Professionals Vs Fans

54 Comments

1. 44- I’m here offering my opinion, nothing else. I do disagree with your assertion that you’ve been punished for comments less problematic than Slott’s. Keep in mind that I do have access to the deleted posts at CBR.

   If someone at CBR says something critical of Slott, and he laughs it off, there really isn’t anything I can or should do about that.

   I don’t think the isolated spots metaphor works. It’s all public.

   You put the word nasty in quotation marks when I haven’t said it.

   45- If you look at the CBR message boards, there are plenty of people who say stuff that is critical of Slott. Some of them have posted in this comments section.

   47- I said for “the most part.” The vast majority of Slott’s comments don’t occur at CBR. He has 234 posts at CBR since October of last year, and 50,000+ tweets since 2009. Taking into account that he’s been on twitter for a longer period of time, he’s still much more active there. And he’s active on other corners of the internet as well.

2. Or he should just put as much dedication as he did with the Human Torch mini and RYK to all his work. The “he doesn’t know how to write” was uncalled for. He does make doubt frequently, though…

3. If you’re in the camp that does not like Slott’s writing, then you will find fault in everything he does. And annoying. I’m in that camp. I get that he’s trying to defend his work, and being human with flaws, he might get over board. It does suck, however, that he can cross lines that us fans can’t in CBR and he’s given free passes. But it’s business. What can we expect? It’s not like CBR is going to ever have a shortage of disgruntled fans to complain given his writing. Slott should follow Ilona Andrews’ advice. Now that’s a writer that knows her stuff. Better yet, he should follow any real writer’s style and learn how to write, and not just plot.

4. Saying you “don’t care” about Slott’s behavior is showing an active refusal to perform your duties as a someone who monitors people’s conduct on line, and purposefully turning a blind eye for when Slott DOES cross the line – which he does on a regular basis. If anything, how can we take your judgment seriously if you don’t care in the first place? If you don’t care enough to perform such a basic function as a moderator, why even bother holding on to the position?

5. #38: ‘I don’t think it crosses the line of acceptable discourse, but for the most part, I don’t care.’
   That’s rather an unfortunate statement coming from a CBR moderator. You ‘don’t care’ about his online behaviour? You’re a moderator on a board where Slott posts! It’s your JOB to care about people’s conduct on your board!

   Anyway, didn’t Slott announce he was quitting social media earlier this year (and then failed to do it)? I believe it was on CBR – although I’d wager that if I went looking the posts and/or thread in question would be gone now.

6. #2: There’s plenty of criticism of Slott at CBR.

   I am calling bull on that one, I know for a fact that they give him extra room with the rules because he helps them generate more clicks. Would you want an employee to act like he does online? Would you want to drive away fans by letting a person respond in an unprofessional manner?
   They know they can get special treatment by giving writers special treatment, sad but true.

   #6: The point on safe spaces can be taken in several ways. There seem to be more arguments about how Slott should be discouraged from speaking his mind, thus creating a safe space for his critics, than that his critics shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with him.

   No, Dan can speak his mind, but just because you can it does not mean you should. Dan has been know to twitter stalk and get caught, then he goes to his twitter and makes rude comments (his safe space). Dan will also ask moderators to remove posts that prove him wrong or that can make him look bad. Notice Dan does not post here anymore, ask yourself why, because it is not a safe space where moderators will protect him from himself. A professional should watch what they say when they know it could hurt business, yet Dan has a way of being offensive with regularity. If Dan has an issue he is very passive aggressive at best and on many occasions childish and rude.

   I am not saying he is a bad person, I think he needs to learn to be more professional.

7. @42: I know there’s criticism of Slott at CBR. Then he bullies people on there, and he gets a free pass for his disproportional harassment. The people on CBR who DON’T give him those free passes are instead treated like the Crawlspace itself is responsible for them being crazy. You claim that this site has “a bias towards fans against professionals”, but CBR does the reverse. Slott is hardly, if ever, shown to ever be in the wrong, and whenever someone points out that he is, he laughs it off, and rather than owning up to that, he switches the criticism to apply to someone else, and then doubles down to go into straight up attacking. And based on statements you’ve made, your stance is that the person Slott abuses outright deserved it, which is blaming the victim. You ALWAYS take Slott’s side, and your comment about there being more arguments about discouraging Slott misses the point entirely. There are arguments about Slott speaking his mind because you misconstrue the rules of CBR to allow Slott to get away with his behavior, so I argue against Slott because I am tired of you doing that. You’re trying to claim that it’s a one-way street, and it is! Just not in the way that you’re claiming it is. Slott HAS a safe space on CBR. Even when there’s criticism on there, the site is still safe for him because he obsesses over habits in his critics, makes note of their habits so that he can laugh them off, and then the moderation lets his antics slide even when I’ve been punished for making posts far less problematic than his. Even on here, where you can’t use your moderating powers to give Slott free passes, I don’t see anyone who tries so hard to defend Slott, as if you’re trying to carry your biases as a moderator over to here.

   You may like to think you haven’t tried resorting to scoring points, but you draw discussions out because someone makes really good arguments, and you respond by moving the goalposts so far that you make statements I doubt you truly care about. Your CONSTANT use of “there’s a difference” relies on tearing down legitimate arguments, and in trying to defend that difference, you take the side of whatever embodies that difference, then eventually say “But I don’t think this is relevant to a discussion” several posts later, even though you’re the one who involved it in the discussion in the first place because of that “difference”, which you hold as crucial to correcting the “misunderstanding” someone made. You expect people to infer where you’re coming from, and when you say “there’s a tendency to try to imitate the worst behaviors of something else, and that can lead to being a caricature of that thing. When someone tries to act the way they feel someone they dislike acts, they’re often going to come across much worse, since they’re less likely to capture subtleties or moments when the guy is being generous”, Slott does ALL of that. Every single criticism you throw under the label of “fans” can apply to Slott. You’re just applying negative connotations for “fans” and the connotation of a victim for “Slott” to make it sound like “nasty” fans are bullying poor innocent Slott, skewing the narrative exactly as the Newsarama article did. What you and McLauclin fail to understand is that people respond to Slott because he is the aggressor. He’s like a schoolyard bully who lures another student to an isolated place at a very specific time, constantly pushes them and teases them, mocking them until the lured student snaps, punches the student, so that other people “conveniently” come in and see the lured student as punching the other student “for no reason”. Slott pushes people past their breaking point, hence why he would make some boasts at least during Superior and for Renew Your Vows that he would be making people mad. However, once people DO get mad, he acts like those people are overreacting, when in reality, they’re giving him the EXACT reaction he wanted them to have.

