2000 AD Online Forum

I'm reading through the entire back catalogue of 2000AD, all the way from #1. I'm come right out and say it; I consider Gerry Finley-Day as one of the worst writers I've come across so far.

He is outstanding at ideas and concepts, but the script execution is awful, stories are dull, 'plot twists' are so unsurprising it's not funny and the painful fact he has to 're-introduce' everything and everyone at the start of every script is driving me mental.

Blackhawk completely lost the plot, changing from some boring space gladiator thing, into some weird psychedelic, purgatory based thing, for no apparent reason. Started skipping that one quite early.

Invasion was just plain stupid. He's a lorry driver, yet the entire British military is at his beck and call at most points. Oh, and he blows up armoured cars with his double barreled shotgun  :|

Fiends on the Eastern Front became extremely repetitive. It could have been awesome, but it was just dull.

The only strip I look back on with any fondness is the V.C.s

And then there's Rogue Trooper. One of the finest Sci-Fi creations in existence. The imagination involved is unparalleled, but the themes are never really explored, the characterisation is weak and every bloody prog was a long description of his blood bio chips. After nearly 150 progs, WE GET IT! I've just finished Fort Neuropa, and i have to say it was terrible. Nostalgia being what it is, I always had fond memories of these early stories, but my 'eck, they are bad.

So I post here, waiting for someone to enlighten me. Am I missing something? Is he just too subtle for my tastes? Should I be more forgiving? It's difficult, as these same progs contain some absolutely classic Judge Dredd scripts, stuff that still holds up today.

Blackhawk was written by Alan Grant for the period you describe hating.

Alan also comprehensively re-wrote Harry Twenty, for my money one of the better strips with GFD's name on it, so it's obviously not that cut-and-dried.

FWIW, though, I personally don't welcome threads quite as unremittingly negative as this: they seldom turn out well.

Cheers

Jim

You're right, it is negative, but I'm unsure if I'm missing something.

GFD had some awesome concepts, and I can only assume that's why his stories are getting awards from the likes of 2000AD Review website as some of the best stories ever.

In my current eyes, they're just not.

But then, I thought Ice Hockey was a ludicrous sport until someone explained it to me. Now at least I can appreciate it a bit more.

So perhaps I'm missing something?

I agree with Jim. If you haven't got anything nice to say... Or at least find a positive way of phrasing the question. A thread heading 'Worst Script Droid' is never going to go down well'.

The stories you've just read as complete tales in a few days, and as an adult, were intended to be read one week apart by children who would probably only read a few (non-consecutive) issues before moving on to another interest. The appeal of strips like Rogue Trooper and Fiends was their strong central conceit, and the way they were consumed meant those premises had to be explained every week to avoid confusing young readers who would (rightly and understandably) be baffled by the apparent fairy tale nature of someone chatting happily to the furniture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzmwAKUppU

I understand that a lot of the stories you refer to were written without knowing when they would end. Hence, they HAD to repeat themeselves. As a matter of editorial policy, the reached a mid-point and trod water until the writer was told to end it. They couldn't create or conclude threads because they didn't know how much time they had.

Also: you are looking at children's tales with adult eyes. My 8 year old loves every one of the strips you mention.

EDIT: Ach, as I struggled with children's breakfasts, brighter forumites gazumped me.  But I  can't waste a good rant...

'Worst writer' assumes some absolute standard you're comparing him to. 

Given the sheer amount of joy that GFD's work gave me and many others as kid, it's pretty obvious that he was extremely successful as a writer of children's SF adventure comics. This meant weekly entertainment for 100,000+ 5-12 year old boys, the constraints on which are some of the things you mention as weaknesses, e.g. recapping, and thus he's by an objective measure very good at the writing business.  That his work may not tickle your adult fancy served up in large chunks 30 years later says nothing about the quality of his writing.

I'm not sure why the re-writing thing comes up so often as a mark against him, comics are a generally collaborative process, and by all accounts 2000AD was a hotbed of editorial re-writes.  What matters is that he co-created and drove some incredibly successful, entertaining stories.

As to: 

QuoteInvasion was just plain stupid. He's a lorry driver, yet the entire British military is at his beck and call at most points.

I wouldn't read a newspaper if I were you.  Or google 'collusion'.

Quote from: Bongo_clive on 24 February, 2014, 04:59:26 AM
I've just finished Fort Neuropa, and i have to say it was terrible.

Although... I do have to concede Disco Rogue was fucking embarrassing even when I was a lad.</devil's advocate>

Edit to add:

Exhibit A...



Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 24 February, 2014, 07:59:04 AM
Although... I do have to concede Disco Rogue was fucking embarrassing even when I was a lad.</devil's advocate>

Bloody goths.

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 February, 2014, 08:15:29 AM
Bloody goths.

Hah. I was thirteen when that issue came out — my goth days were still a looooong way off.

