At work, I really have more time on my hands than I know what to do with. ADD poster boy that I am, I make a habit to scan the Livejournals of people in fanfic. That's how I found the below...

http://pollards-picks.livejournal.com/169783.html

Gary Jones: On one hand I hope that Kirby's family do get a share of the copyright because I love his work so much but on the other hand I don't see why comic creators are entitled to them in the first place, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.

If I work for Volvo and develop a new carburettor, then I am not the owner of that device or have any right to it as it belong to Volvo.

Why therefore do people who work for a comics company get to own things created for that comics company?

I hope I've explained my question correctly.

Dino: Considering that is perhaps the worst possible analogy in history for an intellectual property, there is obviously no explaining this to you. As a creator, I'm actually insulted by that comparison

Gary Jones: Then give me a better one. How is being creative by writing or drawing any more creative than being mechanically creative.

I really don't understand why creating something for one company means you get to share the rights when in another industry you don't. Both to me have been equally creative.

Dino:If you don't see the difference, you are not a creator. Simple as that.

Several things struck me as wrong with that exchange.

First and foremost, the post was created to denounce the rude behavior of others to strangers, and yet here Dino is trying to brow beat a fellow writer. If the behavior of the 'fanboys' is disgusting, then the attitude Dino displays to Gary Jones is doubly so, as this is someone he knows, even in passing.

This isn't the first time someone's jumped on Gary Jones because they know he's a passive guy. Likely won't be the last. But anyone who does so should be ashamed. Anyone who knows Gary knows that he won't make an issue of things, even when he's in the moral right.

Second, the implication that car designers, architects and those that work with their hands, are not 'creators'. Airplanes, buildings and everything else designed by hand did not come into existence by themselves. They were created by people who had an idea and made it reality.

As writers, we only imagine people flying. But it takes builders and visionaries to truly make them soar. Pen to paper is important. We uplift the soul. But that doesn't make reality reflect our will or desires. Hammer to steel, does.

People who create with their hands are no less creators than those who rely on their mind. As someone who has done both, I'm vaguely insulted.

Lastly, I find myself in agreement with Gary, in principle. Marvel Comics is in the business of publishing comics with their characters and only their characters. In the 1960s, I cannot imagine that Kirby's contract said anything other than 'These characters belong to use, forever and ever'.

Kirby should have gotten a better deal, but in the end he did sign on the dotted line. I'm not an expect on intellectual property (boring class, actually), but I'm pretty sure that everything he did for them counts as work product. He was employed by them to create characters for them. In return, he was given the time and money that enabled him to create.

It may not seem fair, but that's the way it breaks down. If Kirby wanted a better deal, he was free to quit and go elsewhere, like he eventually did.

So barring some copyright reset that wasn't covered in his contract, I really don't see how his family is entitled to anything. Legally and morally can be two different things.

And yes, I am a creator. And a damn good one at that.

This week was easily my worst week this year.

Last Sunday, I had to euthanize my best friend of 18 years. Nearly twenty years is pretty good for a dog, I know, but still not nearly long enough for me. I had her since before I was a teenager and while I didn't immediately take to the responsibility, I loved the friendship. She was a great dog, always silly and full of energy.

But this last year, her age began catching up with her. She slowed down, and started to have medical problems. But I promised her and myself that I wouldn't be the sort of owner who put down their animal simply because they were no longer fun. She'd been too good a dog for something like that, she deserved better without question.

Overall, I think I did an excellent job of providing care while ignoring the implications of her getting older. I wasn't ready to let her go. Ever, if I could do anything about it.

But life and death are what happen when you have something else planned. She fell down Sunday afternoon after two days of not eating, and couldn't stand again. At that point, I really didn't have a choice.

I took her to the vet's, and asked them to do what had to be done. I'm not ashamed to say that I cried. Alot. Ariel was a part of my life for so long, I couldn't stand to lose her. Digging her grave, hacking through thick roots and dense dirt, was easier than actually putting her in it.

Ariel was an 18 year old habit that I loved. I haven't put up her food or water bowls, her leash is still where it always was. I come home expecting to have to let her out, only to remember that she's gone and I feel like there's a hole in my chest whenever it's time for her walk.

I don't feel like I've lost a piece of my childhood. I feel like I've lost a piece of my life. I know I'll get over this, but until then I feel like I'm moving through a fog.

Good-bye, Ariel. I know you're in a better place, and I miss you more than you'll ever know.

