I agree and disagree with both Pat and Jack.
I agree with Pat insofar as he states that there is an agenda behind the Groth editorial, not just plain speaking (as some here would have it); however, I disagree with the assertion that it was nothing more than an anti-Marvel rant. And while I believe Jack is correct in his reading of Groth's effort to be "honest through the point" (if I understood that phrase aright), Groth's editorial is not (nor does he claim that it is) a proper eulogy for Carol Kalish. And if it is, then please God if I go first don't let Gary Groth anywhere near my funeral! (Attempted levity)
"Hate the sin not the sinner:" whether or not this sentiment informs Groth's general philosophy it speaks to a dilemna in the nature of the editoral: how to convey a personal experience of the deceased without unduly excoriating her for the uses to which she put her "intellect," which Groth says he "abominates." I applaud the fact that Groth tried to avoid "hating the sinner" to the extent that his editorial stance allowed, but yes, some of what Pat called "contempt" does leak through. Those who construed the editorial as primarily an attack on Kalish were wrong; primarily it was an attack on the fatuous responses of some fans and pros.
And yet-- reading it, I am still left with a colossal bad taste. I believe he should have minimized his attention to her career as a "Marvel shill," and focused purely on the overblown pronouncements of those who conceived her to be some modern Johnny Appleseed of comics. But Groth does go too far in his "nothing good can come out of Marvel" ideological stance; I think it does come off as somewhat judgmental of Kalish. So close to the occasion of her death, this was (and is) bad form, unless you're revealing something about the deceased a good deal worse than shilling for Marvel. It is not appropriate for Gary Groth to imply at such a time that Kalish may have misused her talents for the last 10 years of her life, any more than it would be for Pat O'Neill, on the occasion of Groth's demise, to claim that he wasted his life pursuing "artsy-fartsy" comics and paying the bills with porn. (The preceding should be understood by the dense to be purely a rhetorical, hypothetical statement.)

Gene, you took the words out of my mouth.

Thanks, Kady Mae.
Minor self-correction: of course I meant that Groth said he abominated the "uses" Kalish made of her intellect, not her intellect itself.

Gene,

Putting aside the particular question of Kalish's morality in her choice of jobs, are you saying that only good things should be mentioned at the time of someone's death? This seems to be a common view, but one with which I would take issue. I find it difficult to understand your approval of Groth's criticism of the eulogies while disdaining his timing. What difference would a year have made? People would've still had similar reactions, while criticizing Groth for dwelling in the past and taking cheap shots at the long since deceased.

I agree with Charles, either way Groth would have been vilified. It isn't the timing, its that he popped the myth bubble everyone wanted (still wants?) to have.

Its ironic that everyone would make Marvel out to be the Evil Giant all this time and yet deify one of their chief architects.



[This message has been edited by jack (edited 01-14-2000).]

I feel it would've made a differance if the editorial hadn't come so close to her death in that it would've given the ACTUAL mourners (of which there certainly were a legitimate but small number) time to let their wounds heal. I have absolutely no doubts about Gary's accuracy, integrity or honesty in this matter, but I don't think he deserves high marks for diplomacy.

I remember this editorial crystalizing both my respect for the Journal at the same time that I was (internally) groaning about it's lack of sane self preservation.
-Ed

>>The Whore of Marvel, who knew what she sold was crap, yet she did it to the best of her ability because it was her job and she was good at it?<<

You honestly think that was what Groth was saying? Praising Carol for being good at her job?

Talk about bullshit. He was saying it was wrong to mourn her or praise her work BECAUSE her work was for Marvel...whose goal no "honorable" person can support, in Groth's view.

Best, Pat

Gary's timing in the matter was totally tactless. I agree with *some* of his points about Marvel and the business ethics of captialism, but to make these points over Kalish's dead body was a serious lapse in judgement.

I know several retailers who were very upset when she died. They had a good business relationship with her. They and their stores benifited from her attention to good customer relations and her willingness to listen to retailer feedback. When I think of the relationship that many retailers have with Marvel today, I see why she is still missed.



------------------
Katherine Keller
Staff Writer, Sequential Tart
"Have Attack Womb, Will Travel."
http://www.sequentialtart.com

Charles--
I noted in my post that it may be worthwhile to say bad or unpleasant things about a recently-deceased figure, but that the reason has to be more compelling than being what Groth views as a corporate shill. (For instance, I felt Nixon's crimes heinous enough to forego the usual "respect for the dead" ritual-- that is, if anyone had asked me.) But even if one subscribed wholly to Groth's view of Marvel, corporations and the rest, one still has to ask: what did the woman do that deserved this in-depth criticism of her actions? She worked for a corrupt boss; yeah, nobody in the real world ever has to do THAT.

Nixon is a good example since he was buried with full honors and revered as an elder statesman, which blew me away, thats not how I remembered him being 1-H in 1972 and all. Watching his machine help kill 4 at Kent State, and the MESS in Chicago. Not to mention 2 terms of his idea of how to deal with Vietnam. May I use the heat from my burning draft card to make your popcorn KM?

So now the beef isnt what he said but when he said it? I think that the basis for disagreement is shifting a little. Granted it is impolite to say negative things about anyone when they die, but I see no dancing on anyones grave in what Groth wrote. His issue (having re read the article AGAIN) was his disgust at everyone trying to out-grieve each other PUBLICLY.

Did I get it or not?

[This message has been edited by jack (edited 01-14-2000).]