(Commentary) Despite what I implied yesterday, I'm not actually interested in carrying on an extended flame war over something as quinessentially pathetic as the argument in which I've found myself embroiled, but I do have a couple of remarks to make. Don't worry, Laura, this is my last word on the subject.
So we're all on the same page, a recap: Peter David's webmaster, one Glenn Hauman, took the reins of David's weblog to post an old eulogy of former Marvel marketing flack Carol Kalish, and take a quick swipe at Journal founder (that is, my employer) Gary Groth in the process; the stated reason being an essay Groth wrote which commented negatively on the many badly-written, over-the-top hosannahs published after Ms. Kalish's death, which is apparently the first thing that pops up on Google when you run a search for "Carol Kalish." As I remembered the mass beatifications, Groth's essay, and the initial outraged responses to same from when they first occured, I posted a rebuttal to Hauman's comments. Of course, given that the page containing his comments wasn't labeled for author, I first assumed that David had written them (it's theoretically his weblog, after all) -- when informed otherwise, I posted a correction and an apology to David for the misattribution. Still with me so far?
Both David and Hauman have now responded to my post, and the results are sadly predictable. Hauman posted a link to his reply on David's weblog. David chimed in too -- see the first comment below it:
"...In this instance my antipathy for Groth in general, and his using a tragic death of woman whose house he'd been a guest in as simply another pretext to slam Marvel, is well documented. So I'm four square behind him on this one. Consider what he said as going double for me."
Guess that last paragraph wasn't as invalidated by my initial error as I'd thought. A quick fact-check: as those who've read Groth's article know, Kalish and her boyfriend stayed at his house, not the other way around. A minor, even petty correction, but no more so than what Hauman dredged up.
Speaking of Hauman's rebuttal... well, there's not really much here that requires a response, is there? Gary never said anything untoward about Kalish personally, but rather spent the first third of the essay deploring the function she served in a greedy and immoral company, and the remaining bulk of it lambasting those whose writings in the Comics Buyers Guide he saw as "sensationalizing her death, exploiting the crude sentimentality of its readership, and, sad to say, distorting and falsifying Kalish's contribution to the profession."
To the extent David and Hauman have a complaint at all, it's that Gary Groth shouldn't have pointed out that Kalish performed morally dubious work for an intrinsically rotten corporation -- a complaint that would apply just as easily to Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Richard Nixon as it would to anything else. That's not a perfect analogy, of course -- the most Kalish was ever guilty of was selling sublimated sex and consequence-free violence to impressionable children for a company that routinely screwed its creators out of the fruits of their labors -- but the ethical principle in question is the same. The statute of limitations on the consequences of one's actions doesn't end when you die, and when one sees others denying those consequences in public, calling them on it is the responsible thing to do.
Hauman takes a couple of inept shots along the way, but they fall too far from the mark to matter -- his attempt to compare Groth to conservatives outraged over the way Paul Wellstone's memorial service was cynically used as a campaign rally by mock-liberals who shared virtually none of the Senator's beliefs is amusing, and might have been mildly closer to the mark had Hauman turned the analogy around and compared Gary to the Democrats, but ideology prevented him from noticing the possibility. It wouldn't have worked then either, but at least Hauman would have seemed wittier. Then there's this little gem:
"If Mr. Deppey believes that it's inappropriate to hope that an article like Gary's is not the first thing people find when looking for information on a person, then I can only hope it doesn't happen to him."
Heaven forfend that someone should run a word search for me and discover to their horror that I work for meanies! How could I ever survive the blow to my thin, thin skin? Curiously, Gary by his own account used to say the same things to Ms. Kalish's face without provoking anything resembling the self-righteous bullshit David and Hauman display... but then, by all accounts she had a fully functioning spine, a sense of proportion, and enjoyed a good argument when she could get one. Get a life, kids. I couldn't care less about the Google thing -- you want links to Peter's essay? Here you go. Your Google-bombing games are beside the point.
I have no doubt that nothing I say will change the minds of Messrs David and Hauman, so further elaborations of the same points are by definition useless. Having said my piece, I'll end it here. Enjoy the last word, gentlemen.
Update, 5:10 PM - The link to Hauman's weblog, which mistakenly pointed to David's, has been fixed.