Dunno why, but I've got a hankerin' for a spy series. But I honestly can't decide which one I wanna do. There are pros and cons to each.

If I do X-Force, I'll have to cede some control as Dave will insist on a co-writer if he lets me take over (I don't blame him.), so it won't be all me. I've liked the series concept since the beginning and while I have no idea how Dino's, I've no doubt that I can either follow up fluidly or go my own way without needlessly rocking the boat.

If I do Suicide Squad, I'll have complete freedom, but with my writing speed that can be a double edged sword. It certainly wouldn't be a traditional Suicide Squad (it'd have actual heroes and Waller would do more than be a snippy bitch), but I'm not sure who'd read it. Batgirl doesn't seem to gather alot of attention outside of Fanfiction.net.

So, anyone have any thoughts on which I should do?

I've watched the crap that's gone down with Facebook and now feel completely vindicated.

That is all.

I hate doin' the ol' 'running to my own personal posting space' in defense of my position, but I've never liked my statements being taken out of context or warped, so.

In response to Mick's usual bullshit (http://mimick.livejournal.com/356650.html)

Me: I'm pretty sure that I've seen you post something like the above three times now. You're clearly not learning, you're just biding your time and making a play for sympathy. You stopped fooling anyone a long, long time ago.

Mick's mature reply: David, David, David Ingram. Haven't you stopped being a jackass yet? I mean I just banned Joel because he reminded me of what he did. Now, I ban you because of your part in it AND you are a troll.

And like a true master of the debate, he deleted my comment and left only his own.

Hopefully, Mick's gone back to the cave dwelling cycle of his troll-like behavior. I just hope everyone remembers what he's really like when he comes back out.

McCain’s Two Wives (A rant and rebuttal, all in one!)

As much as I shouldn’t be, I’m appalled by how low some people will stoop to insult the other side (http://nebris.livejournal.com/3114801.html#cutid1). In and of itself, that’s pretty disappointing. What makes it worse is that the poster flat out admitted how morally wrong they were (http://nebris.livejournal.com/3044787.html), but here they are, again, making the exact same insult. I’ve seen this article posted at other places and each time only disgusts me more.

What I find so revolting about the posts/article is the expectation that McCain would be able to just naturally resume his life after five years of torture. I have two family members serving in the army. Though neither are serving in Iraq, I am blessed with the common sense to know that, if they did, they would come back different. I can’t begin to imagine how stressful it is to watch one’s friends die, to survive a fire fight or being in a hostile nation where a freakin’ soda can be a bomb meant to launch an attack. And though being tortured for five years is vastly different from combat operations, I think the need for emotional understanding and support are roughly the same if not greater.

Yeah, John McCain divorced his wife who was involved in a terrible accident while he was gone. I’m sure it would make a great romance story if the two pulled through their ordeals together, this is real life. I doubt either could give the other the emotional support they needed. McCain wasn’t there for his wife during her accident. She wasn’t there for him when he lost a nut. That’s a lot of pain to overcome and to his credit, he still provides for her. It’s their business, not ours.

The worst part of it is, by resorting to such an underhanded attack, they act like McCain is some damn Golden Boy. I respect him as a person, but no further. He’s a Republican and though I don’t see him as a third year extension of Bush, I know he’s not different enough from Junior to matter. Finding issue with his policies should be as hard as finding sand on a beach. He got the Surge right. That’s about the extent of McCain’s good policies. But apparently, there are fuckwits out there who can’t do that much. I’m sure in one breath they’d condemn the Swift-boat that got Kerry while trying to launch their own.

‘Course, I found that you express that opinion to someone’s face, instead of saying it behind their back and you’re a troll (http://nebris.livejournal.com/3115592.html). This from someone who bemoans the lack of free speech online(http://nebris.livejournal.com/3105539.html#cutid1), ironically enough. I freely confess that my manner wasn’t the least bit respectful (http://nebris.livejournal.com/3114801.html) but this is the second time I’ve seen the same shit from the same person. If you can’t make a decent argument about an easy target and you know that what you’re saying is bullshit, don’t you think you ought to shut the hell up for everyone’s sake?

This is op-ed by a Washington Post writer who pretty much sums up my complaints with both. Gonna suck no matter who's president, says 10 bucks.

&&&

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601739.html

Chris Matthews, in a look of revelation not seen since the late DeMille did biblical epics, said the other day that he is beginning to think a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket makes sense. Maybe so. But I have an even better ticket in mind: Obama-McCain. That way we might get a sensible foreign policy.