   Stop trying to defend Slott. He really doesn’t deserve it. I understand people who want to play devil’s advocate, but you take it so far that you paint Slott as the REAL victim, when he is anything but.

8. Ebony, I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the podcast. I don’t know how far in you are, but you absolutely HAVE to listen to episode #104… It’s the episode where they gave their review of “Shed”, and it is hilarious!

   Seriously, this is required listening!
   http://podbay.fm/show/384366241/e/1277139600?autostart=1

9. #2: There’s plenty of criticism of Slott at CBR.

   #6: The point on safe spaces can be taken in several ways. There seem to be more arguments about how Slott should be discouraged from speaking his mind, thus creating a safe space for his critics, than that his critics shouldn’t be allowed to disagree with him.

   #39: Brad asked about why someone might consider the website to be negative, so I gave my thoughts on the subject. If someone puts a statement out for public consumption, there is certainly the argument that strong pushback is allowed. There’s an argument that parity is not merited, and I can understand it, but the comparison is relevant to a point on perception.
   My statement that posters were discouraged from criticizing the board was based on incidents that happened years ago. It’s relevant to Brad’s question.
   I think this board has a reader space ethos, in the sense of how Ilona Andrews sees it, but it doesn’t explicltly identify itself as such.
   I never suggested that Slott is unable to control his side of it. I think my comments are fairly neutral.

   #40: It’s something I bserved in political discussions, and then realized it sometimes applies to arguments on Spidey. I’d like to think I haven’t done it, but I probably have at some points over the years.

10. #38 From what I’ve taken from what I’ve listened to so far Brad is by far the most “Give em the benefit of the doubt” of the entire cast. He’s incredibly optimistic about all Spider-Man content (Except for what was it, the most recent Marvel Knights Spider-Man mini?) so you’re attempt at equation of Brad and Dan fall flat. That and as someone said, even though he runs a website and a podcast he’s still just a fan and receive no check from Marvel for involvement with the Spider-Man franchise. Fans don’t receive a check either (if so, I’d like some back pay), so by default Slott has a higher level of expected professional behavior when in a public forum. It’s literally part of what he’s being paid to do. He represents Marvel and by context to his job, he also represents each book he’s writing. You better believe his personal behavior has an impact on his job. An artist at Image (for example) recently was kicked off the book he co-created (Rat Queens) because of some personal issues he had that became public. So go figure that.

11. @38: “Sometimes there’s a tendency to try to score points by making arguments you don’t care about, which just leads to everyone wasting their time”

    You sound like you’re speaking from experience, as if you’ve contributed to that tendency.

12. #38:

    A really terrific example of tu quoque logical fallacy in action. Congratulations! You attempted to take a conversation about Dan Slott off topic by criticizing how Crawlspace users talk about Crawlspace, even though the two are not analogous.

    One behavior is fans discussing a piece of commercial content for which they paid. A piece of content which they own according to right of first sale.

    The other is your assertions of how people discuss a fan community, with no supporting evidence to back up your claims that fans can’t discuss the boards (and even so, again, there is no equivalency between discussing a piece of PAID FOR COMMERCIAL CONTENT and a privately funded community that has posted community standards by which its users abide). Not to mention, this is a READER space. It doesn’t belong to Dan. Dan has his Twitter and could have his own website and you’ve allowed him to turn the CBR Spider-Man forum into his own fiefdom. Which hey, your forum, your rules, even if they don’t appear to be enforced equitably. But still, YOUR space.

    The owners of Crawlspace are free to enforce their community standards. That’s their prerogative as owners. On the other hand, Marvel and or Dan Slott do not and CANNOT enforce how people discuss a piece of commercial content in publicly, not controlled by them spaces. PERIOD.

    Your analogy is highly fallacious and has no rational basis.

    You then suggest Brad is responsible for Slott’s behavior, as apparently Slott has no free will and can’t control his side of the “feedback loop.” That’s ascribing a lot of power to Brad, just sayin’.

    Last: NO. CREATORS ARE NOT THE SAME AS READERS. BY DEFINITION.

    I’m going to repeat what Ilona Andrews, #1 NYT bestselling author recently named as one of 2015 best fantasy novelists) wrote:

    “Authors should respect those reader spaces. This has to do with the imbalance of power between an author and a reader. If the author has done his job right, he created something that affected the reader. Give me an hour of your life and I will change the way you feel. I can make you sad. I can make you happy. I can take you away or I can make you rethink your life. The reader can’t do the same to the author. The reader can write a review, but that review is in response to how the writer already made them feel.

    “Let the readers have those spaces. They need them, because if the author engages with the readers there, the observer’s effect kicks in and the author risks changing how the book made the readers feel. Reading is an interactive, creative experience. Just like writing of the narrative can’t happen with the communal oversight, neither can reading and thinking about the book occur with the author looking over the reader’s shoulder.”

13. 1) Should creators stay offline and avoid engaging in discussion and let the work speak for itself?
    No. I think it’s a great thing for the next generation of writers. artists and editors that current comics creators engage in these discussions. I want more on how the sausage is made.

    2) What are your thoughts on Dan Slott’s online behavior with fans who criticize his work?
    I don’t think it crosses the line of acceptable discourse, but for the most part, I don’t care.

