"We never said that bad bad thing!"

Deny, deny, deny...

Hello,
Thank you for your email. The claims being made on blogs regarding Mr. Robinov, Warner Bros. and female casting decisions are untrue. Our 2008 film slate, which includes at least three motion pictures with female leads and casts, underscores our commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender.
Thank you,
Warner Bros. Customer Service

I hope they're not counting Wonder Woman, because I've seen that slated to be released in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007...

And I don't know how many movies total Warner Bros puts out per year, but three movies with women would be understandable if they only had five-seven films planned at this point. I mean, they do realize we are half the population, right? So logically, half the movies should represent us.

Also doesn't say what genre those movies are, so they could be two romantic comedies and a slasher flick while they have five ideas for action and scifi thrillers starring men right next to them which still means they're doing a shityy job but hey, three whole movies of indeterminate genre with women in them. One or two of them may actually reach theaters!

This one'll be quick because I'm short on time.

Bellatrys has been puzzling over an X-Men cover for the last couple of days, trying to figure out what makes a feminine pose and costume and what makes a masculine one. Meanwhile, and between her and Willow they've figured out precisely what's wrong with some of these cheesecake covers. First, take a look at the original cover, and the three remixes Bellatrys made. Now Willow's comment on the Xena one:

Personally I'm very surprised that my first thought on the Xena one was get up. The spine's the same, the ass up is the same - though it's covered. Maybe it has something to do with Xeam = Strength to me.

But I don't find it gratuitous. I just go "Xena Get Up!" and worry about the bad guys and who was strong enough to do that to her.

Look at Conan and Storm again. The most prominent part of each picture is the exposed left buttcheek, there's also a good central view of her exposed back and a little bit of the side of her breast. The first thing you notice in the picture is the exposed flesh and that sets the tone of the whole image.

With Xena, her plain leather skirt covers her butt (it falls just perfectly to) and her breasts are fully covered, and the what stands out is her armor, not her flesh.

Superman is drawn the way his costume normally is, covered up with a shiny uniform. Not particularly provocative.

Every part of a piece of art is important, because the artist is trying to set up an overall mood. Every line in the drawing needs to support that mood somehow. A piece of superhero art is supposed to evoke a sense of heroism, even when the character is flat on their face. You are supposed to look at it and be impressed with what knocked them down, and ready to see them stand up in the next panel. That's what a cover image should be. Its supposed to make you want to pick up the book and look inside to see who they're fighting and how they kick the bad guy's ass after being thrown so badly.

When an artist focuses too much on making the subject of the piece look sexy, as Larocca (arguably) did with Storm and Bellatrys did (purposefully) with Conan by put so much attention on bare flesh, they destroy that. If the viewer's eye is first draw to a titallating image of a character's butt and thigh, you've lost the chance to make them worried about anything other sex. The viewer is not thinking about how the character got to be face-down on the ground, the viewer is focusing on the character's butt. The viewer is not anticipating that this character will crawl to their feet and punch the bad guy in the face, the viewer is thinking about the possibility of even more exposed flesh. Its not a matter of femininity or masculinity so much as sexualization period here.

This is one of those points that subjective, some people might not think that Storm in particular is a distracting amount of skin (comparatively, it doesn't seem like a lot except that her butt is the focal point of the cover) and its certainly not the worst cheesecake I've ever seen but its a good example of an artist slipping over the line and losing the desired effect. Its not just that its unnecessary, it is actually harming the overall image by screwing with the artist-viewer communication. If you go out of your way to draw cheesecake you lose a lot of the drama superhero comics are supposed to give us. Pinups are one thing, a cover scene like this is another. (Interior artwork is the worst time to be cheesecakey at all, because then you are interrupting the story itself by distracting the reader, but that's another complaint entirely.) The cover is supposed to make me want to buy the book. I'm supposed to look at that on the rack, get worried about what they'll do with Storm (granted that image makes me worry about how they're handling Storm but not in a way that makes me want to see what they're doing to her) so that I'll pick it up to see who tossed her and how she gets back on her feet.

The bottom line is that in a visual medium too much sexy can hurt the story. Artists need to be more thoughtful about what they put in an image.

Ahh, here we go.

ETA #2: Email form (Thank you, FSF Blog commenter who is smarter than I am)

ETA: Dave suggested this one:

Alan Horn, President, Warner Bros Entertainment
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91522

I looked all over the Warner Bros studio site last night, but my searches are being sabotaged with references to the movie Contact so I couldn't find an address, email or phone number.

Today I tried the parent company. I'm not sure what names specifically to address it to.

Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY10019-8016
Phone 212.4848000

And Warner Bros Entertainment on the Time-Warner site turns up this:

Susan Fleishman
Phone 818.954.1919

Corporate Communications Office
Phone 818.954.7304

If anyone is better investigator, please tell me what you turn up.

Addendum: We all know how this will play out.

Last post I was irritated but not willing to commit to my irritation.

I'm willing to commit to being pissed off now, and not because this has been confirmed.

I'm willing to commit to being pissed off because tomorrow the business week starts and we'll see Warner Bros. PR react to this. They will issue a statement that no such thing was said, and the three anonymous producers who "confirmed" the story are not likely to pop out of nowhere and contradict that. There will be nothing written anywhere that states this is the policy, because we all know how the world works. Nobody needs to write sexism into the rules (nobody needs to voice it either, so there's still a good possibility he never actually said it), the boy's club all act on it anyway. So, WB will get to play the victim of "baseless allegations of sexism" and nothing will change.

Which means we'll still see little to no attention given to action movies with female leads.

We'll see almost no female superhero movies, except for the sort that emphasize looking down the main character's spandex without a thought for quality.

Wonder Woman will still be consigned to Development Tartarus.

See, Mickle has a point in her comment. We all know that's their line of thinking. We all know every time a female-led action film doesn't do very well they lump the blame on the fact that it was led by a woman and become that much less likely to make a female-led action film. We know they judge actresses for bust size and low bodyfat rather than muscles and presence when casting female superheroes. We've seen it, its the behavior pattern, we all know how the fucking industry works.

Then we get this vague rumor of a comment that we've heard a million times, only now its attributed to a name so we can finally point and say "Gotcha!" and now we talk boycott and letter campaign and tomorrow they're going to deny the whole fucking thing and play everyone tht's mad up as a bad guy.

Maybe we'll get lucky, maybe they'll say he said it and apologize. You think he'll be sacked? Maybe. Then some other guy'll take over and enforce the same fucking policy and just not say anything about it.

Fuck that, we need progress not apologies. Its not good enough they won't say this shit, we need them to stop acting on this shit and in order to do that we need to convince them to stop thinking this shit.

Well, fuck that. You want to confront Robinov or one of his idiot colleagues? Chuck the "You said a bad bad thing" shit out the window. Confront him with the half-assed job they did with Catwoman. Confront him with the shitty ratio of female-led action movies to male led action movies and then when he says that female-led action movies don't sell confront him with the shitty effort put towards those female-led action movies and how male-led action movies with shitty effort put into them don't succeed either, and that more male-led action movies flop than female-led action moves anyway -- because there's just more of them!!

You want a boycott of Warner Bros? Do it with an aim. To hell with that stupid statement! They'll apologize at best and deny it at worst and never change a fucking thing. Give a real goal. Tell them you won't see a Warner Bros movie until they get off their asses and film Wonder Woman! Tell them you want as much quality put into films with women as put into films with men! Tell them you want a big-budget film with a female lead! Tell them you want to see some progress, dammit!!!

Eh.

Okay, that sounded great in my head but now that I have it written down it seems so futile. Various people have been sending that message for a while. Articles and studies and letters. Rational argument hasn't worked before. Maybe its because we haven't had any good fuel beneath it. This could be good fuel. Obviously, enough people have seized on it that it speaks to something people are pissed off about. Maybe we can combine outrage with a productive goal here. If we all shout "You said something bad!" they learn that what they said was a bad thing to say. They'll keep on doing what they do, just with their mouths shut. If we all shout "You need to do THIS" maybe, just maybe they'll realize they need to do that.