As it is now, the two probable presidential nominees have outlined a foreign policy that sort of goes like this: Obama will talk to anyone while John McCain will talk to no one. I would guess that both would love to amend their positions but are mortally afraid of appearing reasonable. Obama represents a constituency that holds that much of the world's troubles are caused by the United States and can be rectified by a president who is alert to cultural nuance and can be a keen listener. This is the world according to Oprah Winfrey.

McCain, on the other hand, is seeking the support of a constituency that thinks the United States is always the innocent party and would show weakness by even acknowledging the existence of, not to mention the occasional justifiable grievance of, certain entities -- particularly Hamas, Hezbollah and the entire country of Iran. This is the world according to an ostrich.

I attribute Obama's predicament to inexperience and a certain worrisome naivete. When he said he would personally negotiate with Iran (if he were president), he might not have realized exactly what he was saying.

McCain, though, knows exactly what he himself is saying -- and how wrong he is -- because he once said pretty close to the opposite. In 2006, McCain was interviewed by James P. Rubin, a former Clinton administration official then slumming as a journalist. Rubin asked McCain whether American diplomats should continue to work with the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip if -- as had just become the case -- "Hamas is now in charge." McCain essentially said yes.

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," he told Rubin. "It's a new reality in the Middle East." I have truncated McCain's quote, but it is -- I avow and attest -- an accurate reflection of what he said.

After Rubin's recent recounting of his McCain interview in a Post op-ed, the McCain camp went berserk. It called Rubin a liar and said he had taken the quote out of context. In one sense, he had: In 2006, McCain was not an official presidential candidate. Now he is.

McCain's campaign then supplied a piece of the interview that Rubin had left out. Here it is: "I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts." Well, duh. Not only is that obvious, it materially changes nothing. What's missing is a McCain oath to never, ever talk to Hamas until it is, in essence, no longer Hamas. It's clear that McCain was once guilty of sensible flexibility. Until he secures his GOP base, this could be dangerous. Someone could mistake him for a moderate.

As for Obama, he's coming off as McCain's mirror opposite -- just dying to talk to anyone McCain won't. This, too, is a mistake, because when a president sits down with an antagonistic foreign leader, doing so can only be to settle what has already been settled. Negotiations can be a dangerous business, especially when one negotiator has a free and rambunctious press to goad him into compromises while the other is covered by suitably intimidated sycophants.

Campaigns tend to make idiots out of really smart people. Already, Hillary Clinton has been soiled by her fantasy bravery in Bosnia, Obama stood by for too long while his minister made a fool of him, and McCain, who wakes up every morning being as decent a person as there is, calls someone a liar because he has been embarrassed by his own words. No one's looking good here.

But while Americans take campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt, foreign audiences -- including leaders -- tend to believe what they hear. They are now sizing up McCain and Obama on the basis of what they are saying. One sounds like an inflexible hard-liner and the other like a naif. What America really needs is to combine the two -- some moderation on McCain's part, some realpolitik on Obama's. Either man could fill that role by himself. All it takes is a decent regard for when history says not to talk -- and when it says to listen.

At DC, any hero with a touch of evil has turned full fledged evil, even those like Batgirl and Plastic Man, whon never had much of a villain career to begin with. Long time reformed characters like Trickster, minor villains like Windfall and others have all either off the wagon, or like Batgirl, forced on it.

Hell, Alexander Luthor was taken out of limbo after saving the universe, and turned into a villain simply because his father was Lex Luthor. DC seems to be pushing the message that people can't change, that you can't overcome your past and can't redeem yourself.

Marvel's not much better. They seem to have created Marvel Adventures for the sole purpose of placing all their happy endings there. Civil War, the mini series that defined Marvel, was written like most of Millar's stories. The victor wins not because of cunning or moral righteousness, but by force of arms.

I honestly can't remember the last, real happy ending I read in a book. There are the 'we've won for today' endings aplenty, but outside of that, nada. I don't expect sunshone and roses on a regular basis but I do expect some light to balance the dark. And I don't see it. Am I the only one?

The below is yanked from another board, but sums up my thoughts on the incident exactly

&&&

If you don't obey the rules and you refuse to move, that's disorderly conduct. You disobey the orders of a cop who is trying to politely escort you, that's still more disorderly conduct. When you pull away from a cop, that's resisting arrest. At that point, they're going to assume that the person is hostile. Having worked in security, I know I would.

