TF Views

JediTricks wrote:The characters aren't the problem, the issue is that this brand continues to prove itself resistant to development of any kind, that there is no room for outsiders to enjoy the brand unless they enjoy it the way old-guard fans have always enjoyed it, "the way it was intended back in '84".

I don't think that's fair at all. It's not change in general that's a problem. I take each new thing and form an opinion as it happens, and for the most part I've been fine. The current way the books mix and match the characters and factions is certainly not how it was done or intended in 1984, and until the whole Megatron as captain storyline started, I had no problem with the approach. Even enjoyed it for the most part. Change is fine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with everything.

And I'll freely admit in this case that the author's attitude rubbed me the wrong way. That's not something I normally take into account, but I guess this time was an exception.

That would be the light entertainment that had never had factions warring over limited resources and philosophical differences and beings' inalienable rights? Even the earliest fiction elements of G1 are steeped in politics and social issues, you just didn't care before because you chose to overlook them, or you didn't understand them at the time. Even before the Sunbow cartoon, look at Mirage's tech spec bio:
Mirage is not thrilled about being an Autobot freedom fighter. Prefers hunting turbofoxes on Cybertron with his high-priced friends. - Class warfare.
Unsure of Autobot cause... can't be fully trusted. - Philosophical and ethical questions.

I"m going to quote Dom: some subjects work better with the Transformers concept than others. And how much did character concepts like the ones you mentioned really factor into the fiction? They existed as toy bios, but the subjects raised were never given much exploration, in-depth or otherwise.

And they're clearly male, they have male pronouns, they have male physiques, they have male facial features and facial hair, they have male voices in their animated media. If you start arguing that it's "for simplicity in conveying to the audience", you start falling down the rabbit hole of deconstructing why they do anything, and then you end up with Roombas bumping into each other again. The reality is that these fictional characters do have some level of connection to the real-world beings which created them, there's no way around that... it's "engendered" into the brand (pun intended).

Who's going to watch a show about a bunch of emotionless robots with voices like speech synthesizers? (Soundwave excepted, and he certainly wasn't emotionless). For there to be an emotional connection and empathy, the characters have to act in ways that the audience will recognize. The audience recognizes people, understandably, so Transformers are written that way, to some extent. And they are largely voiced by males, because the brand began as and largely remains a boys toy action line, with some females added from time to time.

But what that means philosophically and biologically in a race of genderless robots is never the focus of the story, with the exception of the Beast Wars relationship between BA and Silverbolt. And Rattrap and Botanica, if we really want to go there. :/ And even there, the long term implications of those relationships isn't explored apart from how it affects the factions that they are members of, and the way it gives BA motivation for her actions during Beast Machines. The relationships exist as plot mechanics and not much else.

The brand is now 30 years old, should it not grow, should it not develop alongside the society that consumes the content? Should it exist in a state of arrested development, permanently stuck in telling stories only for the little boys of the 1980s? The politics and interpersonal relationships of Cybertron and its people are what drew me back into the brand after years of doing the same thing over and over again, first with Beast Wars and now with the earliest issues of RID and MTMTE. There is more to the brand than just telling the same exact stories over and over again. Either that or it's a dying brand stuck in a circle jerk, and the growth we're experiencing now is merely an anomaly which will be wiped out in place of a trip into the downward spiral of repetition.

I"m going to go back to what I said earlier. Some changes work for me, some don't. It doesn't follow that any subject is a good fit to incorporate into the Transformers brand. And obviously, we don't always agree on which ones fit and which ones don't, with this case being a prime example.

]So you know for a fact what Furman was talking about, and that when he created the only female Transformer, that somehow that wasn't indicative of every female Transformer despite BEING every female Transformer at the time? That his writing of wars and humanity and camaraderie were all influenced by real-world society but this wasn't one of them? You KNOW this?

Furman has said as much. I can't read his mind, but I'll take him at his word unless there's a good reason not to. http://simonfurman.wordpress.com/2013/1 ... ead-scott/

I'm sure you've read this, and his comments to others. I think he and I are largely on the same page with a lot of thinking when it comes to Transformers and gender.

You already seem to KNOW what Ms. Scott was thinking somehow, so I guess you must also KNOW what Mr. Furman was thinking.

I'm just making the judgment call from each writers' own words.

