RockMyAmadeus

On top of that, it would have been nice to see what the actual market price of this book was. Now we've been cheated of that, too. Lame, lame, greedy lame.

Actual, genuine greed. Cheating everyone else of the ability to win the item by taking an offer outside the system is hardly "moral." He cheated all the potential bidders, himself, and eBay. He cheated the bidders because they all thought the listing would run, fair and square, to the end. He cheated himself because he has no idea what it would have sold for (and it's not like he had any money into ANY of these.) And he cheated eBay by using their system without paying their fees. The eyeballs that "made the offer he couldn't refuse" became those eyeballs because of eBay...and yet, now eBay doesn't see a dime? Theft. Again...HARDLY a moral decision. What a tool.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Maxx-3-Yellow-Ashcan-signed-and-numbered-by-Sam-Kieth-/181261217152?nma=true&si=d%252FKu8uVGTyBQD1xIEkOo0PrfZTg%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

....? eBay NM Craigslist Gem Mint+ 11.0

....?

+1,000,000 People who throw out bids early and say "I just bid what I want to pay" don't understand the psychology of auctions. People are m0rons when it comes to bidding - and if you disagree, I would reference you to this $50 Amazon gift card that got bid up to $106. And that's not the only one - there are hundreds of completed listings like that.

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example: Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him! A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered. Exactly. And, on top of that, Claremont wrote some of the most groan inducing dialogue ever. Look at X-Men #132...the scene where Jean holds back Scott's eyeblasts? Worse than As The World Turns. Page layout is crucial to quality sequential art storytelling, just like the storyboardist on a movie is crucial to properly developing frame-by-frame shots in a film. New Mutants' dialogue is pretty groan inducing, too. This reminds me of when adults who never read Stan as a kid call his work "corny"..and it probably is to adult eyes. If you take Claremont's work in the context of when it was done, it was fairly sophisticated, especially for it's intended audience. . I'm not buying that argument. Literature...even children's literature...should be judged on its merits, and not its intended audience. Anyone can talk down to kids; that's not great literature. There are some fantastic books that are intended for kids that don't have groan inducing, Soap Opera-esque dialogue. Harry Potter (Sorcerer's Stone), despite what Rowling later claimed, was aimed squarely at the 10-13 year old crowd. And it's pretty darn good. Wizard of Oz (and the rest of the books), also aimed at that same age range, is another excellent example. In other words, they can be read and enjoyed by adults, without said adults...if they have average adult faculties...rolling their eyes and putting it down for how awful it is. If X-Men was aimed at the same audience...and at that time, it probably was...it fails because Claremont didn't really have a grasp of how to write for kids without trying to be "sophisticated", so it ends up like other usual adult attempts to talk to kids: condescending and painfully stilted. Just like a soap opera. Claremont isn't alone; most of Silver Age DC is unreadable (why they thought they had to write books for an audience with an average IQ of 37, I'll never know)...but Claremont took awkward "trying-really-hard-to-sound-sophisticated-but-massively-failing" writing to heights undreamed.

Too bad it's not contagious.

We have been discussion the Liefeld New Mutants run, and especially the events related to 87 and 98. When sharing experiences, you attempt to discredit statements by stating the poster's details just did not happen. You even made this statement. I have no problem with someone having a valid opposite opinion. So you made a statement that sounded like an approach you said you don't care for, and I asked for the facts. So you had a strong opinion the Jon Warren period of more frequent updates may have been the most accurate than ever before. I respect that opinion. But to say it is a fact would take more analysis than you have presented. THE END You're barking up the wrong tree, Bosco.

Thanks, but what "Siege Perilous" refers to? I restarted reading the X-Men as a young adult with issue #214 and I liked the various titles a lot, especially X-Factor, New Mutants and Power Pack. But there are various thing I dont understand. First, while I can see your point about the second half of the run you mentioned, I seem to recall up to some point the stories were good. Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that? Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good? I also dont understand why you say that Jim Lee "gave him a gracious ending to his run" I think I stopped buying the title when Lee started to co-wrote, or at least that is what I got. What would be the gracious ending? "Siege Perilous", at least as it applies to the X-Men, refers to the storyline in which the device of the same name would allow the X-Men to step through its portal and start new lives if they ever got weary of the burdens of their super hero lives. Nice concept. Unfortunately, an utter failure in execution. It was a total mess. Storm reverts to being a child, Rogue disappeared for nearly two years, and ended up hooking up with Magneto. Havok ends up being a Genoshan magistrate. Psylocke ended up having her body transferred and became Asian. It was awful. Jim Lee gave Claremont a gracious ending, because he focused him, and consolidated a lot of the storylines, which resulted in X-Tinction Agenda, which was the first exciting event in the mutant universe in nearly 3 years (since Fall of the Mutants.) That in turn led to X-Men #1-3, which, of course, made comics history.