This guy was easily twice the size of the cops. I don't know what the exact situation was, but cops will NOT lose control of a situation just because they're physically incapable of containing it. In other words, if they have to use "other than lethal" force to make a person cooperate when they themselves are unable to contain the situation, then for the sake of public safety they'll do what they gotta do, being careful to obey the rules of "escalation of force"--using that force either equal to or one step above the threat at hand. And considering that these were small cops taking on a large suspect, I'd have gone the route of "one step above" especially if the guy was being uncooperative and I was physically unable to get him to obey my orders.

Hey, cops aren't out there to prove how tough they are. They're out there to do a job, ensure public safety, and go home at night. They're not there to make a smart-aleky kid feel good about himself.

I don't know when the handcuffs were put on, but once they ARE on then the cops have to assume responsibility for the safety of the guy from that point onward. That doesn't mean that they can't apply a wrist lock on the guy to make him more cooperative.

The main point of all this non-lethal force being used in an arrest is NOT to unduly torture a guy but rather to ensure the safety of the officers, the public and the suspect without causing serious bodily harm. Serious bodily harm includes breaking bones, puncturing the body, and large lacerations. Serious bodily harm does NOT include having a temporary and non-lasting painful moment during the act of apprehension.

All this could have been avoided if he had just shut up. Or, failing that, allow himself to be escorted away. There would have been no pain and no trouble. But this guy was out to cause trouble. I imagine he thought of himself as some kind of "martyr for the truth", and was hamming it up for the camera that his friend was holding.

In the current storyline, "Relative Threat", Force Works finds itself hunting for a list of people who work on Capital Hill with mutant relatives or are mutants themselves, the implication being that more than a few people in Washington haven't reconciled their selves or relatives with their political agendas. Hardly a radical idea, but one I found interesting when I read an article about the subject years ago.

&&&

http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/51/brokeback-hill

Mike Rogers has outed so many closeted gay politicos, he's starting to make Capitol Hill look like Brokeback Mountain.

By KEVIN SITES, WED MAY 30, 12:31 PM PDT


WASHINGTON - Members of the 110th Congress consider yourselves warned: Mike Rogers is making his list.

Rogers is a muckraking gay blogger who uses his insider's knowledge of Washington politics and broad blanket of contacts to "out" gay politicos — but only, he says, if they are undermining gay rights. Critics call his tactics divisive and politically motivated.



Mike Rogers says his blog exposes hypocrisy in government.
Rogers, a longtime gay activist, started blogactive.com in 2004, using it to yank out of the closet at least two dozen high-ranking political figures, including senators, congressmen and Bush administration officials.

He's outed so many closeted gay politicos, he's starting to make Capitol Hill look like Brokeback Mountain. All of them, he says, use their positions to actively oppose the equal rights of gay citizens while at the same time, secretly live a gay life.


If you are a gay politico with something to hide, the left hand column of Roger's Web site is exactly where you don't want to see your name. He calls it "the list."

Former Rep. Mark Foley is on the list. Rogers wrote about him in March 2005, almost two years before the scandal that forced him to resign. "I reported on him hitting on younger men, said he was a danger to the community," he says.

Evidence emerged later that the conservative Florida Republican was sending sexually explicit emails to former young male congressional pages. Two claimed to have also had sex with Foley after they had left their jobs as pages.

"For me," Rogers says, "what it's really about is if congressman X thinks that gay people shouldn't have equal rights but goes home and is having sex with men, and not disclosing that, then we have a problem."

Rogers also blogged about Dan Gurley, the former national field director of the Republican National Committee — and a rising G.O.P. star.

Rogers says he targeted Gurley because of a divisive RNC flyer with a photo showing one man on bended knee, proposing to another — an attempt to use gay marriage as a wedge issue in conservative states.

Rogers says the flyers sowed hate — and Gurley, a gay man, approved it. Gurley denies he was responsible for the flyer or its distribution.

"I was aware of the flyer and I raised objections to it," he says. "I actually pointed it out to several individuals, [saying] that I thought it crossed a line, that I was uncomfortable with it."

But Rogers kept the heat on Gurley, linking to a profile Gurley kept on gay.com.



Dan Gurley has left politics but still calls himself a Republican.
“He was using the Internet to seek multiple partners for unprotected sex,” says Rogers.