I do recall actually not reading that issue as often as the others, simply because I was embarrassed by the cover, though.

Cheers

Jim

You are of course right, it was meant for youth/teenage consumption, but I don't see JD being dumbed down.

Let me ask it in a more nuanced, less sensational manner.

Judge Dredd, from the start, is a fascinating character in a fascinating world. Before Alan Moore's Watchmen came along, Dredd was asking us to reevaluate what a 'hero' character meant to us. He fought to uphold justice, protect the weak and defend his city, yet he could callously incarcerate the old, the infirm or the disadvantaged, and very early in his 2000AD career he has wiped East Meg 1 from the map. He has the blood of millions of children on his hands. Our reaction to this war criminal/hero is consistently fascinating.

Rogue Trooper on the other hand, is a being designed for war, his 'quest' is for revenge, played out across a war torn world, an environemnt rich in all the possible scenarios you could imagine. And every character is completely one dimensional. Rogue should be mindlessly driven to achieve his goal, and yet will often take the moral, ethical path when he comes across dilemmas. Yet this is never explained, nor explored. All Norts are basically Waffen SS mindless killers. Southers are just 'Good Ol' Boys', and wouldn't dream of war crimes. GFD has done a bad job. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the worlds he created.

But I bring it up, as I like to reevaluate items of media that nostalgia may have built up to 'Classic' status (see also computer games and books).

Rogue is a strip that's been screaming for a re-boot for years. Any news on what IDW are going to do with it?

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 February, 2014, 07:43:11 AM

As to: 

QuoteInvasion was just plain stupid. He's a lorry driver, yet the entire British military is at his beck and call at most points.

I wouldn't read a newspaper if I were you.  Or google 'collusion'.

I believe collusion is mostly providing information, tip offs and other forms of underhanded tactics, not leading the SAS against an armoured column with a shotgun.

Quote from: Bongo_clive on 24 February, 2014, 09:39:16 AMSouthers are just 'Good Ol' Boys', and wouldn't dream of war crimes

I'm not arguing this thing is War and Peace, and obviously the Southers are the Good Guys in the grand tradition of boys' WWII comics, and the Norts are indeed space-nazis, but there is a lot more ambiguity than you imply. The Traitor General was a Souther.  Star Marshal Lamal and Colonel Kovert were Southers.  Major Magnum and Venus Bluegenes were Southers.  Gunnar was a Souther.  Bland of Bland & Brass was a Souther.  Millicom and its whole deeply dubious GI programme was Souther.  They aren't exactly a blameless undifferentiated bunch of white hats.

Quote from: Bongo_clive on 24 February, 2014, 09:42:53 AM

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 February, 2014, 07:43:11 AM

As to: 

QuoteInvasion was just plain stupid. He's a lorry driver, yet the entire British military is at his beck and call at most points.

I wouldn't read a newspaper if I were you.  Or google 'collusion'.

I believe collusion is mostly providing information, tip offs and other forms of underhanded tactics, not leading the SAS against an armoured column with a shotgun.

You don't believe 'legitimate' militaries provide material support to grass-roots terrorist groups? Last time I looked it's pretty much how these things are done.

Again, Invasion is silly boys adventure stuff (look no further than the cutaway diagram of the underground base), and it definitely tailed off badly from a strong start, but I don't think the idea of a government-in-exile actively supporting local resistance efforts is inherently ridiculous. 

Quote from: Bongo_clive on 24 February, 2014, 09:39:16 AM
Judge Dredd, from the start, is a fascinating character in a fascinating world.

I think you're badly over-stating the case here, in support of your rhetorical purpose, but it simply isn't true. The first year of Dredd is basically a case of multiple writers continually throwing stuff at a metaphorical wall to see what sticks.

My introduction to the very early years of the strip was via the monthly 'Complete Judge Dredd' title and it's striking how shaky many of those stories were. Elements are thrown in and discarded — it's clear in the early issues that Judges are a super-elite that operates at a level above the regular police force, for example. Dredd himself veers between tough-but-fair and comically-inflexible-hard-bastard.

In fact, it's only at the end of Dredd's stint on Luna-1 (an odd diversion in itself, with a be-caped Dredd on his flying bike) that Dredd becomes truly recognisable as his modern incarnation. His uniform becomes bulkier, loses a lot of the curves, the visor gains those trademark SS lightning flashes and Wagner seems to settle on a tone for the character himself ("Don't do it, citizen," he yells at a would-be leaper, "littering the streets is an offence!").

Even then, Dredd is dragged off on the Cursed Earth storyline in which Mills is happy to play Dredd as far more heroic than Wagner, so it's not really until The Day The Law Died that Wagner really gets to steer the character and the strip, which takes us almost to the end of the its second year.

Cheers

Jim

I completely disagree with your stance.