    3) What advice would you have for your fellow fans on how to deal with professionals online?
    I don’t know if usually there’s much of a difference in how someone should respond to a professional, or to someone they just disagree with. Much of the advice remains the same.
    The internet is a public space. You can’t control how someone’s going to respond to you. Some people get upset when a professional gets involved because that raises the profile of the discussion, although that is a position that is rarely articulated.
    I’ve noticed complaints about the behavior of pros from fans who are nastier. I think sometimes there’s a tendency to try to imitate the worst behaviors of something else, and that can lead to being a caricature of that thing. When someone tries to act the way they feel someone they dislike acts, they’re often going to come across much worse, since they’re less likely to capture subtleties or moments when the guy is being generous.
    Be honest to yourself, and articulate your positions. Sometimes there’s a tendency to try to score points by making arguments you don’t care about, which just leads to everyone wasting their time (the guy you’re disagreeing with might try to prove you wrong, You’re left defending a position that doesn’t matter to you.) Be willing to say something unpopular and interesting, so the people you’re conversing with can have a fuller understanding of where you’re coming from. They shouldn’t have to infer it.

    4) Why does Slott lump this whole website as negative? Our podcast grades and online grades of his work are all over the place.
    There’s several factors here. This is all from my impressions, so take it with a grain of salt.
    The podcast has included guys who really don’t like Slott’s work, and have been quite willing to say so consistently and strongly. George and Kevin would be the main examples. I think they’re willing to say stuff about Slott’s coworkers, that they would be outraged if someone said about Brad.
    But the majority of Slott’s interactions seem to be with what’s been written here, either in the message board, or in the comments sections, and editorials. That has a different skew. Part of it is that a sorting occurred that kind of left this website with a community that mostly doesn’t like the current direction of the comics.
    I don’t think there’s an intentional bias towards negativity, but there is a bias towards fans against professionals. Creators are held to a higher standard, which could lead to a creator concluding this place is skewed against him. My sense is that there’s an ethos that fans should be free to speak their minds about the comics, which discourages pushback. On the other hand, posters were definitely discouraged from criticizing the board.
    There’s a bit of a feedback loop. If Slott takes things personally, so does Brad. And that’s not a great combination. So someone on this board says something about Slott. Slott likes this board less. Slott says something about this board. BD likes Slott less. And the process repeats, as two middle aged professionally successful Spider-Man fans who probably agree on more than they disagree say stuff they shouldn’t be proud of.

14. When you so radically change a character that’s been beloved by loyal fans for over 50 years, you’re going to catch some flack. (And well you should)!

    I am one of the world’s biggest Spider-Man fans, and until recently, I had a complete collection of every Spider-Man title ever published. But after what Dan Slott (and others) have done to the character in the past 4 or 5 years, it would literally take an act of divine intervention to get me to read (let alone purchase) another new Spider-Man comic.

    So, if Slott can’t handle that kind of truth, then he should quit writing the book. Or grow a much thicker skin.

15. Ebony,
    Glad you are listening to the show and enjoying it. Itunes only has 300 episodes on it. If you want to listen to the first 100 episodes here’s a link to all of them.
    http://podbay.fm/show/384366241

16. #32 Thank you. I’ve been going through the podcast rather regularly on Itunes this week while driving and it’s some good stuff. Got to the start of the whole BND event on the podcast and the comments on that just brought a Grin to my face.

17. Slott has ego problems. He just can’t take criticism without trying to mock someone. A “professional creator” should not mock the fans.

    Crawlspace dose not bow down to slott all the time. No wonder he hates this site.

18. Wow, i haven’t looked at that in years. 600+ comments? Sheesh.

19. Man Brad, I think you should send Dan Slott a thank you card for the free advertisement. His little tirade was the best PR you could get!

    Also, welcome Ebony! I think you’ll enjoy your time here at the Crawlspace. Not only is it the best Spidey site around, but Brad and his team work really hard to keep things civil here. They don’t take crap from anyone…and that includes creators, as well as posters. (Which is why Slott and Wacker hate it so much! I’ll never forget the brouhaha that led to the ban-hammer coming down…ah, memories!)

    http://www.spidermancrawlspace.com/2010/12/07/slott-tells-fan-to-f-themselves/

20. @#29 – Wow! Very well said, I couldn’t agree more. That’s tellin it like it is.

    @#30 – Yeah, I agree. In Australia a $2.99 book sells for $5.00 and a $3.99 book sells for $6.00 and that’s from the comic book store. The mark up is even higher
    if you purchase from a newsagent. So yeah, if I’m spending good money, then I expect a quality product.

21. If the books were cheaper maybe we wouldn’t care as much?

    .. just sayin’.

22. @#23- I think the issue with Slott isn’t that he doesn’t face unnecessarily harsh criticism. It’s that he seeks out and attacks anyone who is even REMOTELY critical of his work. It’s not people aren’t stalking him on twitter, constantly telling him to die. HE is going out of HIS way to interject himself into conversations people are having about expressing their honest opinion regarding his work.

    I don’t really care if Slott isn’t “wired that way.” This isn’t about him fighting the good fight against some nasty people out there who have nothing better to do than to mock him endlessly. This is about him not being able to handle criticism in any way shape or form, and have such a fragile ego that he can’t let anything go. That he obsesses over the fact that people are being critical of him, and he can’t control what they say.

    Just look at what he tells people. He says he’ll be fair if the criticism is “valid.” Yet he never sets down the criteria as to what constitutes “valid” criticism. All he responds to is people just saying they disagree with his work. And sometimes that disagreement is very reasonable, yet he still mocks and belittles them whenever and wherever he can. He tells people they can’t judge the work until they issue comes out, and then to judge it fully. But when people DO that, he tells them that they have to “adjust” the way they evaluate it. That they have to “suspend” their “disbelief”, under the assumption that they didn’t do so already regarding a story about a human with spider-powers. Essentially, the ONLY way that we are allowed to “evaluate” his material, the ONLY statements that are “valid” are only the ones telling Slott what a great writer he is, how great a story he is telling, how amazing he is and how we never want him to leave.

    That, to me, is incredibly dishonest, disrespectful, and massively egotistical. Telling people, DEMANDING that they evaluate HIS work the way HE tells them to, tells me that Slott doesn’t care about telling the best story. He doesn’t care about being a good writer. He doesn’t care about improving his craft. Because he doesn’t WANT honest feedback. He wants endless sycophantic praise. And that’s not a problem that the “negative fans” are responsible for. That’s Slott’s problem, and it won’t get better until HE acknowledges it.

