(Slightly) revelatory interview with McCarthy

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:43 pm

Maybe if Simon had compressed it to six issues. The MacGuffin Magnificence had no price, no payment, nothing to make it into anything other than the magic 8-Ball. And the panels felt soooo crowded in some of the issues.

I just hate that Shane defends himself against these critiques. FFS, Shane, it's the kind of thing that amateurs do in creative writing workshops. Take your lumps and move on. If you have to go on the community boards and defend your writing against hordes of rabid fans who will probably never be satisfied anyway, you don't have much confidence in your stuff. Which explains a lot.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:52 pm

Jack Cade wrote: according to McCarthy you don't get anywhere in the comics industry unless you're 'ready' (ie. a really good writer).

Oh, and that--that is complete bull****. Publishing is capricious. It's all about hitting the right person at the right time with the right idea. When an agent reads fifty submissions a day, do you really think that the forty-seventh submission has as good a chance as the first one? When they're tired and sick of reading people's ideas?

Anyone's writing is good enough to be published under the right circumstances. You get published by playing the game and finding those circumstances.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:10 pm

bumblemusprime wrote: Anyone's writing is good enough to be published under the right circumstances. You get published by playing the game and finding those circumstances.

Absolutely. Like other things, it's about being at the right place at the right time with the right people. Even in the medical field, it's a lot about who you know than how good you are.

All we have to do is read all the crap out there that's been published to know that talent alone is not the whole story.

Granted, if you are incredibly talented, sometimes no matter how much people try to stop you, they won't be able to. But how few and far between are such talents?

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:41 pm

bumblemusprime wrote: Oh, and that--that is complete bull****. Publishing is capricious. It's all about hitting the right person at the right time with the right idea. When an agent reads fifty submissions a day, do you really think that the forty-seventh submission has as good a chance as the first one? When they're tired and sick of reading people's ideas?

Anyone's writing is good enough to be published under the right circumstances. You get published by playing the game and finding those circumstances.

By following this logic to its extreme, even I could inevitably be published...

.........

Which I will be! I'll let you know once it happens. ^^

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:04 pm

bumblemusprime wrote:I just hate that Shane defends himself against these critiques. FFS, Shane, it's the kind of thing that amateurs do in creative writing workshops.

Actually, at least in principle, I disagree with you. I think he should be able to defend himself if he thinks people are being unfair - but then be equally prepared for the rejoinder. I see what you're saying though - they teach you to bite your tongue in workshops to try to get you to overcome the instinct to shut criticism out by saying 'I meant to do that' and it feels like that's all we're getting.

I mean, the way I see it, if he just replied to me with, "OK, I'm not sure I agree, but I've taken it on board" I might feel a bit fobbed off, but I could hardly take him to task over it. As it is, it's the thing of getting a reply that acts as if it's a defence but doesn't work very hard to defend which seems like the wrong move. There are a number of ways of defusing criticism and confrontation that don't seem to have been adopted.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:29 am

i would have been tempted to go for....

Are you actually telling me how to write?!

No - i'm telling you how to write better.

Anyway... the above notion is basically a fundamental mis-understanding of criticism isn't it? All criticism (as long as it is constructive) is either endorsing or suggesting changes to what a creator does.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:21 am

The way I read it is that the 'criticism' that is permissible is basically complaining, and strictly with your 'fan' hat on. Your tone has to say, "I'm just an insatiable consumer telling you what he/she wants and you're the professionals who ultimately know best" - so they can metaphysically pat you on the head and say, "Ho ho, young man, we shall see what we can do. *Wink*."

The point where it gets classified as 'rude' is when you talk as if your criticism is actually advice on how to do the job - which is, as you say, what all criticism is. Instead of being clear that they consider criticism on their messageboard an affront, however, they've come up with their own definition of it.

To be fair, in a PM to me, Shane was frank in saying that he considers close critical analysis in public to be improper (at least when it's directed straight at him). It's a step closer to the whole organisation admitting that *this* is what they have a problem with.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:44 am

Jack Cade wrote:close critical analysis in public to be improper

So I can analyse the hell out of something, so long as I don't share my thoughts with anybody?

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Well, you can send them to him privately. I guess it's just not in front of adoring fans or something.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:55 pm

What's this? Using the Private Message facility in order to circumvent the moderators? Surely that would result in bannination?

But, more (I hope?) seriously, what form of response would he take to being PM'd criticism? a) Pass it on to the moderators, b) Reply with hostility (then possibly follow on with option 'a'), c) Reply with civility, or d) Ignore it.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:33 pm

10 to 1 a combination of (c) and (d). But they can do that in public just as well, so what exactly is the problem?

I can understand that constantly dealing with critiques is a bit of a drag, especially as many will contradict one another and won't necessarily be bang on the money. I can understand that it's galling when criticism seems to be the main mode of response, in place of "How do you come up with such fantastic ideas?" But you know, that's a facet of a modern world where the creative industries are gradually becoming more democratic and less like a cadre of wizards in a high tower. You earn reverence (even if you term it 'respect') by being genuinely ******* good, not just because you got in the nest with the fourth biggest comic publisher. Otherwise - sorry, you'll get the same response as anyone else whose work is perceived to have shortcomings by the customer.