Occasional Supervillainess
Recently, Occasional Superheroine’s Valerie D’Orazio got mad as hell and decided she wasn’t going to take it anymore. A recent blog entry talking about stereotypes in comics got a bit heated, especially when one poster asked D’Orazio (whose comments had become increasingly condescending as the thread grew larger), “Are you capable of responding to an argument without a personal insult?”
Cue fireworks in 3… 2… 1:
D’Orazio: You don’t like what I write? Don’t come on here and whine about it like a 13-year-old. Go read another f**king blog. See if they tolerate your negativity. I owe you NO respect when you disrespect this blog. It isn’t a democracy, where you can come in here and bitch and insult me and my intelligence and I’m going to bend over backwards to make sure your rights as a debater are preserved. Got that? And if you don’t like it, please please please take you and your self-righteous whiny comments elsewhere.
Well, since you insist.
Later that day, D’Orazio decided to begin moderating the comments section of her blog, which means that she gets to pick and choose which comments appear on her blog. Now, I’m not denying that D’Orazio has the right to do whatever she wants with her blog. However, that doesn’t mean that what she’s doing is right.
Case in point: A recent post on Occasional Superheroine entitled Should Comic Industry People Be So Open to Fans? suggested that there is an inherent danger in comic book professionals relating openly to fans at conventions and on message boards. To illustrate her point, D’Orazio included a link to a Newsarama interview with Marc Guggenheim, co-writer of Amazing Spider-Man and co-creator of television network ABC’s Eli Stone. In the comments thread following the interview, Guggenheim engaged in a discussion with Kevin Huxford, former contributor to Best Shots@Newsarama and Shotgun Reviews, over the then-ongoing Writers Guild of America strike. Huxford argued that Guggenheim, a member of the WGA, should not have publicly praised Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada’s appearance on The Colbert Report because Quesada was essentially crossing the WGA picket line. The discussion would eventually lead to Huxford reporting Guggenheim to the WGA for not supporting the strike.
After using the Huxford/Guggenheim incident as an example of what can go wrong when industry professionals interact with fans, D’Orazio then suggests that comic book conventions are potential powder kegs ready to explode in violence:
D’Orazio: And say you have an unstable individual who decides to make an uber-crowded convention the focus of his rage. You’ve seen how crowded they get.
This needs to be seriously thought out. I know Wizard has some security things in place for their cons, but I would like to see what each organizer has to offer in way of protection.
Because just ONE John Lennon type incident, and this industry is going to suffer for YEARS. Even if it’s the only such incident that would happen in ten years. Prevent it now.
Whether or not D’Orazio intended to imply that Huxford is a potentially deranged maniac like Mark David Chapman, the psychotic stalker who murdered Lennon, is open to debate. But by linking the two in the same argument, that’s essentially what she does.
If you actually read the exchanges between Huxford and Guggenheim in the Newsarama thread, you see that for the most part, they were having an intelligent, rational, and civil discussion.
Guggenheim: While I’m sorry I’ve offended you, I’d much rather read the posts of someone like yourself who obviously supports the WGA than of someone who does not.
Huxford: I do want to say, Mr. Guggenheim, that I do appreciate you respectfully addressing my points and concerns, despite the fact that we may be diametrically opposed in certain areas.
Wow, Huxford certainly sounds like a nutjob there, doesn’t he?
Eventually, Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott adds his two cents to the discussion:
Slott: Agreed! Marc is a class act. If I had a thread promoting such a personal project– and someone jumped in and used it to get on their personal soapbox/high horse, questioned my principles, inferred that I’d broken my sworn pledge, implied that I didn’t sign the correct loyalty oath, and so on and so on… And AFTER I’d spent weeks shoulder-to-shoulder in picket lines and stayed TRUE to my values while navigating the tricky waters of being both writer AND producer… I probably wouldn’t have had this civil of an exchange
Why would Slott interject himself into a discussion that had nothing to do with him? Was Slott’s modus operandi to defend his friend Guggenheim from what he perceived to be a personal slight, or was he actually trying to turn what had been a civil discussion into a flame-war? Guggenheim is an adult, and he can fend for himself. He was certainly doing a fine job of it before Slott showed up.
Slott, though, has a history of conflict with Huxford. It started in the comments thread in a post at Blog@Newsarama, in which Huxford jabs at Slott for his trouble meeting deadlines, inferring that Slott should spend less time on the internet and more time writing. Slott responds by pointing out that a recent vlog review by Huxford contained erroneous information about an issue of Amazing Spider-Man. It all goes downhill from there, as Slott was so offended by Huxford’s review that he emailed Huxford, asking for his phone number and extending an invitation to discuss things privately. Huxford didn’t respond, so Slott again emailed Huxford, this time giving him his phone number, and again inviting Huxford to settle their beef privately. Again, Huxford ignored Slott. Slott posted both emails in the aforementioned Newsarama thread, along with ANOTHER invitation to Huxford for a private discussion.