Maybe all it'll do is make us feel better. (Which is worthwhile in itself, but will lead to feeling like shit when The Dark Knight comes out and we all have to decide whether or not seeing a Warner Bros movie is worth it after this.)

I'm not flying off the handle... Yet...

(Via) From Newsarama:

According to LA Weekly’s Nikki Finke, Warners isn’t interested in making films with female leads. Her source? Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov who Finke quotes (through three sources) as saying: "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead." Finke said that Robinov's sentiment/statement was confirmed by three producers

Original source here. Finke doesn't name the producers, just says there are three people verifying it.

Okay, maybe I'm flying off the handle just a bit. Kalinara is trying to talk me out of titling this post "Fuck you, Warner Bros."

A quick search on GoogleNews brings this article to light, which still pisses me off to no avail. Assuming the producer in question really is this much of a moron:

On a purely business level, though, if Robinov's declaration is more along the lines of "We are no longer doing action movies with women in the lead"... I'm afraid he's entirely justified. This isn't because a woman can't carry an action movie, but a acknowledgment of the deeply shitty reality that there isn't a single filmmaker or producer in town who knows how to develop an femme-led action movie that plays to the male quadrant (television is a completely different ballgame).

And it's a failure of imagination, really. In a way, I'd much rather see Jessica Biel as a former Navy SEAL assigned to track down terrorists threatening to blow up the Anheuser-Busch brewery. But no studio would ever greenlight Biel in a role developed for, say, Mark Wahlberg because they'd first call up the respectable grosses Underworld, Kill Bill and the Resident Evil movies, and, then, contrast those numbers with the not-so-good returns for Elektra, Aeon Flux, Domino, Catwoman, Ultraviolet, Point of No Return and, for the hell of it, V.I. Warshawski. And then they'd conclude that the risk is too high for the modest-at-best reward.

It sounds like they're using the logic that since Catwoman fucked up they don't want a female action lead because they assume all female pictures will suck. To which I'd suggest that maybe if they put more effort into making a female-lead movie work, like say a decent script, some dedication to the source material, and a good director rather than just assuming that big boobs will work box office magic they might find that female-led pictures would make more money.

Interestingly enough, CHUD above suggests that they know this, but might not willing to dedicate the necessary resources to a female-led movie because its a female led movie -- the logic of which pisses me off as much as the original unverified quote.

Family Approved?

Soyo snooped around and found more irritating stuff on the people who adapted The Dark is Rising into (*shudder*) The Seeker. It seems that the movie has been "family approved:

Of course, "Judeo/Christian values" and "positive family values" are buzzwords enough to chase me away, but I decided to look at exactly how they were reviewing films. Perhaps the most telling thing I found was a section labeled "content" that detailed anything objectionable that might be in the movie. In a way, they functioned rather like fanfiction warnings. Some of it was pretty laughable, putting "kissing" under the sex category, and counting the instances of bad language without writing out the actual words themselves. So you had "D" instead of "damn", and the like.

Other things were predictable, but still on the disturbing side. For instance, warning for "mentions of evolution" in an informative IMAX movie about dinosaurs. (Granted, as the daughter of two biology-types, I think people who "don't believe in evolution", should get the fuck over it.) Another thing that really bugged me was the constant chatter about fathers in the movie reviews, but very little mention of mothers. Look, I get that there's a big problem with dads being portrayed as immature and incompetent in the media. I agree that that's a problem, and I want people to fix it. But moms are important too. And it's ALSO quite annoying that the media assumes women automatically know how to parent, and LIKE to parent, and that any woman behaving otherwise is some immature freak.

Okay, whatever, crazy fundie website "approving" movies. They're out there, and most of them are even scarier. But for this one, producers submit the movies to be reviewed. So Walden must have submitted what once was The Dark is Rising up for review.

Now, this is old news that the company is a Christian movie company wanting to make Christian movies (but for some reason they bought the rights to a Pagan book series). But this is just one more layer on that that drives the point home that it wasn't just plain audience pandering, it was an actual attempt to edit out vital elements from the series because they weren't "wholesome" in their opinion.

Sure, I've heard the rumor that they've dropped The Dark is Rising from the subtitle is dropped, but that doesn't change the fact that the rights to the movies are owned by these people who want to suck the joy and wonder out of everything they touch in the name of "positive family values." (Because, of course, the only families are conservative Christian families and the rest of us don't count, and so our family-friendly books need to be turned into conservative Christian movies to really be family-friendly.)

The worst part of the whole thing is not that we're getting a sucky movie that's not meant for the fans of the books. Its that we'll never get a good movie after this. They own the rights.

Speaking of Blogwars

(I almost missed Friday Night Fights while I was writing another post.)

I should link these here more often

Because I've been keeping out of the blogwars too much lately.

You know...

That Wonder Woman Annual seemed very good. I imagine it would have been very good if I could remember what the fuck happened in Wonder Woman #1-4, or even find the issues to check (its been too damned long).

I say DC owes us a real Wonder Woman Annual.

I can't believe I read the whole thing.

So I read Chronicles of the Lensmen, Volume 1.

I know what some of you are thinking. "Ragnell, why did you go and do that? You know the reputation. You know its going to piss you off."

And for a long time, I put off reading these books. I knew they would be sexist. I knew the reputation. But seriously, its the fucking template for fucking space opera. Its arguably the mother of the Jedi Knights and the Green Lantern Corps. There was no fucking way I couldn't read this stuff, and the truth of the matter is there was guaranteed to be stuff I would love.

Fortunately, a big plus to having a blog and being in the feminist fan community is that I can read this stuff, enjoy what I enjoy, get pissed off at the sexism that keeps it from being as awesome as it could be (this writer had the ability to craft a kickass character, he just chose not to use that ability when it came to women and instead gendered strength and heroism) and complain about it to people who understand why I'm pissed off. Even with that in mind, this series is bad enough that I feel an intense need to justify that I kept reading the damned thing even though aside from the constant shitting on my gender the damned series feels like it was custom-written with me in mind.

In all honesty, I thought it wouldn't be so bad. I've read extremely sexist and misogynistic stuff from the King Arthur stuff written centuries ago and haven't gotten pissed off. I read all of the Sherlock Holmes stories and the Victorian attitude about women never pissed me off. It was part of the atmosphere, an anachronism. I figured I could just rationalize it away as "the attitude from the times" but I neglected two facts about this series: 1) A medieval setting where women are only princesses and barmaids is vastly less annoying than a future setting where women are only nurses and secretaries, and 2) It is a work that overtly worships masculinity and in the narrative (not the dialogue, or a first-person narrator, but the omniscient third-person narrator) goes out of its way to drop generalizations about women and uses the word "man" as a synonym for "hero".

In the first book, Triplanetary, I wanted to smack Clio. I swear, what a stupid worthless character and every stupid worthless part of her stupid worthless personality was attributed to her being a stupid worthless woman while everything that made her boyfriend a really awesome hero was attributed to his really awesome manliness.

I would've stopped there, it was pissing me off, but it was full of energy and adventure and detailed alien fish-people so I couldn't put it down. I consoled myself with the idea that I could find the author's grave and energetically voice my objections towards his rotting corpse when it was all over, and kept reading.

In the second book, First Lensmen, I was happy early on. Action-adventure set in outerspace, a couple of fun heroes and Clio was nowhere to be found. The only girl was mildly likable. I managed to forget for a moment that I was reading the Chronicles of the Lensmen, until Jill came back from Arisia with the explanation why women couldn't have a lens. The whole explanation just sounded mean-spirited and unnecessary. A "sex-based incompatibility." (I'm sorry, the color yellow has nothing on that one for idiocy.) It doesn't fit, and she goes on to say that the men she's with all have forceful, driven minds with tremendous scope ("pure killers") and a woman could not have that sort of mind. (This rules out any chance of a nice mean female villain. Which is a shame, because usually we can at least look forward an evil witch with a heart of iron that'll be turned into the misunderstood protagonist of an homage book.) She says there'll be one female lensman (I haven't gotten to that book, but I'm certain I'll be pissed off by it) in the future, and one of the guys suggests the female lensman will be some sort of freak thank you very much you bastard writer.