I really like the way GFD writes. The kind of twists and the way his stories progress are like stories from the 40s and 50s. I would say that his writing is not the most sophisticated (that would probably be Alan Moore in my view), but his stories were great fun and really enjoyable to read and that is the main aim for a comic, to make the stories enjoyable to read.

I thought the disco Rogue was hilarious.

So what are you missing? You are probably looking for a level of modern complexity and coolness that is not there. If you don't like his stuff, I would suggest not reading it.

In all honesty GFD's stories were my absolute favourites when I originally read the comic (more or less from the beginning), probably because they were perfectly pitched "boy's rip-roaring adventures", or so it felt; very much in the tradition of old war movies but in a more compelling environment. I re-read a lot of the early stuff recently too though, I have to admit, I did skim through a lot of those titles as they were already so familiar to me and sometimes you (well, I) just don't want to risk breaking the nostalgic idea you (I) have of something. At an age where I wasn't really yet equipped to appreciate the - quite adult - subversion of an art form I was pretty new to anyway, they just felt spot on. Perhaps Star Wars had a lot to do with setting the tone for fairly straight-forward, hi-octane, sci-fi adventures. It was a simpler time. :)

I can go back now and look at a lot of things that just don't hold up - I study art that inspired me to become an artist and, in some cases, struggle to find whatever it was I saw in the first instance*. In some cases I feel I've now surpassed some of the things in my own work that made me want to create art and comics in the first place. Such is progress. But it doesn't at all diminish their relevance in that place or time.

I think Rogue Trooper may have had much of it's appeal for me because of Dave Gibbons, Colin Wilson and Cam Kennedy, but I loved it as a child and then again as a teenager when I re-read a lot of the early stuff. It seemed right that Rogue was paragon of morality and virtue, and this was offset to some degree by his biochips. This was, to my mind, quite a clever way of presenting a narrative and the thoughts of the characters. Also I loved bits of circuitry anyway (like those bionic bits you got in the arm of the Steve Austin doll). And they had skulls on them! None of the later reboots really came anywhere near to capturing the sheer excitement of the original stories.

I think also, in relation to Jim's excellent earlier point, a lot of these stories felt more solid to me as well. Rogue's world was a lot more consistent than Dredd's early world which really did take a long time to settle down. Even having done so, it then threw in carefree new ideas like the Judge Child quest which brought this idea of a hugely diverse universe that, in many ways, diminished the reality of Mega City One in this larger setting. I didn't mind though, still great stories and the trick seemed to be that they were inventive and fun.


*But only some. A very large percentage of early 2000AD art still holds up incredibly well, especially when artists such as McMahon and Gibson really hit their stride.

Well since this has become about the quality of Gerry Finley Days work rather than trying to define the worst of anything I'll pipe up.

I really don't get on with his stuff at all. On my various re-reads I've tried and abandoned his material more than anyone else's I suspect (that might well not stand up to any investigation done with any rigour but certainly feels that way). There are exceptions, I enjoy Fiends and Ant Wars (nowt like swimming against the tide then!)  but a lot of his well respected stuff I just struggle to read these days. Rogue Trooper, VCs and Harry Twenty I just don't enjoy. Its not aged as well as a heck of a lot of other material from the Galaxies Greatest.

For me he's the Bill Mantlo of UK comics. He has wonderful ideas but is let down in the execution, clunky plotting, wafer thin characterisation. Don't get the love.

Yet the love clearly exists and that fascinates me. As Bongo Clive asks, I often have - What am I missing? I think part of the problem might be the high esteem a lot of the work is held in, I wonder if I find it hard to shake that off. So with a lot of the less renowned stories I go in knowing what I'm getting, simple stories, packed with ideas, written for kids and I adjust accordingly. I wonder if with GFD given his high regard I struggle to make that adjustment expecting more and always getting disappointed.

Likewise he was always given great artists and I wonder if that sets my expectations too high?

Either way I do find the case of GFD absolutely fascinating and its really interesting to hear different perspectives on his work.

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 24 February, 2014, 01:21:48 PM
...rather than trying to define the worst of anything....

Oh, okay then. I never really liked The Clown. Who wrote that? ;)

That was written by Robert Bliss. But I don't like the idea of making a thread saying a writer is rubbish just because you personally did not like their work. It seems a bit childish.

If you were to maybe say the worst / least suited story then maybe that would be more redeeming.

Robert Bliss was the artist on The Clown. The writer was Igor Goldkind, who was (at that time) the PR guy for the 2000AD group of titles.

Quote from: Jon on 24 February, 2014, 01:32:00 PM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 24 February, 2014, 01:21:48 PM
...rather than trying to define the worst of anything....

Oh, okay then. I never really liked The Clown. Who wrote that? ;)

The first series of 'The Clown' was excellent IMO. Can't remember who wrote it though.

I've recently finished the Rogue Trooper collection featuring his earliest stories - it was ok, not awful.

