 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
When I received an anonymous comment submission saying that an obsessed blogger appeared to be up to his old tricks again, I was faced with a dilemma. Should I, or should I not, respond to his apparent 'insinuations' on one of his blogs about an unnamed 'someone' allegedly 'trolling' him, or just ignore it. I know from past experience who his usual nominee is, and I'll likely be damned either way whether I address the matter or not, so I decided to meet it head on.
However, I find it hard to garner the necessary energy or enthusiasm, so I'll content myself with a few brief observations. Portraying himself as some kind of persecuted martyr in the 'cause of comics' is perhaps this individual's way of feeling validated, but I wish he'd get some help with that as it's now become really quite tiresome. Maybe he thinks that if he suggests it loud enough and long enough, eventually everyone will believe it, and no doubt some will - and do.
I see on Twitter that he's already trying (clumsily) to preempt any possible suggestion he might be manufacturing this latest controversy himself, a notion which I suspect is unlikely to have occurred to him unless it were true. Or am I being too harsh and perhaps it's someone else who's stirring the pot? Maybe he's only trying to increase blog visits or punt something, but you'd think there's surely an easier way to do it? Now, if only I could rid myself of a nagging suspicion as to who submitted that anonymous comment.
Anyway, I'm off to turn my attention to more worthy and rewarding matters. If only he'd do the same.
ReplyDeleteI’ve not been on line a lot recently due to my work commitments but I did see that post (if it is the one on “Small Press publishing”) I’ve not seen “Twitter” as quite frankly I can’t be a*sed with that format.
Based on the blog posting (only) I do think you are being harsh on the person concerned but understand your frustration on this. The blog owner simply posted a couple of (quite frankly juvenile) replies to his innocuous post on self-publishing a book and quite rightly trying to get interest in it (and I will be buying it). The response in question was to say the least silly and out of context just to have a “go” at this person
What I found most “disturbing” (keeping in mind we are talking about comics here not the Middle East) was the fact that this reply was written in a style that could be interpreted as being from you, and indeed when I first read it I have to admit I though “surely Kid Robson didn’t stoop to that level” that was until I looked more closely at it and the name of the responder (Billy Boyd – a bit Scottish sounding ) it was obviously NOT from you but was trying hard to ape your style, and they failed. I think as someone has already gone to the trouble of setting up a fake “twitter” account in your name, and there have been a few distasteful comments from others about you it’s not a leap in the dark to say this looks like someone else may indeed be “stirring the pot”.
I don’t think this was posted by the blog owner at all as you, yourself have also had stupid “trolls” contacting you on here just ranting at you and have published these (and showing them up for the “numpties” they are) – this looks like the case here. This must all get very tiresome for BOTH of you, it’s one of the reasons I won’t set up a blog, too many d* cks out there .
What makes me suspicious, PM, is the fact that his post seems to be a DIRECT response to remarks I made about self-publishing in one of MY posts a little while back. Therefore, when it gets 'responded' to in a way which 'apes' my style (as you say), then it seems a bit too convenient, especially when it seemingly lends itself to the impression that the blogger has tried hard to create on previous occasions of being besieged by a particular 'weirdo stalker'. (And it seems fairly obvious who he has in mind.) Yes, I have had some @rse (or three) submit provocative comments (one in particular, which I once published in my comments section before having second thoughts and removing it seconds later), but I don't think I've ever suggested or insinuated who it might be. (Apart from when it was some @rse called The Cap'n - NOT the one in my blog list - and then I outright stated it, I didn't hint.)
ReplyDeleteOn the question of 'style', I've often found myself reading your comments and thinking they sound very much like me (apart from the spelling and punctuation obviously), and that's the trouble with trying to detect a writing style I've found. It's very easy to imitate (or imagine), but what's more, literate people tend to 'sound' very much the same in their writings, so playing detective is a conceit that I, personally, try to avoid in these instances.
I remember when I was briefly a member of a comics forum, and the blogger in question took every opportunity to jump on my back (it felt to me), and he does seem to see me hiding around every corner, so I have to say that, from my point of view, he appears to be personally obsessed in portraying me in a bad light whenever he perceives an opportunity to do so. No names of course, but heavy hints in my direction. I'm sure, therefore, you can understand my suspicions (if not agree with my tentative conclusions) when one of his posts appears, disagreeing with a view I've expressed in the past, which then receives comments which even Bertie Bumpkin would at least suspect as having emanated from myself (or at least someone with views similar to my own). Someone's trying hard to create that impression, but whether I've got my very own 'tribute' act, or whether something more nefarious is afoot, well - time will tell perhaps.
Let's see what kind of comments he 'receives' the next time he has something to sell, but his eagerness to exploit an opportunity to point a finger in my direction whenever it presents itself sure seems obsessional to me, as if he's driven by a need to prove that he was right all along.