I'd have stopped reading in disgust, but I had nothing else to read so I went on. I was pleased by zero-gravity fight scenes later, but I got annoyed whenever Jill was mentioned. What made this worse was that the author very much wanted me to like her, and built her up in the dialogue and narration without coming through in the action.

They made a point of saying repeatedly that she didn't need a lens, her skills were fine without them. But oh wait, there's a scene where she figures out something fucking important with her skills but can't contact any of the others to help her (and can't do anything about it herself) because she doesn't have a fucking lens. She has to wait for someone to contact her mind before she can let them know (to the writer's credit, chivalry is put forth as a bad thing here, because no one wants to go near her mind without her express immediate consent but that doesn't change the fact that this all could have been averted if she had a fucking lens.)

Of course, after this scene (and after a later one where she gets captured and roughed up because she doesn't have a fucking lens) they all say that it was true she didn't need one, and that's she awesome, and that annoys me more than her being in a shitty position to begin with. It's the "strong woman" thing. The writers seem to figure if they say a character is cool and a "strong woman" enough, she is, despite the fact that she's purposefully written as less powerful than any of the male characters. And of course, the writer sits and congratulates himself on what an awesome "strong woman" character he's created, and how progressive he is and what a good person he is for throwing the poor woman readers who have so little an awesome chick they can look up to and emulate.

Anyway, this wouldn't piss me off half as much were it not still in practice today (See Winick, the Writings of Judd), and the plot still had me hooked and I liked the male characters when the writer was not going out of his was to point out how manly they were (please take note if you somehow stumble across this searching on your name, Geoff Johns, and consider your Hal Jordan characterization) so I continued reading, reminding myself this author was dead and probably reincarnated (for his writing sins) as a feminist comics blogger. (This has the upside of Stephanie getting her memorial case once the karmic debt from Lensmen runs out. It unfortunately has the downside of having launched a genre with this sexist shit that still needs to be cleared out so that's a pretty big debt.)

He wrapped the book up with some good old-fashioned (and I mean old-fashioned, this was from the days leading up to the Red Scare) dated political allegory.

I actually found Galactic Patrol to be the most enjoyable of the series, and the reason why will only really apply to me. The main character was named Kim Kinnison. My sister's nickname (for "Kimberly") is "Kim", so already I'm inclined to think "girl" when I see the name. The inclination was compounded because I knew a "Kinnison" in basic training.

Kinnison was about half my size, with shoulder-length blonde hair (always tucked behind her ears), very round dark eyes, and mildly chubby cheeks. She always seemed to have a bewildered expression on her face, because it was basic training and you had to stand there with a completely slack expression (or else you'd get yelled at and made to do laps or pushups or something exhausting) whenever anyone with stripes was around, and she had one of those jobs that had a lot of visibility with the military training instructors (we called them TIs in the Air Force, not Drill Sergeants). She was our "chowrunner" which is a job that involved entering the dining hall before the rest of the flight, standing in front of the TI table during the whole meal and directing her flight to where they needed to sit and eat. I'm not sure if Kinnison ate before or after us, or if she got to eat at all. I just remember her telling everyone how she'd stand there and one of the TIs would make funny faces at her, trying to get her to laugh so he could yell at her.

I tell you this much detail because this is the person I pictured whenever I pictured "Kim Kinnison." Smith didn't have much in the way of physical description for the characters, so even though I knew Kim was short of "Kimball" and I knew it was a male character, and even though Smith went out of his way to praise the character's masculinity, I still could not help but picture a short 18-year-old girl with shoulder-length blonde hair and a bewildered expression on her face throughout the entire book. It made the whole thing really interesting, I just wish I could draw you her face. Her eyes had the perfect roundness for an "Oh shit" reaction to anything!

Inadvertently, Kim Kinnison has become one of my favorite female characters.

That doesn't change the misogyny in the surrounding narrative (though it does makes it amusing to me).

Now, you'll notice this review is about gender-related issues. There's also race, sexuality, nationality, and religion to consider. Surprise surprise, everyone with a romantic subplot is straight. True, he doesn't really bother to mention race, but all of the names are European and some of the main characters are redheads and blondes. He has a Norwegian and a couple of Germans and everyone else is American. I didn't notice anything about religion, and I'm quite glad he didn't think to address the subject.

Overall, there is stuff I like better than the Green Lantern Corps and stuff I like less. I prefer the green energy to mind-control powers (though in the third book Kinnison gets really kickass really fast and my opinion on who has the better power set may change as I make my way through the last 3 books). I prefer the wristband to rings. The Galactic Patrol was set up much more intelligently than the GLC, with the lens falling apart once the owner was killed and killing anyone who tried it on but wasn't worthy. A smart idea, but offers less narrative flexibility. The Arisians being infallible (as of the third book) isn't as interesting as the Guardians being borderline psychotic at times, but that just demonstrates two different attitudes to government. The GLC and the Jedi both kick collective Lensmen ass by allowing women in the order (the next person who tells me the Silver Age Green Lantern is inherently anti-woman because it was based on the Lensmen novels gets a lecture about how E.E. Smith makes John Broome look like William Moulton Marston.)

It had some really kickass action in it and I did like the male characters despite the author's desperate, pathetic need to point out how manly they were. I also thought Clarrissa wasn't vomit-inducing, and Jill might not have been if not for the author's insistence that he wasn't being sexist with her plotline (I wanted Clio dead, though). I couldn't put the damned thing down once I started it, because while I'd not get pissed off by sexism I'd also not get to read zero-gravity fights and fishpeople and that bit with the cat in the barber's shop.

Ultimately, reading this series was like getting a lovely green leather briefcase as a gift and finding "To my favorite nephew" inscribed on the side. Its beautiful leather, holds everything I need, and green is my favorite color, but someone had to go and mark the damned thing for a boy. Every time I look at it I'm reminded that even though it suits me perfectly it wasn't really meant for me.

That sours any enjoyment I can get out of it.

The Rack

Ouch, poor Lydia!

Especially the last one, gross.

Discworld Filing

I've been trying to arrange my Discworld books on LibraryThing, and found that Wikipedia had different story sets than I did.

It seems they go by single protagonists (although I'm not sure how the History Monks get a grouping -- they strike me as guest-stars). I don't, though. See, I consider Tiffany Aching a direct continuation of the Witches books (her stuff certainly fits as well as Equal Rites does), and Rincewind's stories under the heading Wizards with the books that primarily feature Ridcully and Co. The Watch is definitely separate from the beaurocratic dreambooks that feature Moist, but I think The Truth with its politics in Ankh-Morpork setting attaches nicely as a prologue to the Moist storyarc.

Of course there's always going to be some overlap. It all depends on who seems to drive the story more and who is just there to be present. Death and the Wizards seem to share nicely, since the UU staff gets as much plot-importance as Death and Susan get in at least 2 of their books (Hogfather, Soul Music -- books about the nature of belief and magic fit both character groups). The Wizards and the Witches don't "share" -- the Witches get all of the major actions in Equal Rites and Lords and Ladies, and those are just Witch-style books. (Witch books seem to be about defying the expectations of the universe, Wizard books seem to be about discovering the nature of universe.)

I'm going by theme and mood, I expect. The protagonist sets the mood, yes. Some books are just Watch books. They have Watch-style plots and star those characters, and everyone learns a Watch-style lesson about humanity. They're set in the city. They usually end with Vetinari spouting philosophy. City books like The Truth and Going Postal have the same traits and characters, but they focus on someone other than Sam Vimes and therefore have a much more optimistic mood.

Susan books tend to have the same mood usually too. Tiffany and Granny have the same outlook, so naturally all the Witches books blend together. But Rincewind and the rest of the UU staff don't really have personalities that match, but the Wizard books have the same feel whether Rincewind is present or not. The story seems fresh and exploratory, I have to group them together. Moving Pictures just doesn't stand alone to me, its a Wizards book.