Regardless of whether or not Slott was intentionally trying to provoke a more heated argument between Huxford and Guggenheim, that’s exactly what happened. In his response to Slott, Huxford reveals that he has reported Guggenheim to the WGA. That’s when the debate turned into a full-blown controversy.
Was Huxford right or wrong for reporting Guggenheim to the WGA? I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Personally, I wouldn’t have escalated the exchange the way that Huxford did. But then again, I don’t share Kevin’s personal experiences with unions. I’m certainly not going to condemn him for standing by his convictions, even though I don’t necessarily agree with his methods.
D’Orazio sees things a bit differently:
D’Orazio: I find the fact that Kevin Huxford got involved with the personal life of a comic book professional absolutely chilling.
This is the same person who wrote on my blog alleged personal details of another freelancer’s life. Ugly stuff, and rather sexist.
There seems to be a pattern, here.
These are things that are scary and cross the line. It is the job of moderators on boards and blogs to monitor this behavior.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to imply that Slott is psychotic or capable of harming Huxford or anyone else. But couldn’t Slott’s actions towards Huxford be construed as harassment? If Huxford didn’t respond to the first email, shouldn’t Slott have taken the hint instead of repeatedly asking Huxford to call him? Why is Huxford being portrayed as irrational and potentially dangerous and not Slott? In this scenario, whose actions seem the most disturbing?
As I said before, D’Orazio now moderates the comments made by readers on her blog. If you go back and read the comments made in the Should Comic Industry People Be So Open to Fans? thread, you’ll see that a large number of posters slam Huxford for his actions:
Kevin was just being a complete dick and because Marc and Dan stood up to him, he had to be a whiney baby and tried to get Marc in trouble.
Huxford tried to sabotage Guggenheim’s career because he wouldn’t scold someone. It was a ridiculous, self-righteous and petty act that nonetheless could have had grave consequences for Guggenheim.
The obvious solution here is to ban Kevin Huxford.
From everything.
The most vitriolic of the comments come from Shotgun Reviews contributor (and former Best Shots contributor) Steve Ekstrom, who has his own issues with Huxford:
Ekstrom: He’s a shit stirrer–and he’s petty, Solipsistic, and argumentative to the point of being inane and self-righteous… the stuff he’s insinuated about me and the things he said during the thread with Guggenheim and Slott–was a bunch of garbage spewing from a despondently angry guy who is desperately trying to finish up his remedial training at a “technical institute” to be an hourly wage earning IT assistant for a phone bank–if he can fake sanity long enough to make it through the standard battery of psych tests that most real employers proctor to potential hires… He’s a hack–who had just enough smarts and access to a larger forum/ audience via Newsarama to be dangerous to himself and others.
A few posters defended Huxford, including one gentleman who disagreed with D’Orazio’s entire argument:
To use the word “targeted” conveys something that didn’t happen. To then imply that the Marc Guggenheim - Kevin Huxford exchange on Newsarama proves that funny book professionals need physical protection when they attend conventions is absolutely absurd.
You’ll notice, however, that Huxford himself is absent from the comment thread. You see, D’Orazio won’t allow Huxford to post comments on her blog. Thus, he has no chance to defend himself, even though others are apparently more than welcome to slur his name and question his character.
Huxford isn’t the only one who hasn’t been allowed to comment. Shotgun Reviews and Best Shots contributor Caleb Mozzocco mentions on his blog, Everyday is Like Wednesday, that he also unsuccessfully tried to defend Huxford:
Mozzocco: D’Orazio didn’t post my comment, because apparently asking, “Hey, is it cool for you to ban this dude for doing this, but then do it to you yourself?” didn’t make the cut for re-posting in her comments.
I also tried to defend Huxford on D’Orazio’s blog, but was no more successful than Mozzocco.
Remember that quote from D’Orazio at the beginning of this story?
It isn’t a democracy, where you can come in here and bitch and insult me and my intelligence and I’m going to bend over backwards to make sure your rights as a debater are preserved. Got that? And if you don’t like it, please please please take you and your self-righteous whiny comments elsewhere.
Apparently, if your opinion is in opposition to her personal agenda, you’re also welcome to fuck off.
So, to Ms. D’Orazio, if you are reading this and would like to respond, feel free to leave a comment below. Here at Shotgun Reviews, we welcome dissenting opinions. After all, we have nothing to hide.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Now–let’s get something straight. Yeah, I don’t like Kevin–at all. Do I think he’s going to try to assassinate someone who writes Spider-Man? No.
I think the message was a bit extreme as well–but I think all of the posters here at Shotgun Reviews have MORE THAN ENOUGH BRAIN MATTER to sort that out.