******
Incidentally, in the interests of 'full disclosure', I have no objections to 'self-publishing' - in fact, I've been thinking of doing a comic myself - all me, from cover to cover. However, I don't consider self-publishing as PROOF of a healthy comics 'industry', and I do view s-p as mainly a vanity project. Hell, that's why I'm thinking of doing it one day - pure vanity, just to show what I can do and have a 'Kid Robson' comic for posterity. I don't see why other people have a problem with admitting that's what's behind it. However, someone's put their own distorted slant on that view on that other blog - the conclusions seem obvious as to why.
Cheeky bugger, my spulling and puctooation is purfikt! (yeah I do type too fast and don't check it before I send it out - I do need to stop doing that) :)
ReplyDeleteOops, added a bit to my response, PM, so had to cut and paste your comment to keep it in sequence. How are you getting along with your guest post?
ReplyDeleteI have an idea and when I get home (I am in London this week) I will work on it (and spell check it) and send it to you for consideration.
ReplyDeleteJust read your last para - it would be good to seea n all "Kid Robson " what would it contain?- I’m actually thinking of doing one as well. I just like most self-published comics vanity or for creativity its all the same to me - make it happen Kid.
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy reading Paul's terrible spelling - no offence Paul lol.
ReplyDeleteWill look forward to it, PM. What would my comic contain? Sheer brilliance of course.
ReplyDelete******
And I'm sure he enjoys reading, er...my blog, CJ. (Phew! Good save.)
This subject still rankles me, so I've got a few more things to say on it if you'll kindly indulge me. I'd like to take a look at the situation, piece by piece.
ReplyDeleteThe individual concerned publishes a post which includes aspects which appear to be in direct disagreement with views I have expressed on my own blog. Nothing wrong with that, he's got a right to.
He then seemingly receives comments which resemble my own views, but worded in an exaggerated, extreme way (like a distorted reflection in a 'Hall of Fun' mirror), obviously calculated to cast the apparent writer of these comments in a bad light. Rather convenient that, it seems to me.
If he didn't write these allegedly 'trollish' comments himself, then it strikes me that he doesn't really care who did, as long as he can use them to further his past agenda of taking pot-shots at me and thus adding credence to his ridiculous claim.
As my views are well-known, it makes absolutely no sense for me to 'invade' his blog if it helps further the negative impression he has previously sought to create of me. Why does this simple and glaringly obvious fact seem to escape his consideration? I have my own blog in which I can address any subject I wish - why would I gatecrash his? To answer my own question, I think he's fully aware of the absurdity of the proposition, but he just doesn't care. Not if it conveniently provides him with 'ammunition' to use against me.
Then, on his Twitter account, he suddenly introduces the idea that him writing these comments himself is ridiculous. (Not any more ridiculous than the suggestion that I'd write them and thereby point the finger at myself.) It's as if he'd suddenly realised that any sensible person would see how unlikely it is for the suggested culprit to lay a trail back to himself, twigged to the most obvious alternative option that is bound to occur to folk, and tried to preempt it by tut-tutting the very idea.
So the question is, did he or someone else write the comments while trying to do a dodgy impression of me? In the end, it doesn't much matter because the same result is achieved. The more easily-led of his followers, eager to ingratiate themselves with someone who currently works for a once great comic, accept his spoon-fed narrative that he has a 'weirdo stalker' who is consumed with hate, bitterness and envy because they're not him. Rather laughable when you think about it, though it takes an incredible conceit to even suggest the idea in the first place.
To me, there are just two possibilities. Either him, or the @rse who set up a fake Twitter account in my name for the purpose of attacking me with lies and vitriol, is responsible for the comments. The blogger has a self-published comic to promote, whereas my doppelganger's Twitter account hasn't been used in some time. (Although how do I know they're not the same person? I don't.) Whichever it is, they're both just a couple of utter dobbers, and one day there WILL be a reckoning.
And hopefully that's my last word on the matter. (Psst! You can all wake up now!)
He would'nt do that and besides doing posts with trolls scare readers away not get attention so it would'nt work. Logic.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know that because...? Actually, I've always found that 'controversial' posts garner the most attention. People love them, and, case in point, this post of mine has received more hits (by a wide margin) than any others in almost the last fortnight, despite only having 6 comments (not counting my replies). So your assertion is not borne out by the facts as I experience them. I understand that his post has received a larger than usual amount of comments, most of which came after his alleged (imaginary?) 'Troll' turned up. Logic, you say? You should try it some time. Also, the fact that he advertised the post on his other blog in order to draw even more attention to his 'weirdo stalker' strongly suggests to me that the man was pursuing a specific agenda. I understood he'd disabled his anonymous comment facility a good while back, so how were these comments even submitted? Is he restoring it, by sheer coincidence, just in time to catch them as they pop up? Very convenient if you ask me.
ReplyDelete