Am I the only one who arranges them this way?

In case my opinion on the killing of Kirby-creations is unknown...

Dear DC,

Yeah, I'm not buying it. The book or the premise.

You really think you'll be able to keep the New Gods dead for long? Give me a break. I've seen way too many of your writers and editors with a Fourth World fetish and seen way too much of Apokolips in every fucking book you put out to believe that. The reason you had to give them a break during Infinite Crisis was that they were overused in the 90s because your writers couldn't keep their grubby little fingers off the King's characters.

Either you're tricking us or you're deluded. Somebody's going to bring these guys back. You can't resist them. Too many of you grew up on them. Too many of you have fun with them. You can't go cold-turkey on Kirby. Its like trying to give up chocolate, and you don't have the collective willpower.

Someone is going to want to play with them.

Carnival Time!

The 17th Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans is up!

I'm still looking for hosts for the 18th Carnival. Email me if interested, please.

Is the last week of September too early to start hating the costume industry?

Look where my supposedly relaxing internet wanderings found me (hat-tip).

Thing is, its not the existence of the Sexy Ghostbuster Costume that gets me. That in itself is kind of kinky and fun and weird and harmless.

What kills me is what's in the top corner:



Yeah, that's right. Men's, Plus-Sized, Sexy, and Children's. No category marked Women's (and just one female model). The only female Ghostbuster is a SEXY Ghostbuster!

(And don't give me "that's what's in the movies" dammit, there was no sexy Ghostbuster in the movies, even among the male actors. There also weren't any damned kids. The conforming to the source ship has sailed. The least they could've done is marked the costume "Traditional" or "Unisex.")

It seems that whenever I let my guard down and get happy about something the internet seems to go out of its way to remind me that I really do hate everyone no matter what time of year it is.

That depressed me more than I thought

I just saw a reprint of The Dark is Rising in the bookstore. It said "Now a major motion picture: the Seeker" in an ugly yellow band at the bottom.

You'd think, after changing so damned much to make the movie they'd figure they're shooting themselves in the foot by selling the book to remind everyone how different it was.

Mothers in Green Lantern

This started as a comment over on Sally's blog and went a bit long and tangential so I decided to post it over here. The post of Sally's is from Thursday anyway, but in case you haven't read Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Parallax consider this one your spoiler warning.

While I enjoyed the issue, I can see why this Anonymous commenter was unimpressed. The stuff in the comment is subjective, but I wanted to address this part:

There was the bit about how his mom painted the painting, but of course, since we're talking about a simulacrum of the painting in Kyle's mind and not the actual painting itself, as far as "dramatic revelations" go that one falls flat.

As I read it the revelation that Moira painted the picture was very important because this was in Kyle's mind. It wasn't the painting that was her gift to Kyle, but his imagination and his artistic talent was her gift. he inherited those traits from his mother, and those are the traits that make him an exceptional Lantern. They all have the will. They all have the guts. They all have a sense of honor. Only Kyle has the strength of vision, the flexibility and the unpredictability that come with his creative outlook. From the creation of this character, that's what's been used to make him stand out. And he got that from his mother.

Even if they end this crossover with him getting the picture and finding another name (which I doubt), it was his mother who sat down with him as a kid and made up stories about the boy in the picture. That was the gift. The story, the creative exercises themselves. The most important parts of Kyle's personality are through his mother.

What really interests me with this discovery is the old plotline where Kyle searches for his long-lost father. His early teamups with Connor Hawke were dedicated to this plot, and Marz implied Kyle's father was alive and findable throughout his entire run. It was a major enough thing when Winick wrote an actual meeting with the man to put it in the 150th issue, and even since that issue the absence of Kyle's father keeps being brought up in Kyle stories. Kyle dedicated a lot of time and energy to finding his father, and when parental issues were brought up, with the exception of the first appearance of Kyle's mother, the parental issues were skewed towards his father.

Even though Kyle was raised by his mother and logically that's where all of the influence would be from, Kyle's father, like Hal's father, was the important parent for story purposes. Most of the time (with few exceptions such as Kyle having to settle his feud with her, Kyle addressing his narration to her in one of the 80-Page giants), the mother was just there so villains could threaten her and Kyle could take his girlfriends home to meet her.

This goes back to a tendency in our society to place this kind of importance on fathers. Heroic qualities tend to be portrayed as coming through the father because boys are traditionally consider more active while girls are traditionally considered more passive. Most legacy stories lead back to a father because its only recently mainstream society has come to accept women can be active and heroic. Heroes, especially male heroes, still tend to have fathers that they take after (Both Batgirls focused on father-daughter relationships, the difference in Thomas and Martha Wayne's memory is clear to anyone who's read two Batman stories). Beyond that, much of the attention of modern pop culture is directed towards characters working out father issues (I suspect this is because many writers have these issues, but that is little more than speculation and generalization that I have no way of backing up).

Well, with this story we find out that the traits that make Kyle a hero definitely do come through his mother, and Kyle finds out as well. So, even though we lose the character to the fridge (for the fourth time), its a dramatic change in how she's portrayed and remembered. She is the important parent when it comes to understanding Kyle Rayner now.

This isn't to say that the father's absence is less important to understanding the character, just the mother's absence (and her presence up until recently) is now mroe important than it used to be.

And seeing that name on the portrait was Kyle realizing that.

This is even more interesting when you look at how Hal's parents have developed. Everyone knows that since Emerald Dawn Hal's father's death was the defining moment in his life. Hal's father was so all-encompassing when it came to understanding his past that his mother didn't even have a name until recently. Since the fourth volume was relaunched, not only does Hal's mother have a name (Jessica) but we also know that there was a very strained relationship. A relationship Hal tried unsuccessfully to mend before her death. (He was just a little bit too late.) We have an idea of what she was like as a person (prior to that we could just picture Donna Reed), we know she was overprotective and there's an implication Hal inherited his stubbornness from her and that's why the relationship was strained.

Hal's father still takes up 95% of the picture when we go back to Hal's early homelife (there's also his brothers, but I can't remember a story that showed how they related as children. Only as adults). We have a brief picture of his mother now, but that's a lot more than there has been for forty years.

Its just a little bit, and it hardly makes things all right with Green Lantern and women (this is sad, because if you read the Showcase collections and the archives it could be argued that Green Lantern started out ahead of the rest of the Silver Age with the portrayal of female characters, but moved backwards when it was supposed to be ironing out the sexist parts), but it is a nice trend to see.

*Sigh*

I was just watching The Incredibles again.

I'm sure everyone remembers the point about capes, right? How Edna refused to design a suit with a cape because of all the accidents that caped heroes had and how impractical and dangerous the cape is?

I just now noticed that Violet and Helen have high heels on the costumes Edna designed.

That kind of kills that cape joke for me.

Not enough Green Lantern for you?

I did a John post on Blog@Newsarama on Friday, in case anyone missed it.

We can't take what Ganthet says as fact anymore, can we?

In this panel, we see Ganthet the Guardian giving readers the priceless gift of his wisdom.



Unfortunately, that bit at the top about Parallax not being able to sneak up on Kyle because he knew Fear. (Yes, capital-F Fear.)

And the latest installment suggests that second bit about Willpower alone being more useful than Hope will be proven wrong before the end of this crossover.

Of course, being wrong there will be good. The problem is that Ganthet's been serving as Captain Exposition in parts of this crossover, so if he's wrong in these two areas how likely is it that he'll be wrong in something crucial and pertinent?

Oh, and in case you were wondering...

I'll admit it. There was a point in Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Parallax where I thought I felt my heart grow two sizes after I turned the page. (Don't worry, it shrunk again when I started reading reviews of the Green Arrow and Black Canary Wedding Special. I may have lost a size.)

Strangely, it left me with an ending where I'd predicted the "how" of it (Kalinara can attest to that one), but not the why of it. Usually I can guess the whys of a plot but the hows are what I read to find out.