When did every word or remark in the English language become so literal in a community of varied writers?
Case in point: Kevin said a lot of garbage about me in his “debate” last month…stuff that doesn’t go away when you google “Steve Ekstrom”–as one of my relatives got to find out.
So, to be fair, I returned the favor.
Again, my core issue with Kevin is still the same–he doesn’t know when to leave people or issues alone or how to shut up and move on–and he proved himself AGAIN with Valerie.
Guys…it’s her blog. She can do what she wants to. Just like Shotgun is a place for other various opinions…it’s all OPINION/EDITORIAL work. If you don’t like what’s going on over there…don’t read it. A blog is kind of like a mote of sand on a beach.
The internet is kind of like the technological “Wild West”–there aren’t rules here; there isn’t decorum when it comes to debate or argument; there’s just typing and clicking and reading–and in her case…censoring some guy that she got tired of having to argue with…because he doesn’t ever stop!
Like I told Troy, in an e-mail, when he voiced his displeasure over my remark…I needed vindication and closure. I may have used some strong hyperbole to drive my point home…but would you expect anything less from a guy who was accused subjectively of tossing people’s salads and sucking metaphorical industry cock during what was supposed to be a debate?
I’m going to shut my yapper and move on–because I’ve become part of the problem that I have with all of this kind of fruitless pursuance…because of my vengeful remarks I made.
I never claimed I wasn’t a hypocrite, right?
Well, I’m done…but to reiterate why this sort of thing is an issue.
Read this:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/archives/106871.asp
Maybe you’ll understand what the real message is here with Valerie, and me, and guys like Slott and Guggenheim.
Maybe you won’t–I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
Eks
March 19th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Never said you weren’t a hypocrite, but you sure lie about so much else, Steve.
I’ll “read you” elsewhere, sir. But you and I both know how often you’d run off at the mouth about you having conversations with Mike Carey that you hoped would turn into you getting to work on a Morlock mini-series. The whole team knows how you would mention him ad nauseum. I’m sure there were others besides myself and Koben who chuckled at how, for the longest time, the ONLY stuff you had popping up on the ‘Rama after getting the boot from Best Shots were the Mike Carey interviews.
You admittedly stepped into that Blog@ column just to tell me to shut up. So, of course, I slid a sly dig into my comment back…one that NO ONE but likely you and me even knew about. It was very inside.
If you could have managed to find the topic and stick to it in our debate, I might not have called you out on how you work your particular brand of networking, Steve. And really…if you’re embarrassed by family members knowing the way you approach trying to get ahead, maybe you should rethink your technique.
By the way…exactly what is one supposed to glean from that link, big dumb animal? That I politely ask a critic to clarify what they based their opinion on? And then commend them for admitting that they only saw a handful of episodes? Oh…the horror.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
No, Kevin, it’s the fact that your tone in the second passage is snide…and that you went back almost 6 MONTHS LATER to leave the remark.
Because you couldn’t let the response she gave to you stand.
So you followed it up with more snark…with a blatant mock of the term “Oh Well” in your response.
It doesn’t take a guy with an English degree to glean what your message was Kevin…you thought your TV show with Louis CK didn’t get a fair shake so you took it out on the critic.
You know–like those guys you didn’t like that took their beefs out on you or someone else on any given Best Shots column.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Excellent EXCELLENT analysis, Corey… every point made perfect sense to me.
There have been crazies at conventions for years, so why would you suddenly be afraid for your safety. That is a weak argument.
Not only that, if creators have that much of an issue with interacting with fans on the internet, then maybe they should… stop interacting with fans on the internet. But, you know that’s going to happen, because they like the interaction and they like being a celebrity. Well, when you’re a celebrity, you have to take the good with the bad. Do you see Alan Moore out running around, pressing the flesh with the fans? No, because he decided not to. It’s as simple as that.
As far as the follow-up commentary goes:
“When did every word or remark in the English language become so literal in a community of varied writers?”
I don’t know… probably once the internet was invented and we had to come up with LOLs and :) in order to activate the Sarcasm Detector. Half the time, those get ignored anyway.
And as far as what Ekstrom said, I think there was probably enough “debate” on both sides that could be Googled fairly well. I think that Kevin has the right to defend himself when some third-tier freelance editor makes public remarks on her blog about him, and the fact that he’s not allowed to rebut any of it is censorship to protect her ego.
Some guy wrote on a blog a couple of months ago pretty negatively about Newsarama and Shotgun Reviews, and I set him straight on several things. Fortunately, he didn’t moderate my comments, which I thought was cool. Yeah, a blog is a blog, but her blog gets some decent traffic, and she has some semi-street cred to back it up, I guess.