23. @24

    “I do think blocking accounts you don’t want to hear from on social media is healthy. But being able to quote things said by accounts you’ve blocked is unhealthy. Following blocked accounts from Twitter to Tumblr to message boards to blogs is VERY unhealthy, especially when it’s chronic.”

    This is EXACTLY what he has done to me. He’s blocked me, yet he still stalks me on Twitter, and possibly Tumblr. This is why I’m sick of being told that I’m the one who has the issues with Slott. I won’t deny those issues, but the people who try to make those claims do NOTHING to acknowledge Slott, particularly on CBR. Moderators bend over backwards to just IGNORE that Slott is doing exactly what they think I should not be doing. This Newsarama article is so one-sided and pathetic, and I have doubts about that book it brings up. I especially remember when Kathleen Hale came up. Didn’t Slott take Hale’s side on that one? He backpedaled HARD once it turned out that everyone else was against Hale.

24. 1) I have no problem interacting with creators online, but it should be sparse, and not trying to constantly publicize or defend their work. I want to be able to interact with them online like I would at a convention, not like I’m on the floor of my high school debate club.

    2) No. Just… No. Slott’s behavior has been anything but professional. He has acted childish, cannot take a joke, and has been overall a very mean-spirited person who won’t take the slightest criticism on his books.

    3) Don’t take any hits, but also don’t get so aggressive that you make the other person think they’re winning. The best solution is to remain calm and type like a civilized human being with the 141 characters you have. Slott, in my personal experience, feeds off that negative writing that sounds like an Internet troll, so just keep your cool and don’t let the other person get the better of you.

    4) Because Slott thinks that every character he makes is absolutely perfect. We don’t agree with him. Slott automatically thinks we’re evil human beings. The end.

25. #24
    That was Amazing!
    I stand and clap for that well written post.
    I have to say that I have seen him use every fallacy on the chart.

26. I accept the admonition. I want to be clear, though, that I get angry because I interpret the attacks on Crawlspace as attacks on -Brad Douglas-, who in my opinion bends over backwards to keep it civil. So yeah, I’ll work to tone it down, but that stuff truly does make me get upset.

27. TL;dr. Sorry!

    The book community has been struggling with these questions for some time. In general, the advice to book authors is: DON’T RESPOND TO REVIEWS IN A PUBLIC SPACE. Even good reviews. It’s considered unprofessional, even if the author responds positively, because it’s viewed as an intrusion on a space that should be safe and reserved for readers. Authors who respond to criticism in a negative or defensive manner are branded as BBAs or Badly Behaving Authors.

    In response to the Newsarama article, I’ll point out “mental behavior issues” are not one-sided, and there are very good reasons why readers stay anonymous on the net. Author Richard Brittain stalked a negative reviewer via Facebook, then went to the teenage girl’s work and smashed a bottle over her head. Kathleen Hale became obsessed with a reviewer and “catfished” her, then was so proud of her irrational behavior she wrote an article for The Guardian about it. Book bloggers were not amused. One highly influential book blogger wrote in response in the Hale incident:

    “When you publish a book, when you create anything and release it into the world as entertainment to be consumed and enjoyed by other people, you lose all control of the conversation about your creation…You and your book are SEPARATE THINGS. They are NOT THE SAME…a review isn’t an invitation to an author for a conversation.”

    In response to another highly public dustup between an author and a book blogger over a negative review, an ebook publisher wrote in Publishers Weekly: “[Responding to bad reviews] risks making the author look petty…Allowing your friends and colleagues to support you may feel comforting, but they are unlikely to appear objective – and any orchestrated response will be met with claims of bullying, something that really stirs up an online community…. Authors should leave the arguments to the readers, and take the view that it’s better their book is talked about than ignored.”

    Ilona Andrews, a New York Times bestselling author, writes, “Authors should respect those reader spaces. This has to do with the imbalance of power between an author and a reader. If the author has done his job right, he created something that affected the reader. Give me an hour of your life and I will change the way you feel. I can make you sad. I can make you happy. I can take you away or I can make you rethink your life. The reader can’t do the same to the author. The reader can write a review, but that review is in response to how the writer already made them feel….Let the readers have those spaces. They need them, because if the author engages with the readers there, the observer’s effect kicks in and the author risks changing how the book made the readers feel. Reading is an interactive, creative experience. Just like writing of the narrative can’t happen with the communal oversight, neither can reading and thinking about the book occur with the author looking over the reader’s shoulder.”

    So to answer the questions:

    1) Of course creatives can be online. They can engage in discussion all they want or post GIFs or talk to each other or recommend movies, etc etc etc. What they should NOT do is respond to criticism OR invade a reader space. And especially they should NOT seek to shape or control reader discussion about their work. That’s just…massively insecure, dishonest and manipulative.

    2) I find Dan Slott’s behavior counterproductive to thoughtful discussion. He uses logical fallacies, snark, condescension, and outright insults in attempts to shut down discourse, rather than take what is being said at face value and respond to the discussion in a reasoned, thoughtful manner. His habit of bringing up old arguments just to mock people or to get his fans to pile on is especially problematic. I posted a recent example in the Social Media thread.

    I do think blocking accounts you don’t want to hear from on social media is healthy. But being able to quote things said by accounts you’ve blocked is unhealthy. Following blocked accounts from Twitter to Tumblr to message boards to blogs is VERY unhealthy, especially when it’s chronic.

    3) In the words of Wil Wheaton: Don’t be a dick. A person’s social media is their online home. Don’t be the guy who leaves a bag of flaming dog poo on someone’s doorstep. So don’t @ creators on Twitter to say “you suck.” Don’t leave nasty personal comments on someone’s Facebook page. Don’t send insulting asks via Tumblr. Behave like you would if you were meeting them face to face.

    BUT. A reader’s home should also be respected. Having a conversation with a friend on Twitter about how much you hate a book is perfectly fine. Exchanging negative views about an issue on a message board is perfectly fine. If the creator intrudes on YOU on YOUR SPACE and tries to control your speech: THEY’RE being the dick.

