• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

C2E2 Variant Drama
24 24

Started by fastballspecial,

4,556 posts in this topic

ExNihilo

ExNihilo

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 7:25 AM, Bookery said:

Oh for cryin' out loud.  155 pages and comment after comment about the "mistakes" Crain made with the cover.  Are there no readers of literature here?  Are there no film students?  Does no one understand symbolism?

Now... I have never made a political comment on here, CGC, nor am I doing so now.  I am merely explaining what Crain's cover is intentionally representing, and it is Crain making political commentary, not me.  One error might be made... but not three.

When the acetate is folded it actually reads "In God we intrust America".  Crain is making a comment about how he feels the country is overly-influenced by religion (or by certain groups therein).  A folded flag must not show the stripes (esp. the red) because (and no, I'm not a flag expert... I had to look it up), in the context of this being given to a battle-victim's survivor, the red would be a reminder of the  "bloodshed" of war and thus inappropriate to give to a grieving person.  Any cover could have been used for this first acetate experiment... but he chose this one.  In this case an African-American with bowed head is holding an American flag revealing the nation's "bloodshed" and his sorrow.  Any professional artist would have obvious examples of a flag to check for accuracy, so the inverted stripes is intentional, likely meaning America is a nation that puts "white" above all.  I'm guessing Crain's "joke" is that this cover would especially sell to people of certain political persuasions who would want it for its "patriotism", while he's getting a chuckle out of the fact that it represents just the opposite (in his eyes). 

I didn't want to post in this thread... but the fact that no one was seeing this was driving me nuts.  Sorry.  Carry on.  

I feel this was alluded to in the first like 10 pages when people were discussing Marvel's right to protect their IP.  No one said it explicitly, but the overt patriotic themes (whether intentionally correct or incorrect) were obviously catering to a particular group of buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 11:07 AM, Bookery said:

So in a single post you slam me and another board member who shouldn't be held responsible just because I mentioned him, while yourself obviously adding "0" to any points being made in the discussion.  In addition you get a "like" from someone who famously tore into me early in my posting days for disparaging someone on the boards (he was actually right then, and I was wrong).  But... his outlook has apparently... shifted.

I, too, thought you were being serious until the last part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetalPSI

MetalPSI

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 2:16 PM, Bookery said:

Don't follow.  Anway... deleted original post.  Commenting on someone being controversial is controversial.  Not worth it, and though there are actually half a dozen controversies being covered in this thread, it was the least significant anyway.

I really don't understand why you would delete your original post

You made a statement, why not stand behind it

The point of my post was to show you that if you wanted to bring others to your line of thinking  you were going about it the wrong way

Instead you slam me by saying I've contributed 0 to this thread, which is false

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Bookery

Bookery

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 2:22 PM, The Meta said:

I really don't understand why you would delete your original post

You made a statement, why not stand behind it

The point of my post was to show you that if you wanted to bring others to your line of thinking  you were going about it the wrong way

Instead you slam me by saying I've contributed 0 to this thread, which is false

 

No... I meant your one specific post criticizing a boardie added "0"... I would never suggest you contributed nothing to the thread, because that wouldn't be true.  And I do stand by what I said.  This thread has covered several different subjects... (A)  Black Flag treated their customers shabbily  (B) Black Flag may have misrepresented what their "variant" was.  (C) CGC made mistakes in how they graded and described the books  (D) Clayton Crain is a good or bad artist  (E) Clayton Crain made 3 glaring mistakes in his art additions.  I have not posted about subjects (A) through (C) because 150 pages have covered every angle of that.  I have not responded to (D) because it's subjective (and I don't care).  I responed only to the (E) discussions because there had not been a single post previously which covered how I felt it was being misinterpreted.

But (E) is also the least consequential of the debates going on here, and obviously was generating controversy, not to mention no matter how hard I try to skirt politics, the cover itself is political and so continuing down that road is likely to get an important thread in trouble (not my intention).  I only brought Kav into it because, yes, he himself is a controversial figure, but he does have expertise in some areas which I felt could be useful in making (or breaking) my point, as I was willing to defer to him on it.  But it's unfair that he be given a negative reaction to a post that was not of his own making.  So I deleted that as well.  