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example: Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him! A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered. Exactly. And, on top of that, Claremont wrote some of the most groan inducing dialogue ever. Look at X-Men #132...the scene where Jean holds back Scott's eyeblasts? Worse than As The World Turns. Page layout is crucial to quality sequential art storytelling, just like the storyboardist on a movie is crucial to properly developing frame-by-frame shots in a film. New Mutants' dialogue is pretty groan inducing, too.

Me too. I make it a point to encourage correction if I have something remembered wrong. I don't have a problem with being corrected, and actually like it, because it means my knowledge base is "more true" after the correction than it was before. I'm much more interested in the truth, than the story in my head, no matter how appealing that story may be. A lot of people have a hard time being corrected, and take it very personally. To those people I would say: don't be defined by what you know, but rather who you are. That way, you won't have a personal stake if you find out something you believed was wrong. Tough advice, I know. Mark Twain: "'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.' Yeeesh. What a bunch of hot air.

He's a wiseass. All the kids love wiseasses these days.

Me too. I make it a point to encourage correction if I have something remembered wrong. I don't have a problem with being corrected, and actually like it, because it means my knowledge base is "more true" after the correction than it was before. I'm much more interested in the truth, than the story in my head, no matter how appealing that story may be. A lot of people have a hard time being corrected, and take it very personally. To those people I would say: don't be defined by what you know, but rather who you are. That way, you won't have a personal stake if you find out something you believed was wrong. Tough advice, I know. Mark Twain: "'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.'

Nope.

RMA, I was just applying your same approach in a chat board discussion. If someone states an opinion or experience as fact, make them prove it to be true. You made that statement a few times in this thread, dissecting people's statements in order to disprove what they said. And that's not an opinion. That's what you do. This tune sounds familiar...where have I heard it before...? Ah, now I remember... No, Bosco. We're not going down this road again, for the 10,000th time. When you can't debate the issue on its merits, you focus instead on the person debating you and what you feel their "flaws" are. That is garbage debate, and unworthy of response. I'm not going to refute your statements here, because it accomplishes nothing good. Not because I think you're wrong, and not because I'm afraid to debate it, but because I don't wish to have yet another argument WITH YOU. If you choose to focus on an irrelevant side comment that has nothing to do with the discussion, and then claim victory because I'm not going to do this very old, very tired dance with you anymore, by all means...knock yourself out. My advice to you is the same as it always is: if you don't like the way people discuss things, then don't discuss things with them. If the way people discuss things bothers you, spare yourself the bother and talk to other people. There are hundreds of other fine people on this message board with whom to have a discussion. Why waste your time on someone who cannot have a discussion in the way you think it should be had...? If you wish to go back to discussing the issues, rather than the people involved, please feel free. I'd be happy to continue that discussion. And I promise not to bring up the issues I (and others) have with you and the way you have discussions, and just discuss the issues on their merits. That's pretty reasonable, no...?

Wait...is "contemporaneous documentation from the era" redundant...?

That's evil Bronty Those CVM did have the most drunken prices, And the shops in Brisbane did price the back issues based on their values listed. Bad for collectors buying but great for 1st year working guy like me hoarding new issue multiples and getting half price trade to buy my monthly pull lists flipping Green Lantern 1's Emerald dawn 1's, Ghost rider 1's ect. Wasn't GR #1 a $50 book in CVM at one point? I think Emerald Dawn was $35. (And worth every damn penny. Emerald Dawn is the greatest Green Lantern story every told, ever, and that includes Neal Adams. It is simply the best. Tight plot, well written, GORGEOUS covers, caught the flavor of Hal, Carol, and the rest PERFECTLY. It is ta awesomes.)