Cheers

Gerry Finley-Day gets a "get out of jail free card" for all eternity, just for creating Rogue Trooper!   ;)

Quote from: NapalmKev on 24 February, 2014, 01:45:48 PM

Quote from: Jon on 24 February, 2014, 01:32:00 PM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 24 February, 2014, 01:21:48 PM
...rather than trying to define the worst of anything....

Oh, okay then. I never really liked The Clown. Who wrote that? ;)

The first series of 'The Clown' was excellent IMO. Can't remember who wrote it though.

I've recently finished the Rogue Trooper collection featuring his earliest stories - it was ok, not awful.

Cheers

I liked The Clown too!

It featured some lovely art too and a nice sense of tragedy in the wwriting. 

I think that you can level some of those criticisms at Pat Mills' work from the same period. As far as weekly reminders go, who amongst us will ever forget 'Grobbendonk spoke gibberish, a Fringe World dialect'? And I'm still struggling through the Ro-Busters collected edition almost two years after buying it because it's such painfully hard work to read.

I recently splashed out on the 3 Rogue Trooper phone books and I was half expecting to have to force myself to read them. On the contrary, They were fantastic (well, the first 2 were anyway...). I agree that Fort Neuro is a little bit cheesy and dated when viewed with adult eyes, but there's plenty of fun to be had there too. As a future war story packed with interesting, off the wall concepts and tons of action and adventure, it works brilliantly.

Quote from: Skullmo on 24 February, 2014, 01:43:54 PM
That was written by Robert Bliss. But I don't like the idea of making a thread saying a writer is rubbish just because you personally did not like their work. It seems a bit childish.

If you were to maybe say the worst / least suited story then maybe that would be more redeeming.

Sorry. Was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek. Clearly missed it's mark. My apologies.

I really enjoyed the first series of The Clown. I don't remember the second one being as good though. Without checking the prog numbers I have a vague memory of there being a very large gap between the to books which probably didn't help it.

Quote from: Spaceghost on 24 February, 2014, 01:49:41 PM
I recently splashed out on the 3 Rogue Trooper phone books ... As a future war story packed with interesting, off the wall concepts and tons of action and adventure, it works brilliantly.

I think your comment about the off-the-wall nature of GFD's ideas is spot-on - GFD had a very distinctive authorial voice, one that combined a certain eccentricity with a pleasingly tough edge. To me, that combination of loopy and hard-hitting is pretty much the classic 2000AD formula – GFD may not be on a par with Pat Mills or John Wagner, but his style isn't dissimilar. By all accounts GFD's writing did need hammering into shape, but from a reader's point of view, that doesn't really matter – what we got on the page was excellent.  For my money, he was a master of fast-paced imaginative yarns – he really knew how to keep a story moving.

Quote from: Greg M. on 24 February, 2014, 03:22:45 PM
I think your comment about the off-the-wall nature of GFD's ideas is spot-on ... (b)y all accounts GFD's writing did need hammering into shape, but from a reader's point of view, that doesn't really matter – what we got on the page was excellent.

If the fantastically named Bongo Clive - who must surely be named in memorial of the fact that Dr Clive Gibbons from Neighbours played the bongos - wants to understand the majesty of Finley-Day's creative process, he need only read Thrillpower Overload's (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thrill-Power-Overload-Thirty-Rebellion-2000ad/dp/1905437951/ref=tmm_pap_title_0http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thrill-Power-Overload-Thirty-Rebellion-2000ad/dp/1905437951/ref=tmm_pap_title_0) account of the editorial team's frustrated attempts to piece together randomly ordered typewritten pages of Burroughs cut-up technique script, with physically impossible stage directions and dialogue which appeared to be written in a language other than English, into something resembling a coherent narrative.

Even if you can find no joy in the work itself *, I think there's entertainment to be had in reading GFD's work with the image of an overgrown, shambolic, military-fixated former public schoolboy bombarding the Nerve Centre with indecipherable and incoherent scripts they couldn't ignore because they knew there was gold buried somewhere in there. I made my peace with the work of another author ** after learning that the arrival of his copious and uniformly awful scripts in Tharg's bullpen *** struck terror in the hearts of copy boys cowering behind walls and ramparts constructed from the stacked volumes of bad fiction, for which he invoiced Fleetway on an almost daily basis.


* and you'd have to be a fairly cold fish not to

** a much more deserving candidate for the laurels mentioned in the OP

*** early nineties editorial were never on my Christmas card list

Quote from: sauchie on 24 February, 2014, 07:01:03 PMI made my peace with the work of another author ** after learning that the arrival of his copious and uniformly awful scripts in Tharg's bullpen *** struck terror in the hearts of copy boys cowering behind walls and ramparts constructed from the stacked volumes of bad fiction, for which he invoiced Fleetway on an almost daily basis.

No mercy for that one from this quarter.  We'll have no Jonah Hex apologists here.

