Steve Rude Can't Get A Job?

[JimN]

I frequently hear about cases like this regarding people in your field of teaching, evaD, so I'm sure you feel and have to consider/act on some related restrictions/limitations.

I pretty much get and pretty much agree with just about everything everyone is saying, so I'm not sure if you guys are disagreeing as much as pointing out different aspects of the dynamics/variables at play.

...either way:  

Well, for the sake of clarity, I'll sum my view up as follows:

— Rude shouldn't have posted those comments to Facebook. They are potentially damaging to his efforts to get work from DC. Most of what he posted is harmless but a few comments may rankle the powers that be in the comics biz and since he's looking for work, that's a bad idea.

— We shouldn't assume anything about the way he approached DC because we have no idea what he said to them. Posting comments on Facebook a month after contacting DC isn't the same as contacting DC in the first place. Yes, those comments may get back to DC but they will be viewed in the context of previous contact/correspondence, not on their own as we must view them.

— Listing 4 titles/characters he'd like to work on isn't harmful at all. It's not a problem and would only be a problem if it was presented to DC in a problematic way. It wasn't presented in such a way in the comments quoted at the beginning of this thread.

Jim

[JimN]

As Backwards Dave said, this notion that "he didn't tell DC" simply ignores the reality of today's human resource management.

I'm making a distinction between his actual correspondence/communication with DC a month before the Facebook comments were posted and the comments themselves. I made that perfectly clear.

If you post something on your Facebook, or Tweet it, or on a message board, you are saying it to EVERYONE, particularly those your comments are specifically about. So while I stick by my (we don't really know the full story) view, I also think it's unreasonable to suggest that what was said on Facebook somehow is different than what the DC editors heard.

Unreasonable? Give me a break, Jason. We have no idea what the DC editors heard because they heard it a month before we did, in a different communication. Suggesting it's different isn't remotely unreasonable because unless Rude cut and pasted comments he made to DC into that Facebook post, they probably were different. It's not even clear from his post whether he contacted DC by phone, e-mail or "snail" mail. Other than what Steve Rude told us, we don't know what passed between the two parties prior to his Facebook post.

I guarantee it got back to them. We're talking about it, I guarantee they know of it.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Jim

[Jay Tomio]

Sigh. If only that firing logic logic applied to staffers instead of freelancers...   

And, Dave, I got what you were saying. I was mostly pointing out my incredulity at DC not getting back to a guy who won an Eisner for his Superman, as well as being the only comic artist in the world to win an Eisner Award (multiple ones), a Kirby Award, A Harvey Award, and the Russ Manning Most Promising Newcomer Award.

With those facts in the play, the fact they don't get back to him should speak volumes.

[Steve Raker]

okay, now you're disagreeing 

[evaD]

Jim and Steve,
I agree with most of what you guys are saying - I think I get it now. For clarification in relation to timelines, Jim, you're referring specifically to the possibility that he might have lost the gig he was originally looking for a month ago, correct?

I was addressing potential problems getting future jobs.

[steve bryant]

Jim and Steve,
I agree with most of what you guys are saying - I think I get it now. For clarification in relation to timelines, Jim, you're referring specifically to the possibility that he might have lost the gig he was originally looking for a month ago, correct?

I was addressing potential problems getting future jobs.

Okay, everybody...

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

[BurlIves]

Unreasonable? Give me a break, Jason. We have no idea what the DC editors heard because they heard it a month before we did, in a different communication. Suggesting it's different isn't remotely unreasonable because unless Rude cut and pasted comments he made to DC into that Facebook post, they probably were different. It's not even clear from his post whether he contacted DC by phone, e-mail or "snail" mail. Other than what Steve Rude told us, we don't know what passed between the two parties prior to his Facebook post.

Regardless of how professional or polite he was to DC in person, his subsequent posting is going to color future relations between them.  A guy comes to you looking for work and you politely decline his offer, you might call on him when you do need work done.  But, if in the interim you find him stirring the pot on Facebook,  chances are you will reconsider if he's the guy you want inside your organisation.

[steve bryant]

Brian Michael Bendis.
Joe Quesada.
J. Michael Straczinski.
Rob Liefeld.
Jim Shooter.
John Byrne.
Erik Larsen.
Bob Harras.
Darwyn Cooke.
Tom Brevoort.
Bill Willingham.
Josh Middleton.
Mark Waid.
Tony Harris.


Off the top of my head, these are some creators/editors who have made prickly remarks and still manage to work. Comics seem pretty forgiving of the socially awkward, the snarky, and the unfiltered. It may be slow-going for a while, but Rude should come out of this fine.

Man, typing "John Byrne" on that list made me realize that Chris at IDW should put Steve to work on some classic Star Trek. We all know the Dude is a fan...that could be cool.

[JimN]

okay, now you're disagreeing 

LOL! Sorry, I got a wee bit fired up there. I've been living in a "cave" all weekend, working, and it's 86 degrees and humid here in Chicago right now... at 9 PM. It makes me a wee bit edgy. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Jim and Steve,
I agree with most of what you guys are saying - I think I get it now. For clarification in relation to timelines, Jim, you're referring specifically to the possibility that he might have lost the gig he was originally looking for a month ago, correct?

Yes, more or less... I was talking about the contact he'd already had with DC and the potential impact his Facebook comments could have on getting work from them.

Jim

[Jeremy]

Compare/contrast with the Norm Breyfogle situation. Any parallels?  (Aside from proven awesomeness not getting opportunity at DC?) IIRC, with Breyfogle there was something about not wanting to meet his page rate, and not wanting to let him lower it, even though he said he'd be willing. (Which sort of sounds like an excuse to me, but whatever).