I liked the art. Kyle's face and hair worked well, but I thought he was overmuscled. I like when he's drawn short and slender, with compact muscles so that the bad guy towers over him. Kyle's one of those characters I like to see outmatched in every possible way from the outset, even physically. It makes when he wins more impressive. Still, this was taking place inside Kyle's mind so works.

The stubble was interesting. I think Adriana Melo (the penciller here) and Patrick Gleason may be the only two artists I've seen bother to draw stubble on Kyles face.

This issue drives home how emotionally reserved Kyle can be, especially for such an expressive artist. He has his tantrums, yes, but the entire issue is set in his head under the worst stress imaginable and he's thinking very calmly about his problem for most of it.

Anyway, I'll wait on the "I told ya so" dance over this crossover until we see how things play outside of Kyle's head because I'm sure some of you are still convinced things will not turn out with Kyle on top even after this.

In the meantime there was a reference to some issues in this book that bug me (yes, its the role of women in this franchise and I should've known it would take a Marz-written book to shake them to the surface for me), and I'm trying to put together my thoughts on mothers and Green Lantern in respect to this issue. I might get a post out of either if I get the energy.

Also there's a point with Ganthet from Rebirth I have to reread because I think it'll come up again. (ETA: This point.)

The Wedding Special

No, I have not read it.

It was written by Judd Winick.

It doesn't matter that Amanda Conner drew it.

It was written by Judd Winick.

While I've no doubt that my reaction to Judd Winick being handed one of the best, strongest, and most popular female characters in the DC Universe would be massively entertaining I refuse to subject myself to it. I am not reading the scans. I am not buying the book.

This is a writer I still argue mishandled Jade, and she is my least favorite female character in the DC catalog. I've never seen a satisfying portrayal of an existing female character from this writer (there is always something in there that sends a piss-poor message about women's place in society, even when he tries to write "Strong"). I've rarely seen a satisfying portrayal of an existing male character from this writer (they have a tendency to shed their own personalities and become the stock Winick hero). He's even disappointed me utterly when it comes to his own creations.

I will credit him as the reason I learned to see through "strong" female characters, because his Jade was such a transparent attempt at a superficially progressive woman who still conforms to the traditional roles of a female character that I (previously ignorant) developed a eye for the trick. It doesn't matter that she fights and you say she uses her powers as well as Kyle, and it doesn't matter that he's intimidated by her. If you don't show her winning or show her matching him or show any reason he wouldn't want to piss her off other than the chance she'd leave his bed you might as well be writing the Lensmen. At least the sexism's upfront there.

Hell, this writer's the fucking reason this marriage idea made Dinah seem like such a putz. He's the one who wrote the sleaziest Ollie. He's the one who took Ollie into the unforgivable territory.

I'm just glad he's far far away from my favorite books.

(Oh, in case anyone is wondering who asked and brought on this rant, it was Chris.)

Uhh...

I can't own this.

I tried the Ms. Marvel trades and adored them, but I don't want to buy the normal book. The covers are too offputting. Why does Marvel put Greg Horn on cover detail for all the female books? They could at least find an interesting cheesecake artist. Being extremely generous, his stuff looks like he stole an aspiring lingerie model's portfolio and is photoshopping different costumes on her pictures.

I can't even have an action figure.

I ordered a set of toys. I wanted the DC Animated Universe Kyle Rayner, who came in a set that included an animated-style Katma Tui (which you all know I wanted the second I realized it existed) and an Arkkis Chummuck. I got the set in the mail and opened them to find that there was a small clear plastic stand with a peg and the DC logo imprinted on it.

A single display stand.

In a set of 3 figures.

Interestingly enough, my John Stewart, Kilowog, and Tomar Re set had not come with a stand at all.

Figuring the major character was the one to be displayed, I flipped Kyle over and looked at his feet. Neither left nor right had a hole for the display stand's peg. I picked up Arkkis, a character I never had much interest in, because he was closer and checked his feet. No hole. I found the hole in Katma's right foot.

It seems that the manufacturer (whatever mysterious division of Mattel and/or DC Comics is in charge of fucking up the female action figures, I don't keep track of such matters) felt that the only toy that needed help standing was Katma. So I tried and sure enough the only toy that will not stand on its own is Katma Tui.

Can anyone hazard a guess why that is?



Give up?



High. Fucking. Heels.

I suppose I wouldn't mind the high-heeled action figures if they could find a way to make them stand up with the high heels. But look there! They even filled in the plastic between the heel and the ball of the foot, and she still doesn't stand on her own. They know the toy can't stand with feet like that. That's why the stand is there. They prepared for the toy not to stand like that. But they didn't fix the design of the toy so that it doesn't need a fucking stand!

Would it fucking kill them to give her flat feet? What's the harm in giving a female action figure sensible boots? Wasn't in the original costume design? Its a toy, for fuck's sake! Its not like you're using a sharpie to put eyebrows on the Mona Lisa here. This is something to play with. Adding a little practicality would be a plus in this department.

Maybe this is not all in the heels. Maybe there's a way to redesign the body so she's poseable and has the high heels. You might have to make less spiky heels, thicker feet and legs, less of an hourglass figure, and an overall sturdier figure but it can be done.

But no, its more important that she look all pretty and feminine than be able to fucking stand up!

As it is, I now have to set up a little clay planet for all of them to stand in if I want to make a scene or a diorama (because that stand doesn't work unless everyone has one).

Bastards.

Oh, and as long as I'm talking about these figures -- why the hell can I make out the line over Kyle's belly-button? That's a strange detail to throw on an animated-style action figure. Was that muscle area visible in the cartoon?

First Ming, now this.

Sean Astin as Twoflower? (Via)

Okay, I know Twoflower is the Tourist stereotype (though I think they can play that as more the silly American tourist than the Japanese tourist and still cast an actor of Asian descent -- insurance salesman on vacation struck me as the American in Europe plot idea) and the whole Agatean Empire is transparently stereotypical Asia, but this strikes me as more instances of making a mostly white franchise even more white under the banner of "sensitivity." Just more of a pretty nasty trend of taking out offensive Asian characters and not putting any good Asian characters in to replace them.

There's got to be a better way to handle this stuff.

December Solicits

From Newsarama:

GREEN LANTERN #26
Written by Geoff Johns
Art by Mike McKone & Andy Lanning
Cover by Ivan Reis & Oclair Albert
Setting the stage for the Green Lanterns' role in FINAL CRISIS comes Part 1 of "The Alpha Lanterns," a new story arc written by Geoff Johns with art by Mike McKone (TEEN TITANS)! Who are the Alpha-Lanterns? What bizarre cosmic surgery have they undergone? And how will they affect the future of the Green Lantern Corps?
In the aftermath of the Sinestro Corps War, the Green Lanterns are undergoing an unprecedented reconstruction and reinvention, and the controversial Alpha-Lantern project is in full effect.
Meanwhile, with Sinestro's true machinations for his war revealed to Earth's prime Green Lanterns, Hal Jordan and John Stewart, debate rages across Oa as lines are drawn and crossed, new bonds are formed, and old ones broken.
On sale December 26 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US

GREEN LANTERN CORPS #19
Written by Peter J. Tomasi
Art and cover by Patrick Gleason & Prentis Rollins
The pieces of the Sinestro Corps War are still falling as Guy is finally reunited with his lost love, Ice! And as Kyle Rayner tries to start his new life as a Green Lantern, Sinestro rings continue to empower new and deadlier forces in space.
On sale December 12 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US

GREEN LANTERN/SINESTRO CORP SECRET FILES #1
Written by Geoff Johns & Sterling Gates
Art by Ivan Reis, Ethan Van Sciver, J.G. Jones, Patrick Gleason and Joe Prado
Cover by Reis & Oclair Albert
For the first time ever, the secrets of the Book of Oa and the Book of Parallax are revealed in short stories looking at the past, present and future of the Corps! This 64-page Special features new tales of both the Green Lantern and Sinestro Corps!
In store December 19 • 64 pg, FC, $4.99 US

First: Ice! Yay!

