Is Volume 3 tainted (retroactively) by Gerard Jones?

[Andrew NDB]

Retroactively?

I ask, because of course:
https://www.cbr.com/gerard-jones-sentenced-prison/

[Space Cop]

To me, it's probably something I would think of if I were to pick up one of those issues and read the name, but I can enjoy the story the same way I can enjoy Jeepers Creepers or Rosemary's Baby. I personally lean toward the TS Eliot/New Criticism of approaching a work of art in and of itself and in relation to the history of that art form; not bringing in all the baggage of the artists' foibles or even crimes.

[Michael Heide]

While I appreciate that point of view, I don't want to participate in Jones (or Polanski, or Salva) getting a paycheck.

Which is unfair towards the people they had worked with, unknowing of what monsters they are. But if they're any good, they'll most likely have something else that I can spend money on.

[Space Cop]

Actually, despite holding the view I do, I'm unlikely to give him any more money anyway because I don't buy trades for books I already have in floppy, which is the case for his run.

Years ago, I remember reading a gangster's confessional memoirs and all the profits went to the family of his victims. Of course, in that case it was because the work would itself would otherwise be directly profiting off convicted crime, but it was a cool solution.

And I have to admit, despite wanting to hold to a New Criticism view, I still tend to do things like read a Lovecraft story with the knowledge that both his parents were institutionalized and he had a deep fear of insanity. So too, I probably won't ever be able to pick up one of my old books and read Jones name and not think of this.

So how about that aspect? Leaving money out of it. Does it taint stuff you might already own (where the money was spent long before the conviction)?

My answer would have to be yes, but not to the extent that I won't re-read it if I wanted to.

[Michael Heide]

Letting the victims profit from any further royalties is indeed a fine solution. Not applicable here, because I don't think it's possible to identify each and every one of them. But a fine solution nonetheless.

And I haven't found myself yet in a position where, going out the door, I had to decide between a Jones issue and a book by a different creative team. But I have far too many unread issues lying around to fall back on his Green Lantern issues. Maaaaaaybe Guy Gardner. But I doubt even that.

[Space Cop]

Originally Posted by Michael Heide

...And I haven't found myself yet in a position where, going out the door, I had to decide between a Jones issue and a book by a different creative team. But I have far too many unread issues lying around to fall back on his Green Lantern issues. Maaaaaaybe Guy Gardner. But I doubt even that.

Yeah, I know it OT, but I don't re-read comics very often. I have to really be in the mood or trying to remember some continuity to delve into the long boxes. I too have too many unread back issues and trades.

[Star-Lantern]

No, it's not ruined for me. Regarding Green Lantern stories, Gerard Jones is still one of my favorite writers. I also like what Mark Bright and Pat Broderick did on the artwork. As long as the stories aren't about pedophilia, I'm okay. It is really surreal that one of my favorite writers of comics winds up being probably the most notorious person to work in the industry. That revelation just came out of nowhere. It was weird.

[HalFingJordan]

Oh, volume 3 is tainted alright. But not by Gerard Jones.

[Rotten2thecorps]

There is a lot of blame to go around for vol 3. But It's done. I like to think of the few good things that came from it. Mark Bright's art work was just tops! I miss his Green Lantern and Sinestro.

[Big Daddy Dave Skywalker]

And that demon football game! With Mark Badger art!

[Michael Heide]

Originally Posted by HalFingJordan

Oh, volume 3 is tainted alright. But not by Gerard Jones.

Yeah, a character substituting another for a couple of years sure is worse than child pornography....

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Michael Heide

Yeah, a character substituting another for a couple of years sure is worse than child pornography....

I assume the idea is that they feel that Vol. 3 is more tainted by things that were actually in it, not by things the writer did completely independent of it. I kind of feel the same way.

If the comic actually contained child porn (or anything that could be seen as a defense of it) I'd feel it was tainted by that. But I generally don't feel like I have to look into a writer's personal life to determine how I feel about their work, unless the objectionable parts of their personal life actually find their way INTO the work.

[Rotten2thecorps]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

I assume the idea is that they feel that Vol. 3 is more tainted by things that were actually in it, not by things the writer did completely independent of it. I kind of feel the same way.

If the comic actually contained child porn (or anything that could be seen as a defense of it) I'd feel it was tainted by that. But I generally don't feel like I have to look into a writer's personal life to determine how I feel about their work, unless the objectionable parts of their personal life actually find their way INTO the work.

Most people who read comics don't know who the names on the books are. Only hardcore comic nerds do. So yeah I think major events in comic history stand out more then these people's personal lives. the masses are just now learning about Bill Finger.

2 years ago I loved Mark Waid's work. We are now just starting to hear what douche he is.

[Big Blue Lantern]

I've never considered the 80s and early 90s the best time for Hal Jordan, even before the Jones debacle. I don't think DC is in any hurry to revisit Hal being a drunk driver or falling in love with an alien who looked and acted like a teenage girl.

That being said, there are still some events from that time period that I really like and Jones' sickness coming to light doesn't change that. Make no mistake, I wouldn't want the guy's autograph in my GL collection, and I'm usually willing to ignore a writer/artist's personal life (ala Ethan Van Sciver) if I like his/her work. Obviously, there are a few exceptions, and what Jones did certainly crosses that line.

I really doubt that Jones' actions become a black mark that is often associated with the Green Lantern mythos. As Rotten2thecorps pointed out, there are very few comic creator names that break out of the shadows of the characters that they bring to life. For example, I work in mental health and most of my colleagues knew the name William Marston from their college classes or post-grad trainings. Yet I've regularly shocked numerous coworkers over the years when I pointed out that he also created Wonder Woman. The inner workings of the comic book industry are still unknown outside of hardcore reader circles.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Big Blue Lantern

I don't think DC is in any hurry to revisit Hal being a drunk driver

That wasn't even in the core book. Personally I never understood the problem with it. Were people just upset because it made Hal less perfect/cardboard?

