“Stephen Colbert’s Tek Jansen Adventures” and “mountains out of molehills”
By
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Yesterday, we found an article in Canada’s National Post that reflected “Tek Jansen” illustrator and friend of the blog, Scott Chantler, in a very negative light. We e-mailed Scott for his response, as the article seemed very out of character, judging by the discussions we had had with him. Scott responded to the article in his blog, and both the article and Scott’s response were posted here.
After further reflection and discussion with various parties, Scott removed his response from his blog and asked for us to please remove the content from ours as well. We have submitted to his request and removed the controversial content.
Normally, as a “news” blog, we wouldn’t want to start chopping up our content. However, our goal here at NoFactZone.net is, as always, to give praise and glory to Stephen’s name, peace be upon him. It is not in the best interest of the future of the comic to be publicizing this negative information.
We, too, have been known to get caught up in controversy on occasion and can understand Scott’s desire to take a step back from it all. It’s hard to just move on when mistakes are made, and we respect Scott for doing his best to take the high road on this one.
So, if you find an article in The National Post and it seems a little “off” to you from everything you’ve read here and in other venues, it probably is. And that’s all we have to say here, really.
Related posts
6 Comments
July 11th, 2007 at 10:45 am
It’s too bad that some writers will do anything to get attention. Shame on Kaplan for all the unfounded negative innuendo in his article.
Reply
July 11th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Somewhat like the MSM “coverage” of the Hosseini BEA exchange. Wonder why the reporter felt the need to make it into some kind of conflict.
Reply
July 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I thought of that article on the Hosseini BEA faux-conflict, too, Diane. This seemed much more potentially harmful, though, as Khaled Hosseini’s reputation as a writer wasn’t really in any danger from the allegation of a “feud” with Stephen.
By contrast, if you’re an artist collaborating on a project of someone else’s creation, alleging that that artist is bad-mouthing the creator could seriously jeopardize the relationship. Not cool! Big “wag of the finger” to that.
Reply
July 11th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
The National Post really should’ve talked about the signing instead of that BS.
Reply
July 12th, 2007 at 4:46 am
I don’t know anything about Ben Kaplan, but Stephen, from all accounts, doesn’t seem like a person who trades “barbs” with anyone unless it’s a joke. It’s interesting that the Post article doesn’t actually say anything false: there was a difference in the vision for the comic; it’s true that Stephen “couldn’t stand it” in the original early draft incarnation; they did have weeks of negotiation about it … but somehow the Post article makes it sound like there was a animosity and confrontational quality to all of this and that, even worse, Kaplan is some kind of n00b who was quaintly surprised to discover that the character’s creator wanted to have input as to what the character was going to be! Maybe Kaplan ought to get together with that guy from the Deseret Morning News who insisted he reported exactly what he “saw” at the BEA, Stephen’s “completely gray hair that he must dye before each show” and all. Seems like they have similar journalistic practices.
Reply
July 12th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Whoops, that’s supposed to be “Scott Chantler” in the first line – not Ben Kaplan. Although it kinda makes sense either way.
Reply