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 February, 2014, 07:36:54 PM

Quote from: sauchie on 24 February, 2014, 07:01:03 PMI made my peace with the work of another author ** after learning that the arrival of his copious and uniformly awful scripts in Tharg's bullpen *** struck terror in the hearts of copy boys cowering behind walls and ramparts constructed from the stacked volumes of bad fiction, for which he invoiced Fleetway on an almost daily basis.

No mercy for that one from this quarter.  We'll have no Jonah Hex apologists here.

I blame the enervated nightlife victims occupying the Nerve Centre. Pat Mills's method of commissioning any freeloader hanging around the offices to get something - anything - down on paper, and then rewriting it to make it funny, to make sense, and to make some kind of point, proves pearls can be made from grit. See also Alan Grant's aforementioned reduxxing of GFD's work.

If you're fool enough to commission something as awful as the work of the Olivetti jockey alluded to above, the least you can do is take a pass over it yourself to try and bring it up to code. Or better yet, unleash the malevolent, cackling genius of John Smith upon the dreck to subject it to the blackest parodic sub-editing imaginable, as he begged to be allowed to do with another divisive author's efforts.

Quote from: sauchie on 24 February, 2014, 07:01:03 PM
If the fantastically named Bongo Clive - who must surely be named in memorial of the fact that Dr Clive Gibbons from Neighbours played the bongos - wants to understand the majesty of Finley-Day's creative process, he need only read Thrillpower Overload's (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thrill-Power-Overload-Thirty-Rebellion-2000ad/dp/1905437951/ref=tmm_pap_title_0http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thrill-Power-Overload-Thirty-Rebellion-2000ad/dp/1905437951/ref=tmm_pap_title_0) account of the editorial team's frustrated attempts to piece together randomly ordered typewritten pages of Burroughs cut-up technique script, with physically impossible stage directions and dialogue which appeared to be written in a language other than English, into something resembling a coherent narrative.

One of my top all-time favourite 2000 panel sequences is in Fort Neuro - "Stak! Souther G.I. on suicide* run!" - but I now wonder how much of that was created by GFD or editiorial. Hmmm.....

* I think they spell it su-ee-cide in the speech bubble or something like it?

I think it is unfair to single out GFD. To me some of his stories were absolute classics, especially Fiends of the Eastern Front and Harry 20.

Death Planet and Angel (recent floppies) are, in my opinion, easily more hackneyed than any of GFD stuff (apart from  possibly Ant Wars). But for an eight year old in 1978 I'll bet they were great.

As to the suggestion that Dredd was fully formed from the start, I can't agree. Some of the early stories are not that sophisticated and follow a basic pattern of introducing a baddie, the baddie having a run in with Dredd and ending up dead or with a heavy sentence and that's about it. I think even the 'classic" robot wars does not particular stand up well now.

I'm pretty sure Pat Mills has said that the editing needed on GFD's scripts wasn't anything like as extensive as is sometimes suggested. He's also said he feels GFD doesn't get anywhere near the credit he deserves: in fact, Pat cites GFD as the third key member of a progressive British comics vanguard (the other two members being Pat himself and John Wagner, of course.)

Quote from: Greg M. on 24 February, 2014, 09:05:00 PM
I'm pretty sure Pat Mills has said that the editing needed on GFD's scripts wasn't anything like as extensive as is sometimes suggested. He's also said he feels GFD doesn't get anywhere near the credit he deserves: in fact, Pat cites GFD as the third key member of a progressive British comics vanguard (the other two members being Pat himself and John Wagner, of course.)

I picked up the Rat Pack from the Works today for three pound ninety nine pence and an interview with Pat included is pretty much summed up by Greg's post here.

Quote from: Skullmo on 24 February, 2014, 10:25:19 AM
I completely disagree with your stance.
I really like the way GFD writes.
So what are you missing? You are probably looking for a level of modern complexity and coolness that is not there. If you don't like his stuff, I would suggest not reading it.

Yup, as per Skullmo.
Been about 18 months back in the fold and the only Megazine floppy I've genuinely enjoyed is
Disaster 1990. GFD. It wouldn't win awards but it is crafted perfectly. The Lobster Randoms and Black
Siddhas leave me cold...

Why 'nothing to see here'? That title is tempting fate  :)
But each to their own, of course.

I think GFD bashing has become a common sport. It seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world.

Having said that I cannot help but feel if he was such a terrible writer how come so few since him have managed to write a good Rogue Trooper story.

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
I think GFD bashing has become a common sport. It seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world.

Oh course its also entirely possible that any 'GFD bashing' as you put it rather provocatively put it is actually simply some people not enjoying his work. This would have nothing to do with what people have read elsewhere (meaning outside the works of GFD) and well... you know... just their opinion. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly know that applies to me.

Quote from: Fungus on 25 February, 2014, 03:00:37 AM

Why 'nothing to see here'? That title is tempting fate  :)
But each to their own, of course.

