The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **KING King Impulse** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:54 pm

Punchy wrote:I had the same thing when Bryan Lee O'Malley replied to my email.

Did he see my review do you think? Because it's kind of a middleground, I didn't love it enough or bash it enough to really make him smile.

He's a nice guy, so I kind of feel bad for criticising him. I met him at Thought Bubble, should have bought a Phonogram or Suburban Glamour T-shirt though.

I don't think so, unless he's been checking the thread but I doubt it.

I really want the Silent Girl 'Last Night This DJ Ruined Your Life' t-shirt.

by **Punchy** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:59 pm

King Impulse wrote:I don't think so, unless he's been checking the thread but I doubt it.

I really want the Silent Girl 'Last Night This DJ Ruined Your Life' t-shirt.

I saw that, it was cool.

McKelvie's art transfers well to T-shirts.

You should send Gillen a link to the official page that Amlah puts up once everyone has reviewed.

by **thefourthman** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:44 pm

So um... yeah, I just wrote my review. This was the first issue of the series that I would call bad. It just doesn't work, love the series, not in love with tis issue.

Will link when live...

Story 3
Art 10
Overall 5 (the art don't save it enough for an average)

by **guitarsmashley** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:10 am

Kieron Gillen wrote:
Thanks for picking us for the review-group too. Your review is lovely. The other reviews have put a smile on my face too, for totally the opposite reason.

Fuck him and his smugness. Quit being a twat and write a decent comic book.

by **KieronGillen** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:35 am

Oh, we watch everything.

Impulse: Generally speaking, re-printing e-mails from anyone without permission is impolite. In this case even a light gag will get some people's backs up - as it has here. God knows there's enough justified reasons for people to hate us without giving some more. But no use crying over spilled milk.

Generally speaking: We try to be polite to everyone who takes the time to review PG. As is only natural, we've got opinions on all reviews, but seeing the long history of people who've worked as critics and turned into the most vocal critic bashers, we'd rather avoid that. Mostly, we just smile at bad reviews.

In this case, "It's about a dude that bangs a skank then cannot man up and get over it" made us smile. Why wouldn't it? It's a pretty funny line. I almost twittered it as my favourite one line description of PG2.2, but decided against it.

(As some of the twitter readers would almost certainly start mocking the person for saying so, and I'd hate someone to turn up here to mock him. That's not why I'd want to twitter it, y'know? Risking setting an internet lynch mob isn't the classy thing to do.)

guitarsmashley: In your case, we smiled at the comparison to Alan Moore. Comparisons - even negative ones - to Alan Moore don't really annoy writers. Really, thanks for your time and sorry it didn't work for you.

Punchy: I did read it. Good to see someone actually wrestling with themselves over what they actually made of the thing. It's the sort of review where I wouldn't be comfortable talking about now. As in, I'd be interested to see if you think some of the faults are faults when you reach the end of the series.

(Some of the stuff certainly won't change, admittedly. We're never going to explain the magic much more than it is now, just hope that people eventually twig what we're trying to do.)

Finally: It's the issue I'd have probably suggested for people to do such a thing, so great to see someone do a review group on an issue of PG2.2. Thanks for taking the time to read the bally thing.

KG

by **Punchy** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:15 am

KieronGillen wrote:Oh, we watch everything.

Impulse: Generally speaking, re-printing e-mails from anyone without permission is impolite. In this case even a light gag will get some people's backs up - as it has here. God knows there's enough justified reasons for people to hate us without giving some more. But no use crying over spilled milk.

Generally speaking: We try to be polite to everyone who takes the time to review PG. As is only natural, we've got opinions on all reviews, but seeing the long history of people who've worked as critics and turned into the most vocal critic bashers, we'd rather avoid that. Mostly, we just smile at bad reviews.

In this case, "It's about a dude that bangs a skank then cannot man up and get over it" made us smile. Why wouldn't it? It's a pretty funny line. I almost twittered it as my favourite one line description of PG2.2, but decided against it.