I think Corey addressed the Kevin/Marc issue fairly when he showed that both sides were engaging in civil discourse (to which I agree with the statement that the WWW is more like the WWWest, and this was a rarity) and that while he probably wouldn’t have done what he did, he doesn’t have Kevin’s background with unions.
I guess my point is that it is up to Kevin whether he should or should not defend himself, and I guess that people on the sidelines will either call him a pussy if he doesn’t or overreacting if he does. And I admit that I don’t know all the insider stuff about all this, but I can say one thing… I’ve seen enough dirty laundry aired on message boards about people that could have been easily avoided if people would have just talked to each other privately about their issues instead of publicizing them. But, either way, people who do that are obviously desperate for attention.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Steve: Six months later is exactly when I caught up to the response. You’re seeing what you want to see there. No more, no less.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Corey,
I know this is going to sound obvious– coming from this source– but your article presents things in a very Pro-Kevin Huxford way. Kevin has couched that his “discussion” with Marc Guggenheim was civil, but in the opinion of myself and others, it was not. Marc was very professional and courteous to Kevin, but Kevin was very accusatory towards Marc.
It’s also incorrect to say that I interjected myself into the discussion. If you go back earlier in the thread you’ll see that Kevin showed up to turn a thread about promoting Marc’s new show, ELI STONE, into a soapbox for one of Kevin’s pet causes. He used this soapbox to levy charges against Marc and unfairly paint him as someone who was betraying his union. (Later on in his posts, Kevin would go on to edit and/or rephrase his earlier accusations– changing words like “support” and “encourage” to “condone”– which have very different meanings.).
I chimed in defending Marc. Kevin and I posted back and forth and THEN Marc jumped in defending me. Marc had not addressed Kevin until that point. I was a part of the conversation. Kevin has chosen a narrative for this exchange where he portrays himself as civil and that I appeared as if out of nowhere, and that’s the narrative you’ve chosen to go with for your article.
Here is a link to the original thread where Kevin first posts if your readers would like to come to their own conclusions:
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=145182&page=3
You’ve also chosen to use Kevin’s narrative for his interactions with me. And in a few other areas too. If you’d like to balance your article with another viewpoint and get a more rounded view of these events, please feel free to e-mail me. I’m at your disposal.
Thank you for your time,
Dan
March 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Don’t fall for it, Corey: IT’S A TRAP!
Dan, I said I’d stop responding to you…I was referring to responding to you at that blog that you were pulling waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic, again…like you did at Blog@ yesterday. You know…by just making an ass out of yourself for no apparent reason in both places.
I didn’t go into that thread with a soapbox. You, however, brought in that Texas-sized chip on your shoulder from all the Spider-Man garbage. I didn’t paint Marc as anything…I just made mention of the truth (which you have such an on-again, off-again relationship with).
It’s, apparently, the position of at least one unbiased source that the discussion between myself and Marc was civil: http://forum.newsarama.com/showpost.php?p=5094647&postcount=80
That’s unless Bender-Brau is another of your aliases? ;)
By the way…weren’t you completely walking away from me, Dan?
http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?s=d6c3b8c27b765531703266c1448ab958&p=4472868&postcount=17
You realize that being banned doesn’t mean I can’t read your hypocrisy in action, right? I am glad you took my advice and started venting your feelings there instead of threadjacking across the blogosphere. Hmmm…where did I hear someone complain about that before…
Really, Dan…take the advice you gave me: get off your couch, go outside, and try to enjoy yourself. You’re being a paranoid, delusional ass far too often these days.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Dear Lord this continues throughout the web. I know the fans have been split on whether WHO to support on this topic and I’m a bit torn myself.
Slott’s comments towards Huxford were argumentative, rude, and petty. Huxford’s actions of reporting were ill thought of, disrespectful, and unnecessary. You know who was RIGHT in this whole petty thing? Guggenheim.
He was actually attempting to have a civil conversation before the reporting. It was if nothing else but interesting. I can understand the desire to support a friend and colleague but what came of it was pettiness and some irresponsibility. The overall loser in this entire thing is Slott. He’s become petty and unprofessional for attacking someone and trying to “call them out”. Really Slott? You want to be THAT petty about something like this. It’s not your fight!!! Regardless if he was right or wrong in his actions you made yourself look extremely weak minded.
With each post you place on the message board the more you lose in this entire thing. Oh and D’Orazio is wrong about Huxford going after Slott. Every thing Slott has done (the consistent emails, giving out the phone numbers, etc) is borderline stalkerish and obsessive. Be a professional Slott…step back. Please.
Oh and before you think I’m all for Huxford. He’s an ass for what he did to Guggenheim. I don’t care that he publicly supported Quesada while being a part of the WGA. Shouldn’t more people be mad at Colbert for going back on air while the strike was going on than the people that went on it?