I don't know what's worse, the use of a suicide as a jumping off point for a joke, or the perpetuation of that fucking goddamned "who watches the watchmen lol" joke.

> But I urge you to remember,
>context is everything (though
>we often ignore it here).

Not on LITG I don't.

>Neither Fair Nor Balanced (but
>words will always be
>unnecessarily capitalized).

Even if I'm referencing the Fox tagline.

>Please don't shoot the
>messenger (but please do
>point out his hypocrisy).

Feel free.

>Wow, Rich! Some actual news!
>Man! Usually you just like to
>promote yourself and your
>industry pals in your column! >Way to go.

True. Like Tyrese Gibson's Mayhem, behind-the-scenes at the Cloak And Dagger postponement, the fake Art Adams re-emerging, Mark Millar censoring his own comics, Jim Lee and Geoff Johns on JLA, Steve Bissette on Swamp Thing reprints, details on Wednesday Comics, Dave McKean's Royal Mail work, etc etc...

>Because, wait! You work for
>IDW now! Writing a "Doctor >Who" comic!

Worked. A one shot I wrote last month.

>No wonder now a publisher
>being number 3 is now news!

No, it would have been anyway. That a back-of-Previews publisher has leapfrogged over both Dark Horse and Image is very notable.

>And reporting it represents not
>even the least bit of a conflict
>of interest! (Look it up!)

Or try reading Flat Earth News.

Every reporter that exists has a conflict of interest. Some are more honest about it than others. But I wrote about IDW just as I wrote about CrossGen when they were approaching the front of Previews. What I wrote wasn't affected one bit and I struggle to think how I could have written it differently.

>But hey, seriously, I don't
>mean to be too harsh. Hey,
>would you maybe drone on
>and on in a column on an >internet "news" site about how
>brilliantly smart you are and
>how mind-blowingly amazing
>and smart a "Doctor Who"
>comic you wrote is?

You mean a gossip and rumour site? And brilliantly smart? Really? Where?

>Aw, but maybe I am being too
>hard on the guy. I mean, he >was recently made redundant,
>as he has made abundantly
>clear in all his recent columns.

All? No. Some? Yes. The column is a personal endeavour and some readers have been following it for fifteen years. I've talked about my marriage, the birth of my children, my employment situation and various illnesses. All part and parcel.

>And, I mean, he would never
>do anything like make a joke
>in horribly bad taste about a
>guy who committed suicide
>during the "Watchmen" movie,
>would he?

I didn't intend that to be a joke. I'm disturbed that you thought it was funny. I thought it was tragic.

>Nevermind.

Okay.

Nicely done, Mr. Johnston. You've effectively convinced me of your merit and honor. Damn these crazy supervillains taking your work out of context and making you seem like a pretentious asshole. Your obscenely long comment at the bottom of this article certainly changed my mind. I'll never believe screen grabs taken directly from your site ever again. Silly me.

"Who watches half the Watchmen" is a hell of a way to respond to a tragedy.

Also: This is a comedy website (hello!). We exaggerate things sometimes, but we do it on purpose.

Eh, don't mind Rich. He's cranky because he lost big cornering the F/X back issue market, and can no longer afford to pave his driveway with gold bricks.

(Oh, the above should have a yellow traffic light next to it, BTW.)

>Your obscenely long comment at
>the bottom of this article certainly
>changed my mind.

Sweet sixteen and never been fisked.

I'm not a fan of IDW (I think they have a frustrating tendency to skimp on finding good artists, particularly on their biggest selling title, Angel; their no-longer-unusually high price tags often don't justify the amateurish work found therein) I think IDW's third place is a hugely significant story. And it's one the comic book press failed to spot.

Think back to the days of CrossGen, when one of their prime objectives was to cross the 5% market share threshold and therefore gain a prime position in the front section of Diamond Previews (is this still the case? If it is, this is an even bigger story). They never achieved their aim (although they were offered a front section anyway, and rejected it) - but they were reported as a significant force in the industry at the time, and this publisher has achieved a significant milestone (ironically with its own line of non-superhero titles).

wow, someone didn't have their daily dose of "i need to prove to people on the internet how much better I am than everyone else. looksy and see what i did! humanity is better for the 35 digs i have received!"
and that joke was in bad taste, and no one finds it funny. but i guess Richy boy did. because he wrote it. like, duh.

Tom,

CrossGen didn't reject the front-of-Previews slot, it was confirmed by Diamond that they were getting it - and then it never happened. Speculation was that DC nixed it. Now CrossGen's agreement was with Diamond, the 5% isn't an automatic thing for all companies. But if IDW have a similar agreement, there's still considerable issues between DC and IDW.

I'm trying to get a better picture for a piece next week.

And Prof? I didn't think it was a joke.

Does anyone else think it's weird that two minutes after Puppykicker, there's Rich with a long post?

I spent three weeks lying low in a gutter on 3rd Ave after my last run in with the Fantastic Four. And yet not once am I mentioned in this article! Bah!

I'm sorry for this grevious error, Mole Man, and will correct it in my next column.

My recollection was that it was CrossGen that rejected it because the condition of the front-placement was that it would be after the other four "big" publishers, which CrossGen felt wasn't good enough because alphabetically they should have come first. I'm pretty sure that was in Ian Edginton's account of his time there - just part of a catalogue of Mark Alessi's diva-esque behaviour.

Can anyone believe that I actually DID NOT POST in this comments section? I'm rather proud of myself, actually.

Now then. Whats all this hub-bub about? We ARE a Society of Supervillains, after all...we're SUPPOSED to cause hate and discontent (in a comedic kinda way). My thought is, if someone takes the time to write a whole article about you, it's better to be flattered for the attention.

I bet Jon Stewart doesn't have to put up with this.

Who says I'm not flattered?

But it's also worth remembering that Google is forever. When someone makes false statements about you if, given the chance, you can comment upon them, it's not the worst idea to take that opportunity. If only for future record.

And after all, isn't the other point about Societies of Supervillains that you're meant to fight them?