But in reality you don't at all, you are projecting your opinions from your perspective. Funny how little boys gravitate towards various role models like Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, representative characters for ideal personalities which are personified in male form with male features, yet women are being stubborn because they aren't just going along with that same ideal male character as well, that they want to be seen as valuable in that same media and they have a chip on their shoulders.

Maybe this is the thing that informs our opinion on this subject, because while I had favorite characters, none of them were ever role models. The idea seems quite odd to me, honestly, to take a fictional character, male or female (who in this case isn't even human) and look to them as a role model. It's just fiction. It's just escapist entertainment and fun. I doubt I've ever seen it otherwise. It's too divorced from reality to be anything else for me.

Just to repeat: they aren't even human, or real for that matter. I may accept the idea that someone would look to them as role models of some sort, but I'll never empathize with it or understand it. It makes no sense to me.

Funny how you, a male, can't identify with anybody who could take personal offense at Furman's story about Arcee, the sole representative for female characters in that entire race, being defined as an insane aberration. I wonder what about you, a male, not being able to identify with a character, a female, being seen as different might affect another reader, perhaps a female. Where oh where is the disconnect between you, a male, and another, a female, in a story about the single and thus whole representation of females in the story, have come from. Where might a difference in viewpoint exist between a male and a female exist in this situation. What's the divide between male and female in this complex issue of audience acceptance of representative gender. It's a mystery I guess, maybe they just have a chip on their shoulders for no reason.

See above. Transformers aren't human, they aren't real, and how they are portrayed has no effect on how I view myself or other people.

You're a good person, I like you, but you haven't even read the material, you are judging and discussing it solely on meta elements.

I appreciate that, and as I said, it's Scott's attitude that put me off the book rather than the book itself, so your comment is entirely fair.

You are complaining that you don't like gender politics and social issues, yet the material itself is free of both, I'd argue to a disappointing degree - YOU are the one bringing the issue into the material, you are the one with the chip on your shoulder here.

I'm responding to the author's comments, not the material itself, it is true.

I"m going to quote Dom: some subjects work better with the Transformers concept than others. And how much did character concepts like the ones you mentioned really factor into the fiction? They existed as toy bios, but the subjects raised were never given much exploration, in-depth or otherwise.

Mirage specifically? His misgivings were main plot points in early comics and cartoons.

And, TF has precedent for moral/philosphical questions.

But, it usually tackled bigger questons than gender theory (which is typically on discussed on college campuses). In that respect, Scott's antics are a step down.

Just to repeat: they aren't even human, or real for that matter. I may accept the idea that someone would look to them as role models of some sort, but I'll never empathize with it or understand it. It makes no sense to me.

Generally I agree. But, to invert this..... If somebody is going to use a fictional character that represents an alien space robot as a roll model, why is gender such a big thing? (Once somebody crosses the lines between species and actually existing....gender seems pretty trivial.)

More to the point, if people need corresponding gender for their role models, where does the problem really lie? To use a non-political example, I *really* think that Shreve (Daily Coyote) Stockton is worthy of admiration. I never once looked at her site and thought "I cannot think well of her and want to mimic her work because she is a woman." I looked over her site and thought...."damn, someone beat me to it. But, it can be done." (If anything, she raised the bar and now I want to do it *better*....because a woman is worth surpassing in this case.)

The difference between Empurata and Arcee is that Empurata victims don't have a direct real world counterpart group to point to as being mistreated. Empurata victims are victims of systematic torture, scarred illegally in secret by a system more interested in propping up its corruptions then dealing with its core problems. What would the correlation be to our society?

...Black people...? *shrug*

andersonh1 wrote:And I'll freely admit in this case that the author's attitude rubbed me the wrong way. That's not something I normally take into account, but I guess this time was an exception.

Given that I recall you getting sore about the writer of Daredevil (Waid?) implying people from the South might be racist, I'm a bit surprised that you wouldn't be able to at least sympathize with Scott and others being unhappy with Furman's implication that being a woman makes you dangerous and unstable. You talk about people 'looking to get offended by things' but that doesn't apply to you in this case?

Who's going to watch a show about a bunch of emotionless robots with voices like speech synthesizers? (Soundwave excepted, and he certainly wasn't emotionless). For there to be an emotional connection and empathy, the characters have to act in ways that the audience will recognize. The audience recognizes people, understandably, so Transformers are written that way, to some extent. And they are largely voiced by males, because the brand began as and largely remains a boys toy action line, with some females added from time to time.