Gurley says he had been in line for a job with the Bush Administration, but after Roger's posting, he was told to look elsewhere.

"Who did you blame," I ask him, "Rogers or the administration?"

"I think there is probably blame to go around, including myself," he says.

Gurley says the episode shook him up to the point of re-examining his beliefs, but in the end, he says he's still a Republican.

"For me what it's really about is if congressman X thinks that gay people shouldn't have equal rights but goes home and is having sex with men, and not disclosing that, then we have a problem." — Mike Rogers


People have called Rogers a gay terrorist, but he says, "The only people who say things like that are people who have a vested interest in protecting the closet."

"I feel more sad for [the people I out] than anger," Rogers says. "... That they are in this position, that they are self-loathing, willing to wake up everyday and go to work against the very community they are a member of is quite shocking."

Many gay organizations are troubled by outing but stop short of condemning it. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation "doesn't encourage outing, period," says GLAAD's Rashad Robinson. "But there is an argument that can be made — and many make it — for holding closeted political figures who attack and exploit gay people and our families for political gain accountable for their actions."

However, the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, disagree. "Log Cabin is strongly against outing," says its president, Patrick Sammon. "It is unproductive and motivated by vengeance. It does nothing to further the cause of equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

In front of the Capitol building, Rogers says, "I think there need to be folks like me standing out here, pointing their fingers and saying, 'Clean up your act.'"

He adds that members of the 110th Congress should keep an eye out for his list.

-Producer: Jamie Rubin
-Video Editor: Tommy Morquecho

I have to say, when I heard of his death, I was somewhat happy. And then, I found that I was disgusted with myself.

After all, as bad as the man was, there were much worse. As far as I know, there is no blood on his hands, and he never led protests during the funerals of homosexuals to get some TV time. He was a hate monger in many ways, but I don't recall him provoking violence. I suspect why so many loathe him is that he was effective politically.

But that's why I understand, and can't condemn, the people who are happy about his demise. Falwell, and people like him on The Right, are the reason why things are so polarized today. Why volumn matters over content in Washington. Why our leaders feel the need to go to extremes just to get some acknowledgement from the other side. Falwell, and others like him, took politics to a new low, and kept us there for years.

As such, it's a fitting that some celebrate his death. He made his own legacy, and as he was so fond of telling others, you reap what you sow.

Most everyone else's said what there is to say about this, but I wqanna say one final thing.

Even if you think that Imus is a cold hearted racist, his dismissal was no victory. The Reverend and Jesse Jackson are professional racists, who make a living exploiting racial tension. And now that they've brought down the slimeball (racism aside, Imus is still a dick), they're stronger than they've been in a long time. To crush one minor racist, people have enabled two professional ones, who have never hesitated to exploit hate when it suited them.

Exactly what kind of victory is that, pray tell?

I honestly can't say I'm too surprised by the ending of Civil War. As most of my friends know that while I like comics that deal with politics, and I'm liberal by in large, the political writers in comics today piss me off. Why?

Because not a damn one can put forward a legitmate arguement to save their lives. It's like being on a debate team with a bunch of drunken idiot Frat boys on your side.

Look at the entire Civil War series. Stark's side was depicted as evil by the majority of writers out there, yet few put forward real counter arguements (like say, should the government have a monopoly on superhumans?) against registration. All we got was 'The Pro Registration Side are dicks' from most writers, from cloning Thor to recruiting the worst villains out there. Okay, we get that the Pro side sucks. But no real alternatives were offered.

Most writers just seem to want to take pot shots, or at best sound profound/insightful while giving lip service to what they believe. In Warren Ellis' mini series Jack Cross, the main character (a liberal Secret Agent), describes 9/11 as someone shoving a stick in a super computer, and that we should respect civil rights.

Okay, I can agree with that. I suspect I'm one of the few who don't think 9/11 was an institutional flaw, just idiots asleep at the switch. 'Course, Ellis' little speech is utterly undermined by the fact the same character shot off the finger of a suspect for information. Guess we don't need those civil rights after all, huh?

All politics in comics is simply about demonizing the other side it seems, and that's not honest debate. And it pisses me off.

It's the latest shiney object that's kept me from writing/plotting like I should. It's an amazing web comic with an unequaled combination of humor, plotting and drama. Anyone know if it's worth subscribing to the followup, Joyce and Walky?

Below's a link for those curious.

http://www.itswalky.com/index.html

As a writer, I know I've got some skill. But as I look back as a writer, I see too little improvement from when I first started.