(As some of the twitter readers would almost certainly start mocking the person for saying so, and I'd hate someone to turn up here to mock him. That's not why I'd want to twitter it, y'know? Risking setting an internet lynch mob isn't the classy thing to do.)

guitarsmashley: In your case, we smiled at the comparison to Alan Moore. Comparisons - even negative ones - to Alan Moore don't really annoy writers. Really, thanks for your time and sorry it didn't work for you.

Punchy: I did read it. Good to see someone actually wrestling with themselves over what they actually made of the thing. It's the sort of review where I wouldn't be comfortable talking about now. As in, I'd be interested to see if you think some of the faults are faults when you reach the end of the series.

(Some of the stuff certainly won't change, admittedly. We're never going to explain the magic much more than it is now, just hope that people eventually twig what we're trying to do.)

Finally: It's the issue I'd have probably suggested for people to do such a thing, so great to see someone do a review group on an issue of PG2.2. Thanks for taking the time to read the bally thing.

KG

Yeah, I think that a lot of my problems with the book will be allayed once it's all finished, and we have the complete picture.

Like with the first book, I was kind of confused when it was coming out, and when I re-read it, I went 'Oh! It all makes sense!'.

I think you're probably right about not fully defining the music as magic thing, as what makes music excting and moving is also unexplainable, and so should 'Phonomancy'

by **KING King Impulse** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:45 am

KieronGillen wrote:Oh, we watch everything.

Impulse: Generally speaking, re-printing e-mails from anyone without permission is impolite. In this case even a light gag will get some people's backs up - as it has here. God knows there's enough justified reasons for people to hate us without giving some more. But no use crying over spilled milk.

Sorry about that, it didn't seem like the best idea but I thought'd it be cool to let people know the creator has seen the thread/smashley was getting to me. Won't happen again, thanks for keeping up with the thread.

by **KieronGillen** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:59 am

Punchy wrote:Yeah, I think that a lot of my problems with the book will be allayed once it's all finished, and we have the complete picture.

Like with the first book, I was kind of confused when it was coming out, and when I re-read it, I went 'Oh! It all makes sense!'.

I think you're probably right about not fully defining the music as magic thing, as what makes music excting and moving is also unexplainable, and so should 'Phonomancy'

That's the idea, anyway. Not that it necessarily will, of course, and even if it does, it doesn't mean that you'll like it. But there's nothing we do which is by accident. If we're a mess, it's a very deliberate mess.

(Sorry - I'm forced to walk an odd line between self-effacement (i.e. We get that people won't necessarily like it) and total arrogance (We think we're pretty fucking awesome))

King Impulse wrote:Sorry about that, it didn't seem like the best idea but I thought'd it be cool to let people know the creator has seen the thread/smashley was getting to me. Won't happen again, thanks for keeping up with the thread.

Forgotten. Saying I've read it one thing, but no need to involve me in internet fisticuffs. You can swing hard enough yourself. Biff!

KG

by **Punchy** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:03 am

KieronGillen wrote:Forgotten. Saying I read it one thing, but no need to involve me in internet fisticuffs. You can swing hard enough yourself. Biff!

KG

I think even if the end result isn't especially to my liking, it's still preferable to the individual puzzle pieces.

Please say that Lloyd is going to get his own issue, I think he's my favourite character so far.

Is #3 coming along soon?

by **KieronGillen** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:04 am

Sorry - meant to say. Lloyd is issue 6. Have to write the solicit text for that one today, actually.

Issue 3 is at Image and working its way to the printer. When we get an actual release date, we'll get it out there, but should be around the month.

KG

by **48THRiLLS** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:13 am

I think it is pretty cool that a creator came here to talk about his book, I am sorry that it was a book I did not like... I do think the threat of his army of twitterers mocking those who didn't like his book is a bit silly, it's an open forum... mock away, I am not that cool anyway.

by **KieronGillen** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:20 am

What can I say? Internet drama bores me. And of course, that's about me. As in, I don't like seeing creators link to reviews of their stuff which they think are shit, so I'm not going to do it myself.

(The only reason I mentioned it upthread is because the relevant bit of the mail was printed and I wanted to explain what I meant by it.)

KG