General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Holyoke is a Myth...
Henry Andrews (fox_centaur):
--- Quote from: mmiichael on April 17, 2010, 02:07:45 PM ---
I see the same comics researchers running around on the same loop they were 20 years ago without much kn owledge of the bigger picture. Expand your horizons and move beyond those indicias if you want deeper answers.
--- End quote ---
So basically what you're saying is "I know a lot of things you don't, but I'm not going to tell you." I don't see anyone here fighting you on these concepts, or trying to tell you that you're wrong at all. The only thing I see here is people who would like to benefit from your research. Is there some reason you feel you must withhold your work from us? Is there anything that would make you reconsider?
Not all of us were around for previous rounds of discussions. I've only become interested in these sorts of topics within the last year. It's extremely frustrating to me for someone who seems to have more than the usual number of answers to specifically refuse to share them because someone else entirely disregarded those answers in the past. I don't have a problem with being told to do my own research instead of trying to make other folks do it. But having to *re-do* someone else's good, useful research seems like a waste of time for all of us in the comics community who are more interested in the truth than in past battles.
thanks,
-henry
mmiichael:
I'm sorry if what I have said as been taken in an offensive way.
I am trying to be helpful in showing how one cannot apply the usual structure of a 'publisher' to the originators of many marginal publications.
In most cases there was no single company 'owner', nor offices, publishing plans or scheduling, etc. It will be a source of permanent frustration to those trying to force a square peg into a round hole by deciphering the provided data from the comics themselves.
I stopped posting on message boards years ago because there were people who took this as an affront to their efforts. Maybe this is a cue to continue my discussions offlist with those who can see the bigger picture.
Again sorry if this sounds disparaging. But after decades of futile attempts being made to do nail down publishers using the wrong tools I'd say it's time to consider a fuller understanding of the realities of publishing world rather than trying to impose imaginary pubication structures which where not there.
M
JVJ (RIP):
One of the great hindrances of research has always been access to information. For most of the "history" of comics research, the people with access to the players didn't have full access to their product. People doing the interviews didn't know enough about the comics themselves. GAC/DCM and others have solved some of that, and folks like me are hoping that by providing more raw material, some deeper insight might be gained.
So, you seem to have some deeper insight and have asked some serious people some serious questions. All we're trying to do is to take your "bigger picture" and fill in some of the gaps in our own limited understanding. The more data you can (or are willing to) provide, the clearer the historic picture can be. No one is arguing with you. We're trying to get you to be less vague and to provide as many specifics as possible.
Like the limited access to the actual comics that used to be a reality, now we're faced with limited access to your knowledge - which we're unable to duplicate on our own because the people aren't around anymore. We just want the benefit of what you know and you seem to be chastising and marginalizing us for asking.
Kinda frustrating, actually.
(|:{>
Henry Andrews (fox_centaur):
--- Quote from: mmiichael on April 17, 2010, 03:26:14 PM ---
I'm sorry if what I have said as been taken in an offensive way.
I am trying to be helpful in showing how one cannot apply the usual structure of a 'publisher' to the originators of many marginal publications.
In most cases there was no single company 'owner', nor offices, publishing plans or scheduling, etc. It will be a source of permanent frustration to those trying to force a square peg into a round hole by deciphering the provided data from the comics themselves.
I stopped posting on message boards years ago because there were people who took this as an affront to their efforts. Maybe this is a cue to continue my discussions offlist with those who can see the bigger picture.
--- End quote ---
Mike, I'm trying to say that I either accept or find reasonable all of your points. I don't see anyone here saying that your ideas are an affront to our efforts. We all just want to hear your ideas. Not just hear you tell us we're looking at the wrong thing- OK, we're looking at the wrong thing, let's move on and discuss the right thing. Will you help us?
--- Quote from: mmiichael on April 17, 2010, 03:26:14 PM ---Again sorry if this sounds disparaging. But after decades of futile attempts being made to do nail down publishers using the wrong tools I'd say it's time to consider a fuller understanding of the realities of publishing world rather than trying to impose imaginary pubication structures which where not there.
--- End quote ---
Which we're all trying to do here. Again, will you help us? I can't deal with whatever problems you had with other people in the past. I'm not arguing against any of your points. Can you accept that we accept what you're saying and not keep hammering on past disagreements, which many of us were not a party to? This whole thread is about dismantling the myths surrounding supposed "publishing groups" like Holyoke. We've started by looking past Holyoke to figures like Temerson. You've said that Temerson is just another smokescreen. Great, that's progress! What's next?
thanks,
-henry
John C:
--- Quote from: Bob Hughes on April 17, 2010, 06:27:46 AM ---The interesting wrinkle in the Holyoke case, is that both Fox and Temerson somehow got their lines back from Holyoke (Bowles). The Fox stuff is documented in court filings. Temerson, not so much.
--- End quote ---
Sliding slightly off-topic, I realize, but does anyone know if there's a summary (or the original documents, for that matter) available for the Fox filings? I'm rather curious about that process, myself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version