What I don't have, and what I need the most, is knowledge of my weaknesses. So I'd like to ask a favor of people who've read my work and are reading this.

Sign out of your Livejournal accounts so that I don't know who you are, and give me some criticism of my work. One series, my style of writing, one particular issue of mine you didn't like, whatever. I ask that you post anonymously so that you don't feel the need to pull any punches on the basis of our relationship, whatever it may be. I also ask that you avoid any praise. I'd prefer to know what's wrong before knowing what's right.

(Yes, I know some people who vocally dislike me may seize this as an opportunity to bash me, but so be it. A thick skin is something all people need. And they may have legitmate points)

Though I can't promise that I'll take everything to heart, I do promise to try. This is, I feel, the best way to strengthen my ability as a writer, something I've done too little of.

Therefor, my friends and foes, I ask that you lay it on me!

*Edit*

Anyone else? I've only got one statement (thank you whoever you are) here. Hello? Is it that I'm perfect? ;)

First, let me say I used to like McCain. I hold no illusions that he's some great rogue in the Republican Party who secretly believes everything I do. But I thought that, when the chips are down and it really matters, John McCain would make his choices guided by his conscience and consquences be damned.

I was watching Meet the Press last weekend, and McCain was talking about the democrat's non-binding resolution against the surge. He argued that instead of the useless resolution, that the democrats, if they were really against the war, should bite the bullet and vote to cut the funding for the war.

I was only half paying attention, but at first I agreed with him. The world is a complicated place, but not everything need be. Sometimes drastic measures are required. Sometimes, you have to take a stand.

Then I thought about it more in depth, and I found myself disgusted by McCain and the very suggestion that Congress cut funding for the war.

Why? Because the adminstration hasn't hesitated yet to send an under funded army into battle. Some people had to do God damn bake sales to get their relatives in the army body armor, and that was when the war was popular! If Bush lost funding, I've no doubt whatsoever he'd keep throwing warm bodies at the problem, and then turn around and blame the democrats for every last death his stupid policies caused. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that, and either McCain refuses to see that, or ignores it. Either way, I've lost some respect for him.

I need to update this damn thing, and get something off my chest. Two birds...

I see the bitching of local jewelers in reaction to Leo's upcoming movie, Blood Diamond. They whine and whine, saying that the vast majority of diamonds on the market aren't blood diamonds, don't hate us, etc.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Every damn diamond is a blood diamond. Why? Because the 'legitmate diamond mines' are controlled by a monopoly, founded when Africa and most of the then modern world was under the thumb of Europe. Without this monopoly, diamonds wouldn't be able to fuel wars and terrorism half as well as they do now. They'd be valuable yeah, but not nearly as much as they are now. And every diamond sold keeps it that way.

That's my public message for the day. Do me a favor, and see the movie, just to fuck with diamond dealers, eh?

http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/1458195.html#cutid2

Why oh why they let Hudlin recon the magic of Priest, I will never know.

And hopefully more to come. Excalibur is a series that I've accidently allowed to fall to the wayside. I took it to see if I could do a semi regular super hero series (with politics thrown in simply to make it different from Avengers, or some other super hero group). I know I can now, but I certainly need to put more thought and effort into it. Ah well, live and learn.

I may ramble here, so forgive me please. It's late and I'm tired.

I don't know how long it's been, but I've finally reached the 25 issue of my first series Force Works. Since issue 1 was written, I knew the arc was coming. I have to say, I started out pretty damn raw. I had no idea what genre was, little practice executing ongoing plotlines and a million and one ideas loose ideas I just wanted to do. But, even though it took 25 issues, FW shaped up.

But having written 25 issues (well, 28 counting the annuals), looking back I see how little I've done. I've done little in the way to build a rogues gallery, some important social statement/plots like Camp X-Ray/Tartarus haven't recieved the emphasize they need and I still have two hanging plot threads.

After 25 the team will be rededicated with a new supporting cast, 12 members and, eventually, a new rogues gallery. Eric the Red, Conquest and Reverend Days will probably be the only holdovers. So I was thinking, should I start the numbering over with a new volumn? I did that with Excalibur, but that was because I overhauled the title. I'm doing the same here, but to a lesser extent. Perhaps it's just symbolism, but as writers we all know that's important. But maybe it doesn't matter and I should just keep up with the old numbering. Thoughts?