    As long as the criticism is confined to the book itself and doesn’t attack the creator personally: IT’S FINE. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    4) He’s really doubling down on the Crawlspace hate lately, isn’t he? Here’s my take: Slott responds to criticism with logical fallacies. I’ve seen him use pretty much this entire chart: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

    His favorite fallacies tend to be strawman, appeal to authority (his own, of course. He’s apparently taken Word of God to be literal), and bandwagon (look at my sales! look at my sales!). But lately, he’s been turning to tu quoque – answering criticism by criticizing the criticizer – and, when it comes to Crawlspace and its users, genetic and ad hominem attacks: if a critic has been seen near Crawlspace, then they must be eeeee-vil.

    But they’re logical fallacies. They get him out of having to engage in any kind of open, honest discourse or responding to thoughtful criticism. And why Crawlspace for his genetic attack? I think the answer lies in his own words: “the bright spots get brighter, but the dark areas show up so much darker.” He’s gotten to the point where, when he thinks of Crawlspace, all he can see are the dark areas. He can’t see the light at all.

28. I think the criticism of Slott can come off as too harsh at times. But none of us fans want to see the character disgraced.

    The big break point for me (and where I basically stopped buying Slott’s run cold) was Superior #9. The whole sequence where Ock basically convinced Peter that Peter would endanger a child’s life–it was very poorly portrayed and is one example of many where Slott will terminate a character’s personality for whatever plot he’s trying to peddle. We’ve seen it again and again, with Felicia and Mayday too. This is why Slott’s run gets slammed, because certain readers don’t trust his approach overall.

29. One thing I suggest is that if you want people to treat you well online, you should not provoke them. For example Dan tweets comments that can be considered offensive to half of the population ever day. Should he have a personal opinion, yes, but when you represent a company you may consider keeping your views to yourself. At a minimum you should present your views in tactful way not things such as:
    “Ever notice how every gun owner who tweets is a responsible gun owner? My theory: All the irresponsible ones have shot up their keyboards.”

    How does he not think that tweets like that can be offensive to some people?

    Now take the same person and you will find that he plays the victim card whenever anyone disagrees with him. Often Dan brings the negativity onto himself and runs to his followers to defend him (his safe space).

    Sites like CBR and Newsarama are not helping by making up a narrative and providing safe spaces and articles that paint him as a saint online, this only adds to peoples issues with them.

    When a site like this or (cheap plug) thehenchmenslounge.com provide a place for people to discuss comics honestly.

30. 1) Under normal circumstances, I don’t really care either way. It’s their own business what they do in their free time. Thing is, they have to be prepared to accept the fact that not everyone is going to kiss their butts. Nothing excuses the most extreme examples in that Newsarama piece, but comic creators (Slott included) have a nasty habit of acting like all criticism is a personal attack.

    2) Dan Slott is the biggest crybaby I have ever seen. I have generally avoided Marvel since the “One More Day” fiasco and Slott’s a big reason why. I am not going to contribute to the salary of a guy who treats dissenting viewpoints with such contempt. He is brazenly unprofessional and a thin-skinned whiner, to boot. You would never catch Stan Lee carrying on the way he does and that’s probably the best way I can think of to sum up Slott’s behavior.

    3) Always be professional and keep the criticisms focused on the work. I tend to be of the “treat others the way they treat you” mentality, but if insult a comic creator for insulting you for, it’s too easy for them to act like they’re the ones being victimized. Besides, I suspect an honest, legitimate criticism of the work of Slott and others in the business hurts them more than any insult possibly could.

    4) People with thin skins and bloated egos don’t take kindly to any criticism. They hold grudges and generally stomp their feet–running to friendly outlets to throw pity parties. I genuinely feel sorry for people like that. To be so consumed with anger at people he doesn’t even know; the poor guy must lead a very unsatisfying life.

31. His Twitlonger post was very interesting. Basically, he says he knows one is supposed to let negative stuff roll off one’s back and grow a thicker skin, but he’s “not built that way”.

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn5d04

    I suspect more of his online interactions would go better for him and us, if we got to see more of that Dan Slott.

32. Ebony,
    Again, welcome to the site. I’m the owner and yes, you did indeed inspire the article. So thanks for the inspiration and surviving your first online debate with Mr. Slott.

    @18- That’s a pretty big leap to think those two would commission an article of this nature. I did question the word “gregarious, friendly” when describing Slott in the piece. His online videos where CBR is interviewing him,he does come across that way, however when he’s on forums in a disagreement, he’s the opposite.

33. Oh, by the by- after this article was posted, I sent a tweet over to Jim McLauchlin, saying that if he wanted to talk to people who were willing to give their real names and talk about their issues with creators- specifically regarding Slott- then he should swing by the Crawlspace and ask some of the people here to give their own stories.

    That was about a week ago. I’ve yet to hear back from him or see him respond to my invitation in any way.

    So, I really question whether or not Jim really did a lot of digging to find “Those types of fans” who are critical of Slott, or if he simply did the bare minimum just to cover himself.

    Given the fact that the two most prominent figures in the article are Breevort and Slott, who have had the most issues with the fans, I wonder if this really was a “spontaneous” article to talk about ACTUAL negative behaviour from the fans, or is an attempt to just whitewash Slott and Breevort’s attitudes to make them out to be the victims of a larger conspiracy.

34. Holy cow. I think I may be the cause of this article!

    I don’t think the problem is so much that Dan Slott spends so much time on fan related sites and interacts with fans, I think the problem is spends too much time on Fan related sites Patrolling fan comments and attempting to police and control what they have to say. He doesn’t quite get the “fan forum” concept where one day you’re going to have fans singing the praise of the book they read and other days fans complaining about what they didn’t like. And normally that’s a healthy reaction for a fandom because it generates discussion and allows fans to share their ideals with other people who are few on the planet who are even going to know what they are talking about. Being able to VENT or Praise the thing you are passionate about is what makes fans “fans” and what causes them to keep coming back to buying the thing they are a fan of. Often fans are slavishly dedicated to the thing they are fans of and it takes a lot to finally make them give up on it. They are willing to support their fanship through up times of great stories and even down times of really bad stories. The bottom line is, they’re still spending the money on the thing they are a fan of wither they currently like where it’s going or don’t (We’ve all been there).