Another sad possible factor: Rude is fairly well known to suffer from depression. From a human standpoint, that should not impact his ability to get work. From an editor/publisher's standpoint -- cost/benefit analysis -- that sadly could be a deal breaker.

What I fail to understand most of all is why Rude isn't plastering covers from the Big 2, Dynamite, etc -- anyone that would put an Alex Ross cover can accomplish similarly definitive iconography by using Rude. His covers on Nexus, World's Finest, etc., are just mindblowing.

Bah. Saddened.

[JimN]

Regardless of how professional or polite he was to DC in person, his subsequent posting is going to color future relations between them. 

I realize that and addressed it from the start, in my first post on this subject.

Jim

[Wood]

I'm making a distinction between his actual correspondence/communication with DC a month before the Facebook comments were posted and the comments themselves. I made that perfectly clear.

Unreasonable? Give me a break, Jason. We have no idea what the DC editors heard because they heard it a month before we did, in a different communication. Suggesting it's different isn't remotely unreasonable because unless Rude cut and pasted comments he made to DC into that Facebook post, they probably were different. It's not even clear from his post whether he contacted DC by phone, e-mail or "snail" mail. Other than what Steve Rude told us, we don't know what passed between the two parties prior to his Facebook post.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Jim

The break is debating pie in the sky semantics and ignoring reality. I would bet my fortune that the comments Steve made on Facebook are well document at DC. I'm not saying he wasn't more diplomatic in his initial foray, but that it's his seeming willingness to make those subsequent comments openly in a place like Facebook which cast serious doubt as to whether he's able to comport himself in a manner that makes it easy or likely a young editor would flock to hire him.

Your reap what you sow, no mystery in that.

[thefreakytiki]

Blah, blah, blah... Yada, yada, yada.

What I wanna know is where is the scan of Wood's Steve Rude piece!


The Tiki

[Wood]

Blah, blah, blah... Yada, yada, yada.

What I wanna know is where is the scan of Wood's Steve Rude piece!


The Tiki

But if I scan it, how will you know if it looks like the original I received a few weeks ago? It might be something completely different in its form and intent, right?

[JimN]

The break is debating pie in the sky semantics and ignoring reality.I would bet my fortune that the comments Steve made on Facebook are well document at DC.

How am I "ignoring reality"? If you re-read my posts throughout this thread I think you'll find, quite clearly, that isn't the case.

BTW, I haven't once suggested that DC isn't aware of the comments Steve Rude made on Facebook. Not once...

I'm not saying he wasn't more diplomatic in his initial foray, but that it's his seeming willingness to make those subsequent comments openly in a place like Facebook which cast serious doubt as to whether he's able to comport himself in a manner that makes it easy or likely a young editor would flock to hire him.

I expressed a very similar sentiment earlier in this thread so we don't disagree about that. I just fail to understand how "it's unreasonable to suggest that what was said on Facebook somehow is different than what the DC editors heard" when Rude contacted them a month earlier. Why is that unreasonable? That's not a purely semantic distinction, as you seemed to imply above. We're talking about two wholly separate communications.

The point I was trying to make is very simple: if a creator approaches a client about potential work and suggests some titles or characters he's interested in, it's harmless if it's done in an appropriate manner. In fact, it can actually be constructive in some cases. Following that, if the same creator then goes on to mention his interest in working on those titles/characters on Facebook, it's also harmless, because the publisher has no reason to take issue with it.

Jim

[Wood]

How am I "ignoring reality"? If you re-read my posts throughout this thread I think you'll find, quite clearly, that isn't the case.

BTW, I haven't once suggested that DC isn't aware of the comments Steve Rude made on Facebook. Not once...

I expressed a very similar sentiment earlier in this thread so we don't disagree about that. I just fail to understand how "it's unreasonable to suggest that what was said on Facebook somehow is different than what the DC editors heard" when Rude contacted them a month earlier. Why is that unreasonable? That's not a purely semantic distinction, as you seemed to imply above. We're talking about two wholly separate communications.

The point I was trying to make is very simple: if a creator approaches a client about potential work and suggests some titles or characters he's interested in, it's harmless if it's done in an appropriate manner. In fact, it can actually be constructive in some cases. Following that, if the same creator then goes on to mention his interest in working on those titles/characters on Facebook, it's also harmless, because the publisher has no reason to take issue with it.

Jim

I'm going to call it a night. I think we can both agree that it would make us both happy to see Steve Rude working again, particularly on something he was passionate about. Beyond that, we'll just have to recognize that we're not seeing eye to eye on this one.

[steve bryant]

...

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah

[JimN]

I'm going to call it a night. I think we can both agree that it would make us both happy to see Steve Rude working again, particularly on something he was passionate about.

Absolutely.

Beyond that, we'll just have to recognize that we're not seeing eye to eye on this one.

Clearly ... although I'm still not sure precisely where you disagree with me. 

Jim

[JimN]

...

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Yeah, yeah, what's yer point, Bryant?

[Adam O. Pruett]

we'll just have to recognize that we're not seeing eye to eye on this one.

I hate to say this, but this thread reads more like you're missing some of what Jim is saying. I'm not picking sides here -- but as you said yourself, we don't know what was said in the earlier dialogue between Rude and DC.

Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be saying is -- since we don't know what went on, there's no reason to assume that Rude's comments to the DC editors were identical to the comments posted on Facebook. THEREFORE, we aren't in a place to make judgements on the original dialogue that took place.

I have no doubt they're aware of his Facebook comments, and those comments may not have ingratiated him any further with TPTB, but the reality is we don't know what took place in that original dialogue.

Was it remarkably different from the Facebook post? Was it exactly the same? We don't know! Was he a dick to them? Were they totally unreasonable to him? We don't know. That's the point. We can't comment on it. We can argue the merits of the Facebook posting, and that's about it.