ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 21958
Mar 24 10 1:19 PM
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1479
Mar 24 10 2:54 PM
Golden Age
Posts: 397
Mar 24 10 4:39 PM
Posts: 10379
Mar 24 10 5:44 PM
Registered Member
I saw it in the store and I didn't like the the prominent wood pulp paper photographic background on every page. The Sunday Press Nemo books did this first, and better, because it was subtle.
Posts: 3142
Mar 24 10 9:30 PM
Fin Fang Foom wrote: I saw it in the store and I didn't like the the prominent wood pulp paper photographic background on every page. The Sunday Press Nemo books did this first, and better, because it was subtle. That's either a difficult effect to pull off well, or it's largely a matter of taste (or some combination thereof). The second Starman Archive looked terrible, and the D&Q John Stanley books I've seen suffer for it, as well.As to the missing material from the sequence, well, that was just a bewildering decision.
Mar 24 10 9:34 PM
darth genius wrote: Wow!Sound's like Craig Yoe is a real idiot.I mean, the Ditko book he packaged for them drops a page from a story. Not to mention the fact that it was marketed as an "Art of..." book but in reality is a reprint collection. And now this...?I was going to pick up the Milt Gross book, but given that the man apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "complete", and that IDW are too busy patting themselves on the back for making Premier Publisher status to proofread anything coming in their door (Dick Tracy missing strips, Grimjack dropping a page, etc.), I'll wait until someone confirms it's all there before I take the plunge.
Mar 24 10 9:51 PM
I'm sorry you didn't find the Stanley books to your liking Brian, I thought they turned out wonderful. But I love the entire design aesthetic. As for the Starman archive (2), I preferred it to the 1st one myself.
Mar 24 10 9:58 PM
Mar 24 10 10:15 PM
Mar 24 10 11:33 PM
artteacher72 wrote: darth genius wrote: Wow!Sound's like Craig Yoe is a real idiot.I mean, the Ditko book he packaged for them drops a page from a story. Not to mention the fact that it was marketed as an "Art of..." book but in reality is a reprint collection. And now this...?I was going to pick up the Milt Gross book, but given that the man apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "complete", and that IDW are too busy patting themselves on the back for making Premier Publisher status to proofread anything coming in their door (Dick Tracy missing strips, Grimjack dropping a page, etc.), I'll wait until someone confirms it's all there before I take the plunge.I know Craig and he is not an idiot. He's a good man that loves the material that he is involved in. It's unfortunate that the Ditko book was not up to par....but calling him an idiot is immature. Perhaps he could have been more careful..or IDW could have done more...but an idiot? No.
Posts: 14376
Mar 25 10 12:04 AM
The book starts on 5/15/1936. I won't list every strip that is missing, but there are many large gaps which I'll list: 5/17/36 thru 5/24/36 7/17/36 thru 7/26/36 7/30/36 thru 8/18/36 8/20/36 thru 9/13/36 9/16/36 thru 9/25/36 9/27/36 thru 12/14/36 (two and a half months) 12/27/36 thru 2/21/37 (almost two months) This comes to well over 100 strips.
Fantagraphics Kim Thompson: We have all of these strips ourselves (scanned, ready for the eventual complete KRAZY KAT dailies books we'll get to after we finish the Sundays) and a spot check from our resident scanmaster/organizer Paul Baresh confirms that most or all of the ones missing from the Yoe book are in fact part of the "Tiger Tea" continuity, so the selection appears to be not editorial judgment but a case of "let's publish what we got."