I think that was the mods' work, not the OP's. But yeah... have to admit, Rich, it made me click on the thread immediately  :)

I think the original thread title was 'Worst Writer Ever' or words to that effect!

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 25 February, 2014, 08:20:38 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
I think GFD bashing has become a common sport. It seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world.

Oh course its also entirely possible that any 'GFD bashing' as you put it rather provocatively put it is actually simply some people not enjoying his work. This would have nothing to do with what people have read elsewhere (meaning outside the works of GFD) and well... you know... just their opinion. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly know that applies to me.

I don't see a thread saying anyone else is the worst writer ever . . .

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 10:53:42 AMI don't see a thread saying anyone else is the worst writer ever . . .

Well there's always this one...

Poo-gate, aka A Message from the Writer of Stalag 666.

http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,23489.0.html


Say what you like about GFD, no-one ever sent him poo through the post.

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 10:53:42 AM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 25 February, 2014, 08:20:38 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
I think GFD bashing has become a common sport. It seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world.

Oh course its also entirely possible that any 'GFD bashing' as you put it rather provocatively put it is actually simply some people not enjoying his work. This would have nothing to do with what people have read elsewhere (meaning outside the works of GFD) and well... you know... just their opinion. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly know that applies to me.

I don't see a thread saying anyone else is the worst writer ever . . .

No quite agree but luckily the titles been changed - though it lingers on those first few posts alas. It was an unfortunate title for the post, particularly one that actually sort to understand why a lot of people liked GFD's work and gave reasons for the poster not liking it rather than why it was the worst. So yeah not a great start...

...BUT (as ever it was always coming). One poster starting a post with a poor choice of title does not make 'GFD bashing' common sport. BongoClive gave reasons for why he didn't like his work, as have others, myself included, none of which seem to evidence the fact that stuff was said in Thrillpower Overload, rather that its their (and my) reaction to reading his work.

To assign some other reason, i.e. the comments made in Thrillpower Overload, comes across to me as dismissive of people who have expressed an opinion that differs from your own, for reasons I can see no real evidence for. Now if you'd said 'Well if you don't like GFD's work I think you smell of poo' no beef as you're not assigning reasons for why we've said it, rather you are disagreeing.

Quote from: ming on 25 February, 2014, 10:59:14 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 10:53:42 AMI don't see a thread saying anyone else is the worst writer ever . . .

Well there's always this one...

Poo-gate, aka A Message from the Writer of Stalag 666.

http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,23489.0.html


Say what you like about GFD, no-one ever sent him poo through the post.

Oh dear! yes, I forgot about that. Did anyone ever find the dirty bum who did this?

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 25 February, 2014, 11:09:20 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 10:53:42 AM

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 25 February, 2014, 08:20:38 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
I think GFD bashing has become a common sport. It seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world.

Oh course its also entirely possible that any 'GFD bashing' as you put it rather provocatively put it is actually simply some people not enjoying his work. This would have nothing to do with what people have read elsewhere (meaning outside the works of GFD) and well... you know... just their opinion. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly know that applies to me.

I don't see a thread saying anyone else is the worst writer ever . . .

No quite agree but luckily the titles been changed - though it lingers on those first few posts alas. It was an unfortunate title for the post, particularly one that actually sort to understand why a lot of people liked GFD's work and gave reasons for the poster not liking it rather than why it was the worst. So yeah not a great start...

...BUT (as ever it was always coming). One poster starting a post with a poor choice of title does not make 'GFD bashing' common sport. BongoClive gave reasons for why he didn't like his work, as have others, myself included, none of which seem to evidence the fact that stuff was said in Thrillpower Overload, rather that its their (and my) reaction to reading his work.

To assign some other reason, i.e. the comments made in Thrillpower Overload, comes across to me as dismissive of people who have expressed an opinion that differs from your own, for reasons I can see no real evidence for. Now if you'd said 'Well if you don't like GFD's work I think you smell of poo' no beef as you're not assigning reasons for why we've said it, rather you are disagreeing.

Ok - I will restate my comment. I didn't think it would cause any concern, I sort of write these things off the cuff when I'm bored.

In my view, as anything I say is in my view, I think GFD bashing has become a common sport (and of course I say this with a sense of humour as, arguably, there could be no actual sport that would involve bashing GFD). In my view this commonly seems to be based on a few comments which were in the Thrillpower Overload about the quality of his scripts, and I say this because I have heard this point raised a number of times by people not just in this thread but elsewhere. I am sure everything in that book is completely unbiased and represents the full picture of the world (this unfortunately is sarcasm as I do not think the book was unbiased in any way - and did not include a contribution from GFD as far as I remember). Having said that I am sure there are many other reasons for disliking his work which everybody is entitled to have.

Much better... though do I detect a hint of snark... nah I'm just being grumpy there aren't I.

 :lol:


But in all seriousness, I would never suppose I know why someone feels something.