Second, Kyle in space. This should be interesting because of the Parallax storyline. Being stationed on Oa means the paranoia focused on Hal before will either be lessened enough to let someone who's been Parallax be on Oa, or its just going to be an all-around worse situation for Kyle since he has to work in the heart of the Corps.

Third, check out the three covers. Same theme for all of them, not sure what that's getting at. Also, note the middle right (well, your left as you view the cover) of GLC and the Secret Files. Ice is important enough to be in the Corps picture. Katma's on the Secret Files, so we should get at least a Katma flashback part if not a little story and profile for her. (No, I don't see it as a sign of imminent resurrection. That's the Silver Age Corps on that cover. Still, if the writers like her enough they might bring her back later.)

Outside of that, Kyle's going to a gender swapped world and the Red Son world with Donna and Jason. Tangent characters are in Justice League of America, Wonder Woman's in The Atom, Alan Scott adn Jade are in JSA: Classified, Blue Beetle's going to space, Drew Johnson's on Supergirl, McKeever's starting his Birds of Prey run, and Cyclone is in an enviable position.

Yeesh

Take a look at this:

And frankly, anyone that has issue with someone complaining about the nonsense involved in Amazons Attack or is offended by members of female fandom expressing their displeasure over the event is the last person I would ever call a voice of reason.

Maybe its not the complaints so much that offend me but the attitude expressed there. The attitude that this is "The Feminist Position" and that certain fans are speaking for "Female Fandom" and people who disagree aren't legitimate feminists or legitimate female fans.

In case you haven't noticed, I have a pet peeve about people who have it in their mind to speak for all female fans, whether its "I'm a woman and it doesn't offend me" or "This offends me as a woman so it offends all women." Both attitudes are effectively the same, and that may be why this particular blogger pisses me off so damned much.

(Its much the same reason why I don't get along with a lot of Kyle-fans who say that Kyle-fans are being alienated by DC.)

I also have a big issue with people who imply I'm a gender-traitor when I don't share their fan reactions, and that is what this whole thing with Amazons Attack is over, fannish reactions not feminist reactions.

"Its not the end of the franchise" and "It doesn't destroy her supporting cast" is not the same as "There is no sexism." I've seen the sexism, I've noted the sexism, I've no problem with people being disgusted over it or dropping the book but the ideas that (a) the character is ruined or that (b) the company meant to destroy the franchise or that (c) the Amazons and the Gods are actually gone are all various forms of ridiculous. They aren't even statements of proper analysis, where a result that upholds an antifeminist ideal (the warrior women swarming DC to kill the men, the selective saving of the background characters, the mischaracterization of Diana) is pointed out, but these three complaints are assumptions of intent on the part of the creators that make no sense at all and there's no reason to put them forth as feminist analysis.

And I'll be as condescending as I want when I say so, particularly when I'm addressing my posts to someone with the presumptuousness to position themselves as the voice of the hive vagina.

Interestingly enough, I rarely see this from Guy-fans.

I adore Kyle Rayner and think he's the best all-around Lantern, I think John Stewart is made of awesome and needs more exposure, but there's nothing that sours your pro-Kyle or pro-John post for me more than trashing Hal Jordan.

It doesn't need to be done. He's a vastly amusing character with a history behind him that a lot of us like, and the whole franchise is set up so that they can all be used at once.

And by the way, those Hal-fans you hate who love to trash the "rival" characters, your favorites? You sound just like them when they do it, and I'm fucking sick of it.

What is this? 12 fucking years and this fandom hasn't changed a bit? Did this happen in the 70s when John showed up? The 60s when they did that alternate timeline story with Guy?

"You know, that Hal Jordan character is so much better than the old rich-boy lazy Alan Scott they had in the 40s, I'm glad he got replaced. What were those idiots thinking in the 40s?"
"You're kidding, right? Hal's a fucking moron and a Lensmen ripoff. They're only using him because Broome can't tell a good mystery, he has to bring outer space in it!"
"Oh, that does it! I'm getting out my stationary and starting a "Bring back Alan!" letter campaign!"

Fucking fans. I hate you all.

Blogging is bad for me

I read far more fanblogs than is healthy, and so I have a tendency to get more angry at fans than professionals lately.

For some reason I'd rather read a fanblog that I dislike rather than a comic book that I dislike. Perhaps because I'm not paying for a fanblog and I'm trying to punish myself for not giving enough to charity or yelling at my sister or not calling my parents. I'd rather read fanblogs when I'm annoyed than comic books, because I'd rather not have my enjoyment of a decent comic book spoiled by a foul mood. I do pay for my comics, after all, and I want to get as much pleasure out of them as possible. At the moment I prefer to buy comic books I expect to like (I have been known to make a purchase that I fully expect to enrage me for possibly the same reason I read fanblogs that piss me off, but not for months now -- I have the internet access anyway, may as well indulge my self-hatred with that) and I prefer wait until I'm of a positive mindset to read these and I prefer to buy the ones that I expect to like.

This leads to oversaturation of fan opinions, because while some of you may be reading these opinions in one or two places I am reading them from many, many people and certain points set me off with their absurdity. I've no doubt it will fade when I develop the same callouses to fan foolishness that I have to creator foolishness (Heaven knows what I'll write about when that happens, but I'm sure something or another will piss me off). In the meantime I enjoy myself by expressing that anger (yes, I do enjoy ranting as an expression of natural anger -- there's something deliciously wicked about it), answering the issues raised by the initial expression of anger (which is generally by way of more ranting) and trying to work out exactly why that anger built to the point it did (again, by way of more ranting but this adds the sweet mental exercise of trying to word my opinion as clearly as possible and applying the situation to the larger tapestry of my life and society). I also look for cute kitty videos on Youtube.

(And I don't share them with you because I'm mean.)

Anyway, when I expressed my considerable annoyance at fans (the majority of which is usually sparked by a single person and/or community and then continued because of the comment sections of the initial posts), I opened myself to the criticism of being a company apologist which has happened on several occasions. I remember I used to worry an awful lot about how people received my posts. Early on in this blog I worried people might call be a creator apologist or something similar, so I had a tendency to balance out praise with criticism and argue against criticism with other criticisms to keep the objectivity going. I even took on a habit of being extra-hard on the books I liked. But lately I've thrown away the effort of trying to balance criticism of fans with criticism of the industry because I've been here over two years, most of my regulars know where I stand, I'm turning into a crusty old fan who hates everybody and there seems to be less of a point in keeping people on my side needlessly. Also, I've been watching the fanblogs too long. I know that people will read an opinion, disagree wholeheartedly and things will get heated but most commenters and readers don't take this stuff personally enough that they won't come back when you post something they agree with.

I'm becoming needlessly contrary, and I know because reading a post which calls me a DC Defender or implies something similar makes me less likely to post something nice about Marvel or bad about DC. Because I go to write it and I think about the person who wrote that about me, and how they'll read that and figure that their criticism has caused me to write the following post. A solid mass of aggravation rots in my stomach as I picture them in their arrogance at affecting my blog so, and it adds to my annoyance at fans in general and I end up reading other blogs instead. This leads to, more likely than not, another rant about annoying fans rather than any criticism of the actual industry.

I'm not sure what to do about this one. I'm probably stuck in one of those situations where my own personality dooms me.

Countdown #33

Kyle Rayner is now on the list of characters Adam Beechen shouldn't write. I mean, maybe it was the artist but that first sequence was a bit too sleazy for me. Since when does Kyle come on to his old girlfriends, anyway? There should be a lot more awkwardness there.

The second sequence was better when Simone wrote it in Atom #15. The layout and the art in Atom was much better too.

Nice cover, at least.

What the--?

How did I walk out of the comic book store with Countdown, The Search for Ray Palmer, but not Green Lantern?

And of course all the stores are closed when I get a chance to notice.

Three Good Things

So yesterday was my two-year blogiversary, and I planned on something special that didn't quite materialize until after midnight today.

I thought I would finally chase almost all of my readers away by introducing them to me in person. Well, as close as I can get, which is a video blog. (Please note: Next week I will see several posts on how video blogging is out of style.) As I was writing this, some good news reached me so I thought I'd try my hand at meme-starting with it.