    Slott’s problem though is he feels he can control the narrative of fan reactions. It’s rare to see him begin interaction with fans when positive comments are made about his work, but man say one negative thing and like Beetlejuice or the Candyman he appears with a counter argument about why the fan isn’t quite getting the validity of his work or trying to convince them that it’s really good, they just are taking it too seriously (I’m not sure it’s ever wise to tell a fan who spends money they are taking something too seriously from a business point of view. it’s that taking it seriously is what makes them spend $5 on printed paper of cartoon characters month after month instead of using that $5 on something more “adult” productive ) Often these attempts to “correct” the fan results in push back from the fan, because who wants to be told their opinion about something is wrong and if only they saw the light they would actually enjoy something they aren’t. That it’s clearly their fault for not getting it. And because the fan pushes back, Slott (not knowing how to just let things go himself it would see) pushes back and 5 CBR forum pages later, you got a dragged out conversation that nobody intended to start out having, but now you’re in the thick of combat and it becomes a contest of who’s going to throw the white flag and surrender first.

    That being said. To answer the questions
    1)I do believe creators should let their work speak for itself. The Mystique of the creator (For me) has always been one thing that endured me to the Marvel creators of the 80s and 90s. There’s something about projecting your own thoughts about who they were, how they were, what they thought that made them more figures to look up to and what made it exciting to meet them in person if you ever go the chance. Social media has a bad habit of displaying mannerisms in a creator that “Ruins the vibe” because if the creator has a bad attitude or personality it sours you to anything they may work on, regardless of how good or bad the work may happen to be. BUT, if you just got to do it and got to be online, remember, YOU ARE THE PROFESSIONAL and the fan is THE FAN (or to be more correct, THE PAYING CUSTOMER). I don’t know in what line of business it’s ever smart to argue with your customer no matter how wrong you may happen to think they are.

    2) I think I already covered this one by say, “Chef, stay in the kitchen. Let the diners dine.”

    3) Never let a person make you believe your opinion isn’t any more valid as someone else’s but (and I could follow my own advice on this one, but something about Spider-man brings the arguer out in me) don’t let them drag you into a back and forth. Once you realize the reply count is getting up there, it’s time to pull the rip-cord and bail. Otherwise you may end up not wanting to have anything to do with anything they touch and ultimately it just ruins your own fan-enjoyment.

    4)I know during my interaction, he completely ignored the positive things I actually did say about his work and only focused on the negative, so I believe he’s a person who demands praise and doesn’t deal with negativity well. He must right the wrong. I’m personally glad he directed me to the site. I find this page incredibly productive to the Spider_man property because of all the news reported about it (I have no idea how you guys keep this going daily) and if he were smart, having a site that is as well indepth as this one would be more to His and Marvel’s benefit than determent. Besides, if people only wanted to see nothing but positive reviews not matter what they can either just go to one of Marvel’s PR pages or just read a CBR review. 😀

35. 1) No. But they should be aware that they are not just representing themselves, but also the company they work for, and the mythos they are working on.

    Much like how someone who works at a Best Buy just can’t unload on a difficult customer, someone like Slott shouldn’t just unload on fans if he finds them “disagreeable.

    2) I find it incredibly unprofessional. Other creators are capable of engaging with fans without resorting to such name calling. There is no excuse for Slott’s behaviour, given the fact that he picks and chooses who he engages with and deliberately goes after some certain rather than others.

    3) As your parents tell you- treat others the way you want to be treated. If a creator treats you with respect, do the same. If the creator disparages you, there is no reason that you have to continue to curb your words. That doesn’t mean be overtly rude, or make baseless, personal attacks. But if the creator isn’t going to be civil, there’s no reason to treat them with any sort of reverence or excuse their negative behaviour.

    4) Because the site dared to be honest with Slott. And that means being critical and not endlessly praising what he says and does.

    Slott, at the end of the day, is massively insecure. He cannot properly deal with criticism in any way shape or form. He is massively hypocritical in regards to how people should “evaluate” his work. He tells people who are just seeing previews that they need to “wait and read for themselves.” But when they do, he tells them they either have to change the way they evaluate his stories, or just stop reading entirely. In other words, the only feedback that is determined as “valid” by Slott is that which just tells him what a great story it is and what a great writer he is.

    The Crawlspace, however, doesn’t do that. It treats his work fairly. If it’s good, it is praised. If it’s not, it’s criticized. Everywhere else, that would be considered fair. But since Slott doesn’t care about fair and reasonable evaluations of his work, and wants to be in control of the narrative, a site like Crawlspace rubs him the wrong way. And since it is one of the largest Spider-Man fansites online, the evaluations of the material is given extra weight. It’s also a site that won’t give him special treatment. It won’t cover up his mistakes, whitewash his antics and look the other way when he steps out of line. It treats him like everyone else. And for someone like Slott, being treated like everyone else is not something he can stomach.

36. You know I don’t want to kiss his ass. I’d just like to be civil and not have every conversation have him insulting the site. I praise several of his issues yet it’s not a two way street. I’ve just never dealt with a creator like him before on the site.

37. Slott should quote GBS: “Dear sir or madam,
    You may be right”.

38. 1) Should creators stay offline and avoid engaging in discussion and let the work speak for itself?

    Once you put your work out there n the public eye, you open yourself up to criticism. That’s just the way it is. If you don’t want to deal with it personally, then don’t.

    2) What are your thoughts on Dan Slott’s online behavior with fans who criticize his work?

    Slott’s the LAST person that should be talking about the online behavior of others.

    3) What advice would you have for your fellow fans on how to deal with professionals online?

    Use your head and be civil about it, that way you don’t come off looking like the bad guy in the situation. Even if the professional may grate your last nerve…. oh god so much THIS.

    4) Why does Slott lump this whole website as negative? Our podcast grades and online grades of his work are all over the place.

    Because you refused to kiss his ***, Brad. You actually call him out when he doesn’t wrte a good book. Which DOES happen, despite his reluctance to admit it.

39. @11-Lets avoid the name calling and have a civil discussion.