It's not just voices, many TFs clearly exhibit male design cues. As already covered, Ironhide's and Brawn's burly tough-guy looks, Alpha Trion's mustache, etc. Why is it fine with you for TFs to have masculine body designs and foreign/cultural accents and facial hair, but having feminine designs included crosses the line?

If you can accept the existence of masculine Transformers, you should have no issues with the existence of feminine Transformers.

But what that means philosophically and biologically in a race of genderless robots is never the focus of the story, with the exception of the Beast Wars relationship between BA and Silverbolt. And Rattrap and Botanica, if we really want to go there. :/ And even there, the long term implications of those relationships isn't explored apart from how it affects the factions that they are members of, and the way it gives BA motivation for her actions during Beast Machines. The relationships exist as plot mechanics and not much else.

I'm not sure I care for the implication that including females in a story's cast obligates them to facilitate romantic plot elements and nothing else. Surely female characters can exist in a story alongside their male counterparts without the indication that they're supposed to enter into a relationship with any of them? Why does "stories that include females" have to automatically equate with "stories about relationships and feelings"? Why can't girls...just be in the stories the way boys are?

It doesn't follow that any subject is a good fit to incorporate into the Transformers brand.

I'm sorry, but it's pretty outrageous to say that 'Girls' is a subject that isn't fit to be included in a 30-year-old brand. Moreso when they've already been included throughout those thirty years with no issue until now.

Seriously, why is this all of a sudden an issue? Why now? Because six years ago Furman wrote a single issue about Arcee that he tried to use to block female TFs from an entire continuity because he thought they were icky? We've never put that much stock in any of the other stupid crap Furman wrote (look how fast The Covenant were retconned out), so why does anyone put any stock in this single dumb comic issue?

Maybe this is the thing that informs our opinion on this subject, because while I had favorite characters, none of them were ever role models. The idea seems quite odd to me, honestly, to take a fictional character, male or female (who in this case isn't even human) and look to them as a role model. It's just fiction. It's just escapist entertainment and fun. I doubt I've ever seen it otherwise. It's too divorced from reality to be anything else for me.

Just to repeat: they aren't even human, or real for that matter. I may accept the idea that someone would look to them as role models of some sort, but I'll never empathize with it or understand it. It makes no sense to me.

I distinctly recall you expressing that you felt Autobot characters should always embody ideal and heroic traits, it's one reason you got so bent out of shape over Prowl apparently 'going bad' in RID. If that wasn't borne at least out of some desire to see them as admirable, exemplary, or as role models, then what was it?

Dominic wrote:But, it usually tackled bigger questons than gender theory (which is typically on discussed on college campuses). In that respect, Scott's antics are a step down.

I'm going to keep disregarding this point until you show me, on the page, where Scott was tackling gender theory, given that I keep pointing out that there was absolutely none of that in the book, and you keep handily ignoring it.

Generally I agree. But, to invert this..... If somebody is going to use a fictional character that represents an alien space robot as a roll model, why is gender such a big thing? (Once somebody crosses the lines between species and actually existing....gender seems pretty trivial.)

More to the point, if people need corresponding gender for their role models, where does the problem really lie?

In this case, it's less about finding someone, regardless of their superficial qualities, to use as a role-model, and more about a character's existence showing the audience that they have *potential* and are *allowed* to aspire to those roles. I don't think I need to state the obvious here, but I will anyway: In this case, we're talking about kids, since that is the primary target audience of TF and always has been. Imagine you have a niece or daughter, who sees your TF toys and reads your TF comics, and thinks characters like Optimus Prime and Rodimus and Grimlock and Drift are all pretty cool, but notices that they're all guys. So she asks you "How come all the cool TFs are boys? Can't there be cool girl Transformers too?" and you have to tell her that, well, one of the major contributors to overall TF lore thinks that girl TFs are stupid and shouldn't exist and if they did they would be terrifying science experiments that everyone would hate and fear. Worse, imagine if she saw a hypothetical Generations Arcee packed with 'Spotlight: Arcee' on the shelf and grabbed it for the chance to see a girl TF be awesome, and read that for herself! The implications are pretty unfortunate.

I don't get why it's so hard to understand why female fans would feel a bit put out to see their very existence in a species portrayed as some disgusting abomination.

BWprowl wrote:Given that I recall you getting sore about the writer of Daredevil (Waid?) implying people from the South might be racist, I'm a bit surprised that you wouldn't be able to at least sympathize with Scott and others being unhappy with Furman's implication that being a woman makes you dangerous and unstable. You talk about people 'looking to get offended by things' but that doesn't apply to you in this case?