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That wasn't even in the core book. Personally I never understood the problem with it. Were people just upset because it made Hal less perfect/cardboard?

I had no problem with it, myself. I had a bigger problem with people who took that one scene and extrapolated it to "they made Hal an alcoholic". I don't think that was supported by what we saw.

[Trey Strain]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That wasn't even in the core book. Personally I never understood the problem with it. Were people just upset because it made Hal less perfect/cardboard?

I agree. George W. Bush had a DUI conviction and it wasn't even brought up in the 2000 election.

People's wailing about Hal's grey temples was in the same category.

[Big Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

That wasn't even in the core book. Personally I never understood the problem with it. Were people just upset because it made Hal less perfect/cardboard?

Getting a DUI isn't a simple mistake or an emotional reaction. It's the product of things like poor forethought, lack of awareness, entitlement, and addiction. On top of that, instead of owning a mistake that hurt several people and could have *killed someone*, Hal threw a tantrum about how it was the sign's fault. So, of all of the humans on the planet, the ring selects someone who obviously has some immature aspects to his personality as the avatar of indomitable will? That hardly adds up, and yes, it made Hal look like a royal douchenozzle.

[Space Cop]

^I’m no fan of drunk driving* and it’s been decades since I read ED, but doesn’t it end with him volunteering for his sentence even though he has the power to just leave? And I’d have to agree with the others that ED I and II felt apart from vol. 3 itself. It was probably canon, but it’s not like it got referenced a lot. And the main issues didn’t seem to suggest alcoholism, IIRC (though, again, it’s been quite a while).

*A friend of mine was once trying to tell me how worried she was she was losing her girlfriend one time that she rushed over to her place under the influence. I think she got mad at me as I explained I didn’t find that stuff funny,

[Big Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by Space Cop

^I’m no fan of drunk driving* and it’s been decades since I read ED, but doesn’t it end with him volunteering for his sentence even though he has the power to just leave?

*A friend of mine was once trying to tell me how worried she was she was losing her girlfriend one time that she rushed over to her place under the influence. I think she got mad at me as I explained I didn’t find that stuff funny,

Yes, he served his sentence and he eventually seemed contrite, but that was the absolute wrong way to go about a story like this. GLs aren't given powers by accident, they're chosen for their mental and moral make-ups. Granted, that's somewhat vague and there has been different interpretations of what it means, but the GL concept doesn't mesh with a character who severely overindulges, then acts like a child when he does harm to others. Hal was a mess when the ring found him, not someone who had gone through a period of self-reflection, fixed his mistakes, and brought out the best version of himself. It was just so cringeworthy.

And I certainly applaud your effort to open your friend's eyes to the gravity of that kind of behavior.

[Trey Strain]

This brings up something I'd change if I were in charge of the property. The CPB should pick the Green Lanterns, and its choices should sometimes seem incongruous. That way, nobody would have a cow if a Lantern wasn't perfect all the time.

Perfect people aren't good subjects for stories. They're not even interesting.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Big Blue Lantern

Yes, he served his sentence and he eventually seemed contrite, but that was the absolute wrong way to go about a story like this. GLs aren't given powers by accident, they're chosen for their mental and moral make-ups.

So it kind of comes back to, "it makes Hal less perfect." No?

[HalFingJordan]

Originally Posted by Big Blue Lantern

Yes, he served his sentence and he eventually seemed contrite, but that was the absolute wrong way to go about a story like this. GLs aren't given powers by accident, they're chosen for their mental and moral make-ups. Granted, that's somewhat vague and there has been different interpretations of what it means, but the GL concept doesn't mesh with a character who severely overindulges, then acts like a child when he does harm to others. Hal was a mess when the ring found him, not someone who had gone through a period of self-reflection, fixed his mistakes, and brought out the best version of himself. It was just so cringeworthy.

And I certainly applaud your effort to open your friend's eyes to the gravity of that kind of behavior.

Quite right. Drunk drivers and the alcoholism associated with are a special sort of disgusting, none of which have any place in a Hal Jordan origin story. Next they will probably tell us Hal was a bully in school.

[Trey Strain]

Originally Posted by HalFingJordan

Quite right. Drunk drivers and the alcoholism associated with are a special sort of disgusting, none of which have any place in a Hal Jordan origin story. Next they will probably tell us Hal was a bully in school.

https://www.alcoholproblemsandsoluti...drunk-driving/

[Big Blue Lantern]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

So it kind of comes back to, "it makes Hal less perfect." No?

"Less than perfect" doesn't do justice to the severity of the issue. This isn't something like Barry Allen's bad time management. The defining characteristic of a GL is his/her will. That means the mind of the wielder must be clear and focused. During the HTH era, we saw what happens when drug use is mixed with a thought-based weapon. If Hal couldn't even properly handle the responsibility of a vehicle, how in the world did the CPB arrive at the conclusion that he was at a place in his life to handle thought-based power?

Originally Posted by HalFingJordan

Quite right. Drunk drivers and the alcoholism associated with are a special sort of disgusting, none of which have any place in a Hal Jordan origin story. Next they will probably tell us Hal was a bully in school.

Indeed, it made for a unnecessarily rocky start to a story that ultimately had some solid parts. I don't have a problem with GLs making mistakes due to an abundance of self-assurance, but Emerald Dawn's storyline was a futile attempt to be edgy.

And speaking of mistakes, I've completely derailed this thread. Sorry about that, Andrew.