40. 4) Because Slott is a narcissist, and when confronted he lies as a ploy for sympathy.

41. Let’s dissect what stilanerd asked Dan. He asked a question about the story. Now, was this casual nitpicking, an honest concern from a glaring and obvious plot hole that ruins the story is not explained, or was it an excuse to bash someone’s work because they don’t like it? In one of his last posts, Dan said:
    “Most of the time what a poster is really saying is “I don’t like this”– and they’re flailing for anything to back that up, when it’s perfectly okay to just say, “I don’t like this.””

    So he thinks it’s the third option. I think fans that criticize his work can fall into any of these three categories, but Dan lumps them all into the third. Therefore, whenever addressing an issue, he goes into snark mode and fuels the fire, instead of picking his fights. If he had plans to address the whole Jhonny Storm didn’t own the Baxter Building thing, he would have said “wait and see.” But it was obviously an oversight. So he should have stayed QUIET. It’s not like he’s gonna say “my bad… I forgot.” Personally, I don’t like his work in the main book, so it would be impossible to objectively criticize. Therefore, I don’t even bother because I’m not going to like any answer he gives. So why even start a fight or online argument that no one is going to win? But then again, not everyone thinks like me, some people have honest concerns that don;t get properly addressed.

42. @#8 Captain Frugal — That makes sense. I can understand how difficult it can be to hear what one perceives as negative feedback about something you’ve put so much work into. But there is one thing that Dan Slott (presumably) shares with all of us, and that is love of Spider-man — I remember he had the audacity, in fact, to say that he was the biggest Spider-man fan — which actually illustrates your point. I wish that he, and those fans who actually do engage in personal attacks, would remember that underlying all of that is a love for a character that is more encompassing than whatever rivalries he may have with particular readers. That is why the criticism on this site, I feel, is even-handed, and therefore would be extremely valuable to him as a writer. We all just want good stories, and even if one of us disagrees or doesn’t understand something that he writes, and that is voiced in one of the reviews here, it doesn’t mean that the reviewer hates him or is even negative per se — it’s a reflection of how much we want a character that we love to be accurately represented. To that end, if I wrote Spider-man, I would appreciate the honest feedback. I know that Dan Slott must give his all to the stories and can even understand how much it hurts to feel one’s work is misunderstood; for many writers that is perceived as nothing less than a threat to their very identity. But I think respecting and paying heed to any and all feedback, even if one doesn’t agree with it — out of regard for the customer, in the case of Marvel without whom the writer would not have a job — is the best way to demonstrate that one puts his heart and soul into the work. Not defending that work at all costs through petty arguments and puerile fighting.

    That is how I feel, at any rate.

43. Evan, that is where I see the big problem, by the things Dan says and does he believes that he is above every one. If you praise him, he will share it everywhere but if it is negative he will hide it or try to attack the person with a negative view. His issues could be mitigated with company oversight and some PR training.
    I don’t think Dan is a bad person, I just think that he does not know how to discuss things with others properly.

44. I am puzzled by his quote, “…you never want to show people examples of bad behavior to emulate.” I was under the impression that he did that quite frequently, and, in fact, that incident in which he told a fan eff you — and the other in which that sentiment was directed at KFC, too — came to mind immediately.

45. I think comic book writers should use social media, but they have to be professional. Using the social media platform for personal agendas can reduce readers. Readers will only tolerate rude comments about their beliefs for so long before they stop buying the products. Dan Slott has had a history of negativity online, and I feel that he needs to learn a lot about proper online behavior. Can fans be rude? yes, but he should be a professional. If you don’t mind I will plug my recent podcast here where I discuss Dan’s online behavior with one of his biggest critics Douglas Ernst. I think you will find that Douglas admits to some mistakes but he also extends an offer for a kind discussion. Dan tends to demand a safe space and if you say anything that does not praise him he blocks you and often makes rude comments to vilify the person for a different opinion. The safe space is often provided by sites such as CBR since they want him there to generate more attention for clicks. Dan does not like sites like this because the moderators believe in treating every one the same, so he does not get special treatment that removes or modifies posts to help him when he puts himself into an intellectual corner. The Crawlspace and others are considered “negative” because they do not serve as a pandering promotional tool, instead it provides honest reviews. I find it odd that the site gets the “negative” rap since it often gives a wide range of views supported by opinions and facts.

    Check out the podcast about this very subject.
    http://henchmenslounge.podomatic.com/entry/2015-11-13T10_41_11-08_00

46. 1) No, creators in this day and age have a built in social presence online. As someone himself who has published work out in the world. I have already seen both positive and negative criticism. The negative can get to you when they purposely try and find something wrong with your writing or read something completely the wrong way. However, there is rolling with it and responding to it positively and then letting it dictate how you respond to it. Cullen Bunn is a recent example of this with him leaving Aquaman, he was not happy with how the fans responded to his story telling and while DC told him to just toughen it out. He felt there was no point, especially when he received positive reviews and more from his work on Sinestro and Magneto. Other writers have seen this too, I remember reading where Joe Kelly got bashed for his work on Ultimate Spider-Man telling him to grow up and how someone like him could write such great Space Ghost and Deadpool stories acts like a kid on ADHD medicine writing cartoons. Her responded: “Hey, sometimes you do it right and sometimes you do it wrong, I’m not going to hit it out of the park all the time. Thanks for being a fan.” Pretty on point there.

    2) He acts like a kid throwing a tantrum. I’m sorry but he just does. He hates it when someone tells him his work on Spider-Man is bad. I think it adds fuel to the fire when he gets positive like he did with RNYV and then a few books later he is being blasted he can’t write. What’s even more, we know he can write, Silver Surfer, his Avengers work, She-Hulk, Spider-Man/Human Torch mini. They got a lot of positive reviews and also put him into the fan base very well. Then his Spider-Man has turn into fan fiction on a stick and even when someone finds the most smallest thing wrong with his story. I’m talking like the Regent’s motivation. Saying it was so stupid, he got up in arms going: “Yet, you like the rest of the story, so why can’t you just look over one tiny thing. Villains are petty and have stupid motivations, get over it!” How about his KFC insult a few months ago. Wow! That would have gotten anyone fired or at least told to stop with their use of social media. His recent CBR is getting a bit out of control but the mods are letting him get away with it and many posters are feeling insulted that they can’t say they didn’t like the story or some element of it. Dan Slott can be a great writer but he is not a people person.