See, I'd already forgotten about it. But yes, there's another example of an author irritating me in a way that doesn't usually happen.

BWprowl wrote:I'm not sure I care for the implication that including females in a story's cast obligates them to facilitate romantic plot elements and nothing else.

That is not at all what I said. What I said was that the romantic relationships depicted in Beast Wars and Beast Machines exist to keep plots moving rather than as serious examinations of what love and romance mean to a race like Transformers. NOWHERE did I saw that all female characters are good for is to facilitate romantic plot elements.

I'm sorry, but it's pretty outrageous to say that 'Girls' is a subject that isn't fit to be included in a 30-year-old brand. Moreso when they've already been included throughout those thirty years with no issue until now.

I didn't say that either. I think you're not even reading what I've written.

Let me try this one more time....
Female Autobots in G1 - fine
Female Maximals/Predacons in BW/BMac - fine, good characters (okay, Botanica is a little iffy... but not because she's a girl)
Female characters in Cybertron - fine
Female characters in any Transformers that I've forgotten - fine
female Transformers in IDW - fine until Scott started talking about how terrible and how misogynist Arcee was, blah blah blah... and that's when I got put out with the concept.

It's the attitude of the author injecting gender issues where they weren't needed that has put me off the book, not putting "girls" in a 30 year old brand. That's as plain as I can make it, though I thought I'd been just as plain already.

Arcee has been in the books for years, and have I ever griped about that? No. I haven't. That should tell you something.

I distinctly recall you expressing that you felt Autobot characters should always embody ideal and heroic traits, it's one reason you got so bent out of shape over Prowl apparently 'going bad' in RID. If that wasn't borne at least out of some desire to see them as admirable, exemplary, or as role models, then what was it?

Who wants to read about a bunch of dirtbags as Autobots? I sure don't. Despite the ongoing attempt to write gray and gray morality in these books, Autobots are still nominally the more decent side. I'd like to see them act like it.

andersonh1 wrote:See, I'd already forgotten about it. But yes, there's another example of an author irritating me in a way that doesn't usually happen.

So why is it okay for you to be offended by Waid's portrayal of Southerners yet not okay for Scott to be offended by Furman's portrayal of women?

Were you hypothetically given the opportunity, wouldn't you be motivated to write a story where Daredevil goes to the South and meets Southerners who aren't racist assholes? Especially if Marvel specifically asked you to introduce a new heroic Southerner character into the Daredevil mythos?

I didn't say that either. I think you're not even reading what I've written.

Says the guy who came into a thread to bash on a comic he admits he hasn't even read.

Let me try this one more time....
Female Autobots in G1 - fine
Female Maximals/Predacons in BW/BMac - fine, good characters (okay, Botanica is a little iffy... but not because she's a girl)
Female characters in Cybertron - fine
Female characters in any Transformers that I've forgotten - fine
female Transformers in IDW - fine until Scott started talking about how terrible and how misogynist Arcee was, blah blah blah... and that's when I got put out with the concept.

It's the attitude of the author injecting gender issues where they weren't needed that has put me off the book, not putting "girls" in a 30 year old brand. That's as plain as I can make it, though I thought I'd been just as plain already.

So are you saying that if Scott had just introduced Windblade and Chromia into the series with no mention of feminist implications or gender issues, you'd be fine with it?

Spoiler

Because that's exactly what she did.

Arcee has been in the books for years, and have I ever griped about that? No. I haven't. That should tell you something.

Then why are you griping now about Windblade, despite her being introduced with far less of an authorial diatribe than when Furman introduced Arcee?

Seriously, there isn't one bit of feminism or gender issues or any of this stuff you're complaining you don't like in the Windblade comic, and if you'd actually read that instead of Dom's review of a forum post, you'd know that.

Who wants to read about a bunch of dirtbags as Autobots? I sure don't. Despite the ongoing attempt to write gray and gray morality in these books, Autobots are still nominally the more decent side. I'd like to see them act like it.

Well I DO want to read about dirtbag Autobots, because a few characters from the inherently 'heroic' side crossing over the moral line is inherently more interesting than all the good guys being all good all the time. Why are you so insistent on them being entirely morally decent, if not out of some desire to see them as appreciable role models?