Mar 25 10 12:18 AM
darth genius wrote: artteacher72 wrote: darth genius wrote: Wow!Sound's like Craig Yoe is a real idiot.I mean, the Ditko book he packaged for them drops a page from a story. Not to mention the fact that it was marketed as an "Art of..." book but in reality is a reprint collection. And now this...?I was going to pick up the Milt Gross book, but given that the man apparently doesn't understand the meaning of the word "complete", and that IDW are too busy patting themselves on the back for making Premier Publisher status to proofread anything coming in their door (Dick Tracy missing strips, Grimjack dropping a page, etc.), I'll wait until someone confirms it's all there before I take the plunge.I know Craig and he is not an idiot. He's a good man that loves the material that he is involved in. It's unfortunate that the Ditko book was not up to par....but calling him an idiot is immature. Perhaps he could have been more careful..or IDW could have done more...but an idiot? No. I'm sorry. "More careful...?"A book, at a minimum, should have all the pages it is supposed to, and they should be in the right order.Every.Time.This isn't a goal to strive for, it is the mimum expression of competence possible. If you don't get that done multiple time in a row, you are an idiot. And your publisher is too if they keep soliciting your stuff.If you solicit a book as "complete" when you *know* it isn't, you are a liar, and maybe even a crook.So which is it? Is he an idiot who screwed up at least two books in a row? Or was the Tiger Tea debacle not a mistake but an intentional bait and switch that they negelcted to mention during the solicitation?This book should be returnable.And anyone ordering *anything* packaged by Yoe (whose batting average is 0.333 *at best* on his last three books, assuming Milt Gross isn't defective) in the future on a non-returnable basis given this track record is at least as stupid as he is.
Mar 25 10 1:32 AM
If you solicit a book as "complete" when you *know* it isn't, you are a liar, and maybe even a crook.
Mar 25 10 8:45 AM
Fin Fang Foom wrote: If you solicit a book as "complete" when you *know* it isn't, you are a liar, and maybe even a crook. I gather this must be a complaint about the Milt Gross book (though you say you haven't bought it yet), because as far as I can see, having checked several sources, the solicitation copy for this Krazy Kat book makes no claim about "complete." Does this make Craig Yoe still a crook, then, but not a liar?I agree wholeheartedly with the general consensus of "What was the point?," though. I've nothing personal against Yoe, or his haircut, for that matter (and even if I did, I wouldn't stoop to insulting either of them) but this strikes me as a very poorly-thought-out decision.
Mar 25 10 11:17 AM
Mar 25 10 11:48 AM
"Yes, of course -- you interpreted it to mean the book would be all-inclusive, as I'm sure many people would (even without reading the solicitation copy!), but all the same, the solicitation never promised that, and if you're going to start tossing around insults like "crook" and "liar" and "idiot" based on a claim that it did, well, you ought to expect that the point will be made."Sorry, FFF but your willingness to invoke a mealy-mouthed defense predicated on what the solicitation copy *didn't* say simply serves to further illustrate my point, and reveals you for exactly what you are. A publisher. Your vested interest is to unload books and not have to eat them if they are defective, as is the case for *all* publishers who want to stay in business. For publishers who want to use soliciation copy to intentially evade, obfuscate, or envagle when it comes to clearly defining what they are offering to the market to give them wiggle room to avoid returns while they figure out what exactly they are going to publish, it places them in an adversarial relationship with their customers, be they retailers or consumers. The smart this to do to avoid all of that, is to wait until a book is ready to print, and then write solicitation copy that describes *exactly* what the book will contain. Solicitation tells you one thing. How many to make. If you are using it for any other purpose, you are abusing the system, the retailer and ultimately the consumer. Consumers and retailers aren't playing craps or the lottery, hoping for a big win, they are buying merchandise that should be competently produced. See Marvel for an example of how to do it right.See Dark Horse for a publisher who should frankly be barred from further solicitaion until they figure it out."The subject of incomplete and inaccurate (and in many cases, ridiculously, laughably poorly written!) solicitation copy has come up here time and again, and while I agree that there's a need for change, there is, fortunately, a very easy solution for people who are constantly irritated by this, with no heavy lifting involved -- don't place pre-orders. If you're the kind of consumer who is quick to find fault (be it binding not sewn, spine 1/16" shorter than other volumes in the series, different reproduction techniques, or just an honest mistake that wouldn't have been covered in the solicitation copy, anyway), you're probably better off taking a wait-and-see approach, because no level of detail in a solicitation will probably ever be enough."Of course, and publishers already have a canned response for this. "If we don't get enough preorders, we won't publish, because preorders are how we gauge demand." It's the same tired song they are singing about the need for consumers to buy periodicals instead of waiting for the trade because if the floppies don't sell the collected edition won't be published.Publishers need to get overthemselves and realizing that they need to cater to the market, but the other way around. If your business model is antequated, find a new one.Buggy-whip makers are obsolete. So is serialized fiction, for the most part."In this specific case, yeah, the fact that the book was not complete certainly could have been -- and should have been -- more clearly indicated. But not everything that might raise alarm bells with the fussy consumer can be." I guess so, considering that *any* indication would have been "more clear" than the nothing we were treated to...