    3) Here is the thing I’ve learned from professionals in both comics, TV, sports and movies. Some are going to realize they wouldn’t be there with out you. They don’t want to be attacked for some stupid reason. However, if they are professional and know how people are, they are going to react accordingly. However, you are going to get ones with big egos or other situations where they are not going to be the friendliest or feel they should be there. I’ll take an example from almost twenty years ago with Nancy Cartigan who said while her mic was still on she felt the holiday parade was stupid on live TV. Even said in other interviews, she hated doing publicity, she just wanted to skate and wished she had never been attacked or anything because it put her more in the spotlight than she wanted too. Even going as having TV appearances as herself and the actors on those shows saying, she acted like she didn’t want to be there when the cameras were off. Some people just don’t like to be famous and aren’t very nice people in person. You can’t control who they are naturally.

    4) The main reason is the Crawlspace is the main outlet for a book and character he writes. He knows everyone here are major Spider-Man fans and this is probably one of the best and most constant Spider-Man fan sites around. Especially in this era of wikis and podcasts. Also, considering he was a guest on one episode and now he gets criticized by people who don’t like his work. While other websites bend over for him or Marvel, he goes on the offensive. He rather bash and hate everyone who doesn’t like his work. I mean, he created Silk, but wrote her so bad and yet her book is very well reviewed and received because another writer is “writing her better”. instead of going: “See, I was right, she’s a great character.” He is more: “You hate everything, you hate everything Spider-Man or related. You guys are horrible.” Yet he never goes on how we love Spider-Man 2099, enjoy Silk, think Spider-Gwen is pretty good or are looking forward to Miles (Well, most of us). Of course while Slott is a fan of Miguel O’Hara, he does not like Miles and its been shown. However, is he going to go and bash the character that is about to launch a new title in February and is front and center in the main Avengers title. Of course not because he knows he be out right there but if its negative on the Crawlspace. Its open season.

47. Brad, be happy your site has become important enough to have Dan talk about it endlessly 🙂

48. It’s a very tricky situation because nobody likes to be told you’re doing a crappy job, and at the same time you cannot please everyone. But you SHOULD try, and a least stick to the ‘Spider-Man” formula and not try to re-invent it every 18 months. For people how don’t like his style is bad news that sales are steady, so he won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.

    1) Creators should only interact sparingly. Only where there’s legitimate concerns/questions/big events. No one’s is wining with this constant debates. Fans won’t stop complaining, Slot (who as a creator he has an artistic pride) won’t change

    2) Childish for a hired professional. If someone points out a mistake, you either apologize (in real life), or ignore it (in the case of message boards). Making snarky remarks and trying to switch the blame to the fan who found our the mistake is immature.

    3) You either shower them with compliments, or don’t waste your time. These people will not change their methods to please you. The artistic types are too proud of their work.

    4) Because you guys don’t shower him with compliments.

49. 1) I think creators are allowed to talk online, since it can be nice to engage in discussion with them. Slott doesn’t even let the work speak for itself, because constantly accuses people of being “crazy” for not reading it in a VERY specific way. He needs to respect HOW people think the work speaks for itself.

    2) Slott is pathetic. He stalks me, so his claims in the Newsarma articles basically feel like he’s dealt with enough people like me, and the opening bit about how Slott “gets very itchy, declining to cite specific examples” is hilarious, since I’m certain that he KNOWS which ones he could cite, but doesn’t want to be obvious.

    3) If they’re as self-entitled as Slott is, you owe them nothing. I like to believe that you should be nice to anyone as a first instinct, but Slott will harass anyone no matter how innocent or thoughtful their critiques of his story may be. On the whole, be respectful, but individuals like Slott will invalidate any sense of decency you may have.

    4) Because the Crawlspace doesn’t bend over backwards like moderators on Comic Book Resources do to kiss Slott’s ass, and the reviewers on here point out patterns in his work to acknowledge recurring criticism. It’s also just easier for Slott if he homogenizes the people he doesn’t like. His accusation that people on here just hate EVERYTHING from 2008 onwards means that he doesn’t have to address WHY the same criticisms are repeated, since he just thinks it’s easier to reduce people into fans bitter about One More Day, because then he doesn’t even have to consider that there’s anything run with his run specifically. By lumping everyone together, he gives himself a free pass to ignore any legitimate complaints of his work. And it’s not just here on the Crawlspace. He groups people into “factions”, most of which are just different interpretations of people who can’t “get over” the marriage. Slott’s just upset that he can’t twist the Crawlspace into HIS own personal echo chamber like he’s twisted CBR, and instead places the fault on the Crawlspace for not conceding to his overinflated ego.

50. 1) I don’t think creators should stay offline, but they need to self moderate what they say and recognise by writing the book they cannot in all reasonableness engage in a back and forth the same way fans engage with one another. There is a massive power discrepancy between the fans and the creators. At the same time a creator with a thin skin who knows comments get to them shouldn’t enter somewhere where they know that they’re going to be upset. At least not if that is going to result in them compromising their professionalism

    2) If I was being polite I think Slott’s conduct online is unprofessional and leaves a lot to be desired. If I was not being polite I’d call it despicable.

    3) Be polite. But note, that doesn’t mean ‘be nice’. You can be critical and dissect a work without hurling personal insults or curse words. Maybe I personally falter under that advice from time to time I admit. But at the end of the day if the writer is being a hypocrite don’t say “You’re a goddam hypocrital git!!!!”, say “I find that to be quit hypocritical/Is that not somewhat hypocritical”. More or less the same sentiment but expressed in a more acceptable way

    4) He lumps this website as negative because you are compared to everyone else more negative. Which isn’t to say your grades are unfair, it’s just that you cut the bullshit and tell it how it is most of the time. Also, Slott clearly cannot take criticism of his work very well so by chalking you up as inherently negative it keeps his ego whole