I do well to stick solely to "pulps" and "golden-age", which are more my forte, as I will going forward.  I deleted my posts not out of anger or pique, but out of respect for the Board and a discussion that is too important to them (and you) to risk screwing it up.  I made a valid point I maintain, not meant to be controversial in and of itself, but it was only tangentially germane to the thread at large, and so not all that important.  That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetalPSI

MetalPSI

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 2:48 PM, Bookery said:

No... I meant your one specific post criticizing a boardie added "0"... I would never suggest you contributed nothing to the thread, because that wouldn't be true.  And I do stand by what I said.  This thread has covered several different subjects... (A)  Black Flag treated their customers shabbily  (B) Black Flag may have misrepresented what their "variant" was.  (C) CGC made mistakes in how they graded and described the books  (D) Clayton Crain is a good or bad artist  (E) Clayton Crain made 3 glaring mistakes in his art additions.  I have not posted about subjects (A) through (C) because 150 pages have covered every angle of that.  I have not responded to (D) because it's subjective (and I don't care).  I responed only to the (E) discussions because there had not been a single post previously which covered how I felt it was being misinterpreted.

But (E) is also the least consequential of the debates going on here, and obviously was generating controversy, not to mention no matter how hard I try to skirt politics, the cover itself is political and so continuing down that road is likely to get an important thread in trouble (not my intention).  I only brought Kav into it because, yes, he himself is a controversial figure, but he does have expertise in some areas which I felt could be useful in making (or breaking) my point, as I was willing to defer to him on it.  But it's unfair that he be given a negative reaction to a post that was not of his own making.  So I deleted that as well.  

I do well to stick solely to "pulps" and "golden-age", which are more my forte, as I will going forward.  I deleted my posts not out of anger or pique, but out of respect for the Board and a discussion that is too important to them (and you) to risk screwing it up.  I made a valid point I maintain, not meant to be controversial in and of itself, but it was only tangentially germane to the thread at large, and so not all that important.  That's all.

Odd way to look at it, but ok

Controversy is created by the controversial, imo

I find it extremely odd you commented on someone liking my post. 

But your deletion of things is probably for the best, fairly biased stuff there when you read into it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetalPSI

MetalPSI

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 2:54 PM, Buzzetta said:

I laughed at Skottie Young when he was charging that for books graded by CGC at NYCC. 

I laugh at anyone who charges a "premium" for graded books

What I do with my property isn't any of their business

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
MrBedrock

MrBedrock

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 11:15 AM, JC25427N said:

This acetate experiment is is clearly satire showing just how ridiculous this modern variant craze is. 

And I suppose the $85-$100 starting price was just Black Flag's social commentary on how gullible their customer base is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2022 at 11:48 AM, Bookery said:

No... I meant your one specific post criticizing a boardie added "0"... I would never suggest you contributed nothing to the thread, because that wouldn't be true.  And I do stand by what I said.  This thread has covered several different subjects... (A)  Black Flag treated their customers shabbily  (B) Black Flag may have misrepresented what their "variant" was.  (C) CGC made mistakes in how they graded and described the books  (D) Clayton Crain is a good or bad artist  (E) Clayton Crain made 3 glaring mistakes in his art additions.  I have not posted about subjects (A) through (C) because 150 pages have covered every angle of that.  I have not responded to (D) because it's subjective (and I don't care).  I responed only to the (E) discussions because there had not been a single post previously which covered how I felt it was being misinterpreted.

But (E) is also the least consequential of the debates going on here, and obviously was generating controversy, not to mention no matter how hard I try to skirt politics, the cover itself is political and so continuing down that road is likely to get an important thread in trouble (not my intention).  I only brought Kav into it because, yes, he himself is a controversial figure, but he does have expertise in some areas which I felt could be useful in making (or breaking) my point, as I was willing to defer to him on it.  But it's unfair that he be given a negative reaction to a post that was not of his own making.  So I deleted that as well.  

I do well to stick solely to "pulps" and "golden-age", which are more my forte, as I will going forward.  I deleted my posts not out of anger or pique, but out of respect for the Board and a discussion that is too important to them (and you) to risk screwing it up.  I made a valid point I maintain, not meant to be controversial in and of itself, but it was only tangentially germane to the thread at large, and so not all that important.  That's all.

My take on the cover is it could be one of two things-directive from the writer or editor-I've had to draw plenty of covers I disagreed with-or just some idea the artist was trying to express that wasnt received in the manner he thought it would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
24 24
Go to topic listing