk who’s been harboring a grudge for 20 years over a mess that he created in the first place.
It’s easy for me to picture Harlan sitting in his Hollywood Hills home examining every word that Groth and Thompson have published for the last 20 years looking for something to sue them for. Finally, he finds this ridiculous-assed law that only the looney courts of California would create and jumps into the air (as much a geriatric old perv can), pumps his fist, and yell’s “I’ve finally got ‘em! The bastards! Now I’ll use this crap-headed law to sue the SOBs out of business!”
Sure Groth and Thompson are frank, out-spoken, critics of what’s garbage in the comics medium, but they don’t go out of their way trying to put other people out of business. No matter what people think of the whole Carol Kalish or Julius Schwartz scenarios. Those situations were no different than the historians who point out that JFK was a mean-spirited skirt-chaser, or that FDR may have known about the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time. It’s just that the comics world is this insular, little, inbred, pond that even a small pebble can make a big splash.

By: fangirl

fangirl — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:16:43 +0000

Groth’s brownshirts should have a field day with Michael Netzer’s take: “Gary Groth has been a self-proclaimed extremist critic within the comics community for decades. Such a mission gives rise to actions of self-defense, on the part of his targets. When the sparks reach the level these have, it would behoove Mr. Groth to take responsibility for his own messengership rather than play the victim in need of community support. His targets are more the victims, in many cases, than he is.”

By: Old-timey Usenet hack

Old-timey Usenet hack — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:18:46 +0000

“Meth’s comments aren’t allegations–they are suppositions. And they ARE supported.”

There’s a fine line between a supposition and an allegation. When it’s made public with the intent to spur public opinion, I think it crosses that line.

And, no, they aren’t supported. To support his allegation, he would have to provide us with physical evidence that Fantagraphics has such insurance. He has not, and it is thus unsupported. He can not, and it is thus unsupportable. The suggestion that other publishers have such insurance does not support the supposition (or allegation) that Fantagraphics does have such insurance.

“What he’s saying” is zero-content doo-disturbing without any basis in evidence. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so I’m not walking into this with any bias.

By: Chad Anderson

Chad Anderson — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:32:14 +0000

Admittedly, Deppey was bit harsh in his retort to Meth, but Meth was pretty harsh in his original commentary, too. Now that we’ve had the requisite tit-for-tat over insults, might Meth be willing to respond to the substantive question that Kevin Melrose posed above? Is there anything that would prove to him that Fantagraphics doesn’t have an errors and omissions policy? Or is any proof offered by Fantagraphics immediately discounted because “they’re all liars”?

By: fangirl

fangirl — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:09:15 +0000

“Except perhaps with repeated unsupported and unsupportable allegations”

Meth’s comments aren’t allegations–they are suppositions. And they ARE supported. There’s just certain people who don’t like to hear what he’s saying.

By: JK Parkin

JK Parkin — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:46:15 +0000

The sex lives of the folks involved really aren’t relevant here … posts have been deleted. Please don’t make me shut the comments down.

By: gorjus

gorjus — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:26:32 +0000

Hi, I’m your friendly legal-type. People sometimes get sued even when they didn’t libel somebody–that’s why there is a court case. At this point we cannot say with legal certainty if that speech is “malicious” or not.

And a skirmish about facts is absolutely within the ethical purview of anything Fanta wants to do. When it comes down to it, we all know Harlan Ellison (one of my favorite authors–I even have one book signed) has often used the resources of the courts to guard his real or perceived interests (which is fine). Fanta is now defending against his suit.

That’s it; it’s just math. (Entity gets sued) + (money required to defend suit) = Fantafundraisers. I’ve not understood one bit why tempers have run so hot over this case, other than wonder if personal feelings against Fanta and Harlan aren’t what’s really being battled over.

By: Dick Hyacinth

Dick Hyacinth — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:24:50 +0000

Why would the LA Wizard Convention take such an interest in this topic? Perhaps the Wizard convention has a shock of curly, unkempt red hair and a trollish little beard?

By: wizardmi

wizardmi — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:58:29 +0000

Hi, I’m your friendly voice of reason. How can people who have spoken maliciously about Harlan Ellison and claim to be protected under the first amendment, turn around and scream bloody murder when someone else calls them out in an OPINION column?

By: Old-timey Usenet hack

Old-timey Usenet hack — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:18:52 +0000

“I’ve never libeled anyone.”

Except perhaps with repeated unsupported and unsupportable allegations that Fantagraphics is insured and thus is collecting money that they don’t actually need.

I’m a fan of Ellison’s writing and not a fan of Fantagraphics’ publications. That said, I might just donate, because they’re the only ones in this set-to who are coming off as the least bit professional.

And perhaps they’ll come after Meth once they’re done wiping Ellison off their collective loafers.

By: Kevin Melrose

Kevin Melrose — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:09:48 +0000

I’m not suggesting he’s forcing them to do anything.

It’s just that, from a logic standpoint, Meth is establishing a burden of proof that would seem (virtually) impossible to meet. It allows for continued and endless speculation, because if Groth and Thompson assert, as they have, that Fantagraphics doesn’t have such insurance, then the response is, “Well, that’s what you say.”

It creates a loop, of sorts, which goes back to my original question: How do you prove that you don’t have insurance?

By: Jeff Albertson

Jeff Albertson — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:00:21 +0000

Who’s forcing them to prove they don’t have insurance? He just doesn’t think that they’re telling the truth. It’s not him they have to convince, it’s the hypothetical person who would donate to them only if they didn’t have insurance. I doubt that there are many people for whom that would be the tipping point.

Me, I think they went out of their way to provoke Ellison, so even though I think he’s got no case, I can’t get too upset about them spending money to fight him.

By: Kevin Melrose

Kevin Melrose — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:46:25 +0000

If “one can only speculate about this,” how would, um, one go about proving one doesn’t have insurance?

Meth is requiring Groth, Thompson & Co. to prove a negative. How could they do that to his satisfaction? Testify under oath? Open all of Fantagraphics’ business records to his inspection?