Mar 25 10 12:49 PM
Your vested interest is to unload books and not have to eat them if they are defective, as is the case for *all* publishers who want to stay in business.
Of course, and publishers already have a canned response for this. "If we don't get enough preorders, we won't publish, because preorders are how we gauge demand.
Posts: 11519
Mar 25 10 1:13 PM
Click this link for the MASTERWORKS HOME PAGE, and don't miss out on the latest news and release information on the whole scene of collected editions at the CURRENT NEWS page!
Mar 25 10 1:43 PM
Mar 25 10 8:28 PM
“So no, I have a much greater interest in publishing products I can take pride in than in "unloading" defective books -- and I'm sure most other publishers, be they small (very small) operations like mine or significantly larger ones, operate under these same principles.”
While interesting, I suppose, this statement actually bears no relevance to anything I said. I said you, and other publishers, were interested in unloading books (i.e. selling them), without having to eat defective copies. There are two ways for this to happen. One is to not produce defective copies, the other is to sell them to the direct market with misleading and vague solicitation copy under non-returnable terms of sale. But if I misread your comments and you actually meant to say that you aren’t in the publishing business to sell books, well, I just don’t know what to say to that. Maybe “congrats, mission accomplished” in light of your comments about selecting material to publish that didn’t have sufficient interest to get into Previews?
“ If you're that jaded about the publishing business than A.) it's no wonder you've never gotten close enough to it to understand how it works, and B.) it's small wonder you pre-order anything.”Classy, though misinformed. As for “A”, not interested. See, for some of us comics are a hobby. Entertainment. Not everyone who reads comics wants to write, draw, or publish them. Just like not everyone who watches movies wants to direct, and not everyone who goes out to eat harbors a secret desire to be the next Iron Chef. For some of us, it is escapism. And when we are done we go back to the real world with our families, jobs, mortgages…our lives. As for not understanding how it works..., that seems to be a common fallback position. Newsflash, publishing isn’t rocket science. It isn’t a matter of situational ethics or personal taste to suggest books should be complete and error free every time. It’s a demonstrably actionable fact. Diamond’s TOS says defective products, which include those that arrive "not as solicited", are returnable. The only issue at hand is what the term “defective” means. If you can sit there with a straight face and tell us all that a book missing half the strips of the sequence it purports to reprint *isn’t* defective then I’ll just have to say your position as a publisher has inoculated you against the burdens of reason, logic and intelligence.
As for preorders…? I don’t. Been burned too many times. I order it when it says “in stock” at Amazon or instocktrades. And I *always* check here and elsewhere first. If something slips by and the discovery isn’t made until after I bought something, it gets returned. If the retailers don’t like it, they can take it up with the publisher who should have gotten it right. This is the only way they will ever be motivated to do better. If it costs them something.
“Meh. So they don't get enough pre-orders, and they don't publish. That advice was intended for a small, self-selected segment of the audience that seems more likely (or inevitably) to be disappointed than not. (Honestly, you've never struck me as someone who is particularly concerned with the well-being of comics publishers -- and we're all well aware of the high esteem in which you hold publishers! -- so that shouldn't be a cause for concern.)”
Share This