Quote from: Skullmo on 25 February, 2014, 11:54:56 AM
But in all seriousness, I would never suppose I know why someone feels something.

It's because they enjoy being wrong. ;-)

Cheers

Jim

No GFD-bashing from this quarter. My reaction to reading the progs where his work was a regular feature was exactly that suggested by the comments made by Mills which are referenced above. A lot of the first few years of 2000ad is made up of insipid writing and art which feel like they owe more to the previous few decades of comics than the brash and dynamic vision of Mills and Wagner. GFD's strips exhibit the same energy, humour and incident-packed form as those two, and I held him in similar esteem.

The distinction I'd make between the three is that while Wagner and Mills continued to refine their style and expand the scope of their work, GFD continued to plough more or less the same furrow. Nothing wrong with that, but - as Mills pointed out in the last podcast he did for ECBT2000ad - it meant he ended up out of favour once the editorial department became the preserve of fashion victims who bought into the hype around comics growing up. I still enjoy the many tales (from various sources) of GFD's unique means of self expression, though.

Quote from: sauchie on 25 February, 2014, 06:30:20 PM
The distinction I'd make between the three is that while Wagner and Mills continued to refine their style and expand the scope of their work, GFD continued to plough more or less the same furrow..

Can't argue with that – a fair and astute comment. Wagner and Mills slipped the surly bonds of earth and danced the skies; Finley-Day reached a successful plateau and kept plugging away.

Quote from: sauchie on 25 February, 2014, 06:30:20 PM
Nothing wrong with that, but - as Mills pointed out in the last podcast he did for ECBT2000ad - it meant he ended up out of favour once the editorial department became the preserve of fashion victims who bought into the hype around comics growing up.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Even by Mills' own admission, GFD was (is?) a "rough draft" kind of writer whose scripts needed a lot of polish.

As the 2000AD budget was squeezed and the editorial department dwindled from an actual department to two guys and the lad who made the tea* I think employing writers whose scripts needed the degree of (charitably) polish that every editor who's ever passed comment on them has said they required may have looked like something of a luxury. Particularly when there was no shortage of eager young things who would fall over themselves to submit a script that was already so polished you could see your face in it.

Harsh, but the way of things, I'm afraid.

Cheers

Jim

*AKA: Andy Diggle.

If we're talking writers who cause a ton of headaches for editorial and make demands upon their time, another writer we've both mentioned is probably a better example. If being more trouble than he was worth was the reason GFD stopped getting the cheques, all it would have taken was another hour long phone rant and we'd all have been reading Alan MacKenzie's Nemesis: book ten and Simon Bisley would have illustrated Hilary Robinson's take on The ABC Warriors.

I've never read anything, anywhere, that suggests any 2000ad editorial team has ever done any significant re-writing of a Pat Mills script.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: sauchie on 25 February, 2014, 10:33:47 PM
If we're talking writers who cause a ton of headaches for editorial and make demands upon their time ... all it would have taken was yet another hour long phone rant and we'd all have been reading Alan MacKenzie's Nemesis: book ten and Simon Bisley would have illustrated Hilary Robinson's take on The ABC Warriors.

Quote from: sauchie on 25 February, 2014, 11:33:40 PM

Quote from: sauchie on 25 February, 2014, 10:33:47 PM
If we're talking writers who cause a ton of headaches for editorial and make demands upon their time ... all it would have taken was yet another hour long phone rant and we'd all have been reading Alan MacKenzie's Nemesis: book ten and Simon Bisley would have illustrated Hilary Robinson's take on The ABC Warriors.

I'm assuming you're quoting yourself in an attempt to show that I've somehow misunderstood the passage you re-quote. If so, you're going to have to explain to me again, using shorter words.

You say:

QuoteIf we're talking writers who cause a ton of headaches for editorial and make demands upon their time

Well, I wasn't. I was talking specifically about writers — more accurately, one writer — whose work was notorious for requiring extensive re-writing. You can tell that's what I was talking about, because that's what I wrote, and then reiterated. As such, comparison with Pat Mills' reputation for a certain —ahem— volatility seems to be rather missing my point.

You could argue that GFD fell out of favour under a fairly capricious editorial regime, but he wasn't alone by any means in suddenly finding the doors at 2000AD seemingly barred under the Burton/MacKenzie tenure. The vast majority of those creators found the doors un-barred when the title came under new stewardship and I would suggest the fact that GFD didn't is as much about the sheer level of editorial work his scripts required as some supposed disfavour in the eyes of "fashion victims".

Cheers

Jim

The same editorial staff who considered GFD to be a pain in the neck thought of Pat Mills in the same way, for different reasons. Ergo, being a pain in the neck - taking up their time and mental effort - was not the sole reason GFD's calls stopped being returned. Ron Smith provided no such headaches, but disappeared from the prog for similar reasons to those which saw GFD sidelined.