I tried a sitting version, but the lighting looked wrong and really with me standing and fidgeting like that you get the full effect of meeting me in the comic book store (which many people seem to find amusing) so I left it as is.



This is the Green Lantern Corps interview. (Notice at the end he says Pat Gleason is staying on as artist.)

This is Hadley Rille Books, this is Ruins: Terra and this is the submission call for Ruins: Metropolis.

And I'm sure many of you can start your list with "Ragnell doesn't normally videoblog."

Basics

Kitty in Lyle's comments about treatment of straight white male vs. other characters:

“In the comics, you have loads of toys and I don’t have very many. So if you break one of my few, of course I will be unhappy!”

I'd add a note on durability myself. There aren't that many toys for girls to begin with, and only a few really good and/or durable ones. There are a lot of toys for boys at the start, and most of the ones that we know the editors will go through the trouble of fixing after they've been crunched especially badly by a careless writer or editor are the ones for straight white men.

In the DCU we can be confident that Wonder Woman and Lois Lane will get brought back to status quo from any low point. The rest of the "iconic" characters (including the best known supporting cast members) are straight white men. Any other female character, any black character, any Asian character, any Hispanic character, and any established LGBT character runs the risk of being left by the wayside until they need cannon fodder in the company crossover. That's how DC Comics is set up and has been for decades -- good intentions and good resumes don't negate that.

Picked up Atom #15

We got a five-page Countdown interlude that doesn't really serve to resolve a complete story in the four-part storyarc where Ryan was involved in what is shaping up to be the year-long Search for Ray Palmer storyline. Its like Ryan got on a bus with Donna and Jason, they took a detour from the normal route and missed Ryan's normal stop so he had to get off at the stop two blocks down from where he needed to be and track back. At the same stop, Kyle gets on and the bus resumes its route.

Judging from this and the preceding issues, I think they tossed a little paper to Gail Simone that said "We'll be doing a Search for Ray Palmer series in Countdown. It would be stupid not to have Ryan Choi involved at all, but we're not planning on having him past September because we plotted the specials without thinking of him. Can you fit a four-part storyarc in while we wait for Kyle Rayner to get freed up?"

Then, of course, they didn't actually wait for Kyle Rayner to get freed up.

I had two questions as of the first page: (1) How long ago did they plan this out? (2) How far behind is Green Lantern right now?

I know the second answer is at least three issues and one week, and that's not me being a continuity cop here. I just think this is a weird anomaly given DC's continuity contortions to make sure all its books have been on the same page since Identity Crisis. The only explanation is that Green Lantern was delayed further than it was meant to, and Johns had Sinestro Corps planned out leading into the pre-plotted Countdown storyline before the delays that corresponded with Infinite Crisis.

They're not fooling anyone.

Unless we're dealing with some sort of time travel plot. And that is a time-honored time-travel plot gimmick, though the editorial box telling us to watch for the Green Lantern issue in three months is a fun addition.

But that's okay, because I saw at least five good things from that first page alone: (1) It doesn't spoil anything from Green Lantern because with this plot we can easily take alternate universes, imposters, returning from the dead, and time travel into account because at least two of those are involved from the outset. (2) Ryan knows him even in a new costume and even though he admits doesn't know American superheroes very well. (3) The look on Donna's face implies she's pleased to see him so this is not a repeat of her Rann-Thanagar War mischaracterization. (4) Finally! A good costume! (5) Mike Norton got the hair right.

Clumsy as the planning is and miserable as it must be for people who aren't following it, I'm enjoying this storyline. One of my favorite characters is present and so far he comes off fairly well, Donna Troy comes off well (and that's a rare treat), there's a few jokes dropped, no unhealthy background symbolism, and its the sort of plot I read comic books for. I mean, alternate universe road trip? I can't resist that.

There's going to be a TRADE?!

Will Pfiefer closed his infamous Amazons Attack #6 thread today at 100 comments. I love how he did it:

And I think we'll end it there. One hundred is such a nice, round number and really, if you didn't make your comment by now, you're probably not going to make one. Thanks everyone for participating, and I hope you'll all be back for the release of the trade later this fall. So long!

Yes, that was him inviting everyone back.

And yes, that was him telling us they'd release this pile of horseshit in a collected edition in just a few months.

Bastards.

I just saw a commercial for The Seeker: The Dark is Rising on television.

I wish an eternity of frozen boxed pasta lunches and a broken microwave on all involved in this movie!!

Friday Night Fights: Wonder Woman's Existential Crisis

(For Bahlactus)

I hate the word "Canon" too.

But its not for the same reason Kevin does.

I'm a crusty old Sherlock Holmes fan at heart who learned "canon" as it refers to the stories written by the person who created the character.

I am absolutely mad for "continuity." I live for retcons. I got into X-Men by the soap-opera-esque cartoon and the Age of Apocalypse crossover and I got into DC Comics with The Return of Barry Allen. What hooked me on comics was tracking down the old story references in those books. I was raised on a strict diet of continuity porn and I'm not about to give it up for anything.

But I fucking hate hearing the word "canon" to refer to it. There's something about the tone of the word. Canon is too solid. Too concrete. Canon is written in stone. Canon is strict and rigid and religious by nature.

"Continuity" is there, but its fluid. It doubles back on itself and then moves forward. It forgets itself and then rewrites itself. Continuity turns around and slips treasures in the seams right in front of your face. It can go Retro for a time or rewind and move sideways. Continuity is very much a superhero comic book word. Continuity is vibrant and growing and changing.

Canon is a dead word. These stories are alive.

Reminder.

I don't mind commenters on this blog trying to catch me in a contradiction. Its actually kind of fun, because if you try to catch me in a contradiction and miss I get to try to verbally disembowel your ego.

That said, it would still be nice if someone would do so competently. Quotes and links. I've contradicted myself it a million times. Hell, I even gone into my own archives and done the work for you in the past. There's loads of stuff back there if someone really, really wants to catch me.

You have to read the entire post, though, when you do something like that. Telling me I said something when I spent more than one paragraph ruling that particular angle out doesn't really work very well even if you're just keeping to the current post.

Quality comments, people, I know you can do it.

Dear Commenters Who Never Bring Up My Past Posts,

I've been called out for insulting people's intelligence, and saying people can't read, and calling people bullies and misogynist and misandrist and troll and other such casual insults. Actually, the point of entire posts on this blog are to justify calling someone stupid or a bully or a misogynist. I can get pretty bad, especially when I play with my trolls. However, there's a point where even I draw the line, and if anyone ever catches me tossing this sort of speculation around about another blogger or a comic book creator I want you to link this post in my comments with the word "HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE." (We'll probably spend the rest of the post arguing about whether or not what I said was this bad, because this is pretty fucking bad.)

It started with this paragraph about the Killing Joke:

Which brings us to the issue that she was attacked as a helpless female to get back at a male. So what? Jim Gordon has one person in his life someone wanting to get to him could go after: Babs. And Jim, himself, was nabbed and tortured. And has had to live with the guilt over what happened to his daughter. In some ways, Babs had it easier.

Now, obviously that sort of thing is up for grabs. Its not an argument that'll clear the book of Fridge status but its not like saying that Jade was killed as a way to sabotage Alan Scott's character (yeah, I've heard that one) because both Gordons did go through some serious shit in this one. A lot of its already been discussed already, and I've been watching it without seeing a reason to think less of anyone on either side until I read this:

Shelly, I know this is out of the blue, but do you have daughters? Do you see them as a function of their father? 'Cos I just had this creepy feeling that you would defend your husband if he abused your daughter.

Now, I don't know about you, but I figure on that being pretty fucking out of line over a blog-post. I'm not a person who cries over personal attacks but that's so far beyond calling someone a bitch or a hypocrite or even a liar that I wouldn't know what to say to it. I mean, this is not like saying "Would you want your daughter to read this?" or "Just because you have kids doesn't mean you're right" or even "I wouldn't want to be your daughter." This is outright telling someone you think she would condone child abuse because of how she interprets a comic book.