It's not just voices, many TFs clearly exhibit male design cues. As already covered, Ironhide's and Brawn's burly tough-guy looks, Alpha Trion's mustache, etc. Why is it fine with you for TFs to have masculine body designs and foreign/cultural accents and facial hair, but having feminine designs included crosses the line?

Facial hair and the like always annoyed me. My favourite Junkion is Scrap Iron/Yard.

In design terms (divorced from character that I may like), I tend to prefer mouth-guards and the like. (I have consistently said that I like Bayformers in terms of visuals for similar reasons.)

? Can't there be cool girl Transformers too?" and you have to tell her that, well, one of the major contributors to overall TF lore thinks that girl TFs are stupid and shouldn't exist and if they did they would be terrifying science experiments that everyone would hate and fear.

I would say it nicer, but....

Worse, imagine if she saw a hypothetical Generations Arcee packed with 'Spotlight: Arcee' on the shelf and grabbed it for the chance to see a girl TF be awesome, and read that for herself!

On the other hand, she would be getting a good comic. (And, if I had a daughter, she probably would have seen copies of "Worlds' Finest", and seen that having female leads does not automatically make comics good.)

It's the attitude of the author injecting gender issues where they weren't needed that has put me off the book, not putting "girls" in a 30 year old brand. That's as plain as I can make it, though I thought I'd been just as plain already.

Exactly. It is the motive as much as the action.

Arcee isn't crazy because she's female, she was crazy because she had suffered a trauma. Scott misinterpreted that specifically for the forum post where she called out Furman's Spotlight issue. And at this point, I am thoroughly convinced she did that exclusively as a publicity stunt. I personally think she just wanted to create a shitstorm in the interest of raising interest in her book. And really, the fact that there isn't anything in the Windblade comic about this is what really makes me question her motives. And the unprofessional way she went about it (ie: attacking another writer's work) is about as low as it can get. At least in the world of comic book writing.

I read the first issue finally and putting all the other shit aside, I am intrigued to see where this is going. Why is Metroplex losing power? And why is Starscream out to get Windblade? For that matter,

Spoiler

is Metroplex dying? Is that why He's losing power and why Windblade is having trouble talking to him?

This issue sets up a lot for the rest of the arc so I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

Dom, in the other thread wrote:Scott, the writer, made gender an issue.

Where? Where in the book, on the page, did she do that? 'Gender' was more of an issue in Furman's comic than it is in Scott's comic, yet she's the one called out on it?

Scott's forum post doesn't make 'Windblade' about feminist social issues any more than Costa's interview makes the Ongoing a comic about how stupid Transfans are.

? Can't there be cool girl Transformers too?" and you have to tell her that, well, one of the major contributors to overall TF lore thinks that girl TFs are stupid and shouldn't exist and if they did they would be terrifying science experiments that everyone would hate and fear.

I would say it nicer, but....

And are you so insensitive that you can't see how that would be disheartening to her?

On the other hand, she would be getting a good comic. (And, if I had a daughter, she probably would have seen copies of "Worlds' Finest", and seen that having female leads does not automatically make comics good.)

Yeah, a 'good' comic that tells her girls of a species shouldn't exist, and should be hated and feared by the other gender. Yeah, that's a wonderful thing to read.

And why is it always either/or with you? Sure, 'World's Finest' isn't good, but there are plenty of other great comics with female leads (like, uh, 'Windblade'). And it's not like the alternative (comics starring males) automatically results in better comics.

It's the attitude of the author injecting gender issues where they weren't needed that has put me off the book, not putting "girls" in a 30 year old brand. That's as plain as I can make it, though I thought I'd been just as plain already.

Exactly. It is the motive as much as the action.

Except she didn't insert any gender issues into the comic! There isn't one fucking word on the page about feminism, or gender issues, or Arcee or Furman or anything!

Someone who only read the comics and paid no attention to the meta/authorial elements could read 'Windblade' and have no problem with Scott (though incidentally, they might still have a problem with Furman).

Shockwave wrote:Arcee isn't crazy because she's female, she was crazy because she had suffered a trauma. Scott misinterpreted that specifically for the forum post where she called out Furman's Spotlight issue.

The problem isn't Arcee being crazy, the problem is that Furman used that Spotlight issue to put down his opinion that female Transformers were a dangerous, freaky aberration that were scorned and hated by the rest of the species. That there couldn't, shouldn't be female Transformers, at all, period, and that if they DID exist in the face of that, it would be through the monstrous tinkerings of mad science. *That* is the issue that Scott took offense with, that Furman tried to block females from an entire continuity because he thinks it's stupid for girls to be Transformers.