Quote from: sauchie on 26 February, 2014, 07:38:25 AM
Ergo, being a pain in the neck - taking up their time and mental effort - was not the sole reason GFD's calls stopped being returned.

No, he also wasn't the title's founding father.

Honestly, I have no idea why you're arguing this point with me. Your original post asserted that GFD fell out of favour because of the pretensions of fashion victims in the editorial chair. God knows, I'm no apologist for the Burton/MacKenzie editorial team — I wasn't specifically referring to them, but confronted with a choice between Writer A, whose scripts will need extensive re-writing in order to reach a basic standard of useability, and Writer B, whose scripts come in requiring little more than a once-over for typos and grammar, any editorial department whose budgets are being squeezed will go for Writer B.

I'm not suggesting that was the sole reason for GFD's fall from favour, nor am I arguing any wider point, but there is a practical component to the editorial unwillingness to commission further material the causes of which are at least partly of his own making.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 26 February, 2014, 07:51:58 AM

Quote from: sauchie on 26 February, 2014, 07:38:25 AM
Ergo, being a pain in the neck - taking up their time and mental effort - was not the sole reason GFD's calls stopped being returned.

No, he also wasn't the title's founding father.

Honestly, I have no idea why you're arguing this point with me. Your original post asserted that GFD fell out of favour because of the pretensions of fashion victims in the editorial chair. God knows, I'm no apologist for the Burton/MacKenzie editorial team — I wasn't specifically referring to them, but confronted with a choice between Writer A, whose scripts will need extensive re-writing in order to reach a basic standard of useability, and Writer B, whose scripts come in requiring little more than a once-over for typos and grammar, any editorial department whose budgets are being squeezed will go for Writer B.

I'm not suggesting that was the sole reason for GFD's fall from favour, nor am I arguing any wider point, but there is a practical component to the editorial unwillingness to commission further material the causes of which are at least partly of his own making.

Cheers

Jim

Surely this is an exercise in dialectical method!

Now let's work out how many Thargs can sit on the head of a pin?!

Quote from: sauchie on 26 February, 2014, 07:38:25 AM
Ron Smith provided no such headaches, but disappeared from the prog for similar reasons to those which saw GFD sidelined.

Worth reiterating my point about the majority of creators finding 2000AD more welcoming once the editorial regime changed. This was certainly true for Ron Smith, who was invited to return to the Galaxy's Greatest by David Bishop but who had, by then, filled his schedule with far more lucrative work for advertising agencies and whose response to the invitation (according to Bishop) was "Not bloody likely!"

Cheers

Jim

This all comes back to the nature of comics as a commercial medium. When GFD was feeding the Command Module with iconic characters and distinctive setups, pop-culture puns and fast-paced boys' adventures, it was as part of a collaborative process, with great editors and an incredible team of artists (Gibbons, Kennedy, Wilson, Ewins, Ortiz, hootin' heck!) all doing their thing with his scripts to produce the weekly comics equivalent of ambrosia.  When it was pared back to 'give us a script we can use straight out of the drawer and we'll stick whoever's free on it', the dynamic changes in favour of, oh let's just say, Fleisher.  To quote Truman Capote, 'that's not writing, that's typing'.

Quote from: TordelBack on 26 February, 2014, 12:18:32 PM
the dynamic changes in favour of, oh let's just say, Fleisher.

Alan MacKenzie claims to have re-written some of Fleisher's material (anything bearing 'Falco' co-writing credit had definitely seen some attention, I believe) which somewhat undermines my argument, but I believe Fleisher was/is a very good friend of Richard Burton and GFD, it would appear, wasn't.

Bridges were certainly rebuilt with a great many creators in the post-MacKenzie era, even if some of them couldn't be lured back. That GFD wasn't one of them, as I've already suggested, would logically be as much about the accompanying overhead in terms of editorial time as any consideration of what was 'fashionable' in comics.

Cheers

Jim

Win a free Twothy GN just by voting in the short story comp. Cheers

http://forums.2000adonline.com/index.php/topic,40150.0.html

Quote from: TordelBack on 26 February, 2014, 12:18:32 PM
This all comes back to the nature of comics as a commercial medium. When GFD was feeding the Command Module with iconic characters and distinctive setups, pop-culture puns and fast-paced boys' adventures, it was as part of a collaborative process, with great editors and an incredible team of artists (Gibbons, Kennedy, Wilson, Ewins, Ortiz, hootin' heck!) all doing their thing with his scripts to produce the weekly comics equivalent of ambrosia.  When it was pared back to 'give us a script we can use straight out of the drawer and we'll stick whoever's free on it', the dynamic changes in favour of, oh let's just say, Fleisher.  To quote Truman Capote, 'that's not writing, that's typing'.

You have truth on your side already; marshalling the titans of literature in support of your point is just showing off. That's a succinct and very perceptive analysis of the appeal of GFD's work, and probably the most persuasive explanation of what went wrong.