I have to keep going into hypotheticals to put it in terms others might understand, but for you: Imagine if someone wrote a comic where they explicitly said no Freemasons could exist, except for this one Freemason who only came about as some sort of horrible mistake, and every other non-Freemason person hated and feared him because of it. Would you seriously not feel at least a little put-out by such a story?

And at this point, I am thoroughly convinced she did that exclusively as a publicity stunt. I personally think she just wanted to create a shitstorm in the interest of raising interest in her book. And really, the fact that there isn't anything in the Windblade comic about this is what really makes me question her motives. And the unprofessional way she went about it (ie: attacking another writer's work) is about as low as it can get. At least in the world of comic book writing.

Given that she went out of her way to say that it *wasn't* a personal attack and that she didn't feel that Furman was *trying* to offend anyone, saying that Scott was purposefully trying to defame Furman seems to be going a bit far. All she was doing was, in the face of needing to over-write (by request of Hasbro, no less) something Furman had put forth, she felt the need to explain why she would want to do so.

And honestly, Scott professes to be a fan of Transformers herself, and I find it hard to believe that any Transfan wouldn't have at least *some* of Furman's work they appreciated, and respected the man on some level.

And really, if someone can't post about what they didn't like about a comic on a message board, what's the internet coming to?

BWprowl wrote:

Shockwave wrote:Arcee isn't crazy because she's female, she was crazy because she had suffered a trauma. Scott misinterpreted that specifically for the forum post where she called out Furman's Spotlight issue.

The problem isn't Arcee being crazy, the problem is that Furman used that Spotlight issue to put down his opinion that female Transformers were a dangerous, freaky aberration that were scorned and hated by the rest of the species. That there couldn't, shouldn't be female Transformers, at all, period, and that if they DID exist in the face of that, it would be through the monstrous tinkerings of mad science. *That* is the issue that Scott took offense with, that Furman tried to block females from an entire continuity because he thinks it's stupid for girls to be Transformers.

I have to keep going into hypotheticals to put it in terms others might understand, but for you: Imagine if someone wrote a comic where they explicitly said no Freemasons could exist, except for this one Freemason who only came about as some sort of horrible mistake, and every other non-Freemason person hated and feared him because of it. Would you seriously not feel at least a little put-out by such a story?

Right, no I get that, I guess I'm separating this out into two separate, unrelated things. Sure, Arcee is batshit crazy. But, she's not batshit crazy because she's a girl, she's batshit crazy because of the trauma she suffered.

The thing with her being an abberation and a deviation is pretty messed up. But I see everyone here lumping the batshit crazy thing into it when that's not really part of the equation. Female =/= batshit crazy. Arcee is feared because she's batshit crazy, not because she's female. Female =/= feared monster. But she is unique. So female = anomoly. Yeah, I can see how that would alienate people.

BWprowl wrote:

And at this point, I am thoroughly convinced she did that exclusively as a publicity stunt. I personally think she just wanted to create a shitstorm in the interest of raising interest in her book. And really, the fact that there isn't anything in the Windblade comic about this is what really makes me question her motives. And the unprofessional way she went about it (ie: attacking another writer's work) is about as low as it can get. At least in the world of comic book writing.

Given that she went out of her way to say that it *wasn't* a personal attack and that she didn't feel that Furman was *trying* to offend anyone, saying that Scott was purposefully trying to defame Furman seems to be going a bit far. All she was doing was, in the face of needing to over-write (by request of Hasbro, no less) something Furman had put forth, she felt the need to explain why she would want to do so.

And honestly, Scott professes to be a fan of Transformers herself, and I find it hard to believe that any Transfan wouldn't have at least *some* of Furman's work they appreciated, and respected the man on some level.

And really, if someone can't post about what they didn't like about a comic on a message board, what's the internet coming to?

I don't mind people posting stuff on the internet, that's why it's there. I guess what puts me off regarding Scott is that the whole thing smacks of "Publicity stunt for the sake of publicity stunt". Especially since it involved one professional commenting publicly on another professional's work. Such comments need to be thought out more carefully than "forum post" because at that point, it's virtually like issuing an official statement.

Fortunately, I am able to separate the work from the writer. Putting Scott and her batshit crazy antics aside, I thought the comic was good and I look forward to seeing the plot get resolved.