Fortunately, Kalinara has it covered (Emphasis mine):

No one says you have to agree that Jim "had it worse." No one says you have to like it. But what the hell gives you the right to say that kind of thing to anyone? Just because she has a different interpretation of a FICTIONAL STORY?

Oh, and by the way? Casting implications on a woman's suitability as a mother simply because she disagrees with you? Trying to say that she doesn't value daughters as much as a husband who'd abuse them, when there was nothing in her post valuing adults or men over the sanctity of children? Because god forbid, she think Jim had it worse in that situation than his daughter?

That's far more sexist than a thousand Killing Jokes could ever be. Congratulations.

Anyway, I'm probably asking for trouble but do me a favor and stop me if I ever get that stupid.

Much appreciated.
--Ragnell the Foul

Superhero Fans: Chapter 22, Verse 1

(Warning: This one is going to be hard to stomach, but it just didn't work when I tried to minimize the egotism. Just be glad I didn't title it as an excerpt from the Book of Ragnell.)

And in the days following the return of Hal Jordan, there lived a reclusive creature of the nightshift who read the Rebirth miniseries and took great joy in the tale. It awakened a joy of comic books as had not been seen in two years for this creature, and she thought excessively about superheroes to the despair of her coworkers. As an outlet for this enthusiasm, she started a blog. She started a blog of humor and joy. She was measured and polite when she complained and she apologized when she had to let off steam to assure everyone it was nothing personal because she foolishly worried that expressions of anger would alienate her few readers.

Until there came a day of unusually strong irritation, when she cut loose and wrote a long venomous rant directed at a single writer.

And lo, her traffic rose and her comments multiplied and she met bloggers of a like-mind.

But still she worried that expressions of anger would alienate her old readers.

She attributed the success to a long-winded analysis on the subject of gender and Seven Soldiers, and worried that expressions of rage would alienate her new readers. So she went back to holding her tongue until there was another point that she could hold it no more and she let loose in a fury of comedic rage directed at the trigger for this outrage which was a person who was certainly not responsible for all of the bottled up energy and emotional that she was expressing, but by heaven he had caused some of it.

And lo, her traffic rose and her comments multiplied and she met individuals of a like-mind.

And now she worried that no expressions of anger would alienate her new readers.

When her rage had cooled, she experimented with writing another essay to achieve the same effects but discovered she was unable to finish. Other bloggers ranted and raged about various problems and she linked them, and she analyzed art and she wrote what she could but life wormed into the way of her writing. She soon found that even when confronted with an image of unimaginable horror on the cover of her favorite series she was unable to raise the necessary passion for a proper rant. She didn't have the energy, she didn't have the humor.

Her blogging faded, and her comments were few, and her traffic sank into the depths of obscurity. But she had friends of like-mind and her writing and her comic books.

Time passed, and many rose in outrage at the image of Mary Jane Watson doing laundry; and they were condemned for it; and the creature soon discovered that when enraged her more than anything right now was the fans and she blogged rants and rages and battle-cries against them.

And lo, her traffic rose and her comments multiplied and she met individuals of a like-mind.

In time a beautiful storyline began in Green Lantern, one which brought incredible joy to the creature's icy heart. She blogged her pure joy with the storyline, and then read the regular fanblogs. And many of the fanblogs were equally pleased, but when she returned to her own blog she saw that some of her commenters were displeased and making arguments that made little sense. And then she traveled to the message boards and found many pleased fans and displeased fans, and in the fanblogs the displeased began to surface as well. And some of the displeasure was subjective, and much of it was arguable, but some of it was truly out of left field and based on events in different series written by different writers. It angered her, because it was one thing to have event fatigue and another to dislike the writer or artist but the constant prophesying of the end of her favorite character really served to sour her otherwise lovely mood.

She worried about blogging this, because some of the people she was ranting against were certainly her regular readers and commenters, and she had long ago learned not to pull punches when expressing her rage but she blogged it anyway. She blogged her anger at fandom, and she held nothing back and she fully expected her readers to abandon her. For it is better to spew poisonous anger on one's own blog than to invade the comments of others and pester them like a little troll, the scripture says, and despite what dumbass commenters would have you believe there is no prohibition against ranting in the Law.

And lo, her traffic rose and her comments multiplied and she met individuals of a like-mind.

And such was the story of the reclusive Green Lantern fan in the days following the Infinite Crisis.

Wow

Rokk did a poll of which big event comic was the best, and I'm surprised Countdown placed as well as it did.

1st Place: Sinestro War: 60% (135 votes)
2nd Place: Countdown: 24% (54 votes)
3rd Place: World War Hulk: 9% (21 votes)
4th Place: The Initiative: 3% (8 votes)
5th Place: Amazons Attack: 2% (5 votes)

I know there's some stuff in it I'm enjoying, but I thought from the general dismissal online I was the only one enjoying any of it.

I am nothing if not helpful.

This is an admittedly weird thing to link after all of those DC Defender posts, but I found an online t-shirt store that sells the stylish "Dan Didio Must Die" T-shirt pictured left (picture blatantly stolen from Fanboy Wonder).

I was going to try and write this post up as an advertisement, but really this thing sells itself. I know that several of my regular commenters will be unable to resist it.

So THAT'S it...

In my comments, I just figured out why the Amazons Attack and Sinestro Corps War reactions bother me.

Well, its a working theory, anyway.

I work at an office where we have shifts. Sometimes the entire office fucks up. Sometimes just one shift fucks up. Sometimes one shift fucks up when the other two shifts are kicking ass at the exact same task. Wen that happens, the blame gets assigned to the shift who actually fucked up, and while issuing a stern warning to the others is fair, what is not fair is assuming that the other shifts will fuck up in the exact same way.

What is extremely unfair is assuming that the people on the other shifts will fuck up in a different way.

Effectively, when I hear that the followup story to Amazons Attack will likely be as crappy as Amazons Attack because the followup story to Cassandra Cain's going evil story was crappy, I hear "Matthew's team won't be able to correctly solder that circuit breaker on swingshift, because Christina's team fucked up the preflights on midshift."

What the fuck?! That makes no fucking sense to me.

Not only that I know from where I work that people have different strengths and weaknesses. Christina may suck at preflights, but she's gotten honors in 3 different wire maintenance courses and happens to be an amateur ham radio enthusiast with at least 10 years put into her hobby so she knows her shit when it comes to soldering.

So, when I hear that Geoff Johns will break his narrative habits in Sinestro Corps to kill/ruin Kyle because he wrote a crappy story in Teen Titans involving Cassandra Cain I can't help but have the same reaction as I would have to "Christina shouldn't be trusted with soldering that circuit breaker because she missed a loose screw in the preflight inspection last night."

Even though she has soldered an integrated circuit onto a circuit card before and done so according to every necessary regulation. She fucked up one preflight, all other skills are untrustworthy.

Again, what the fuck?! How does this train of thought make sense?

Oh, but someone is about to tell me that the editorial staff sets the direction! So, its perfectly all right to make blanket assumptions about the entire writing staff of DC Comics, even though certain writers have actually worked quite well under this particular set of management.

See, when I hear that I have the same reaction as hearing "Matthew is bound to fuck up because your shop chief is an idiot."

Allow me to repeat that.

"Matthew will fail because his boss sucks."

Here's the thing with that one. If it were based on the boss's actual weaknesses, I could see a boss screwing up their employees. But these particular employees have made strong showings under the same boss in the same sort of jobs. Not only that, the conclusions that the boss will cause Matthew to fuck up are still based on Christina fucking up the preflight. It merely adds a "Christina fucked up the preflight because the shop chief didn't give her the right guidelines" which exonerates Christina when it comes to the preflight but sure as hell doesn't condemn Matthew when it comes to soldering. Because both have done successful work under this shop chief, there is no reason to believe there's a problem with the boss-employee relationship that will cause this job to fail.

There's no guarantee Matthew and Christina won't fuck up this job, there's no guarantees of anything. But there is no real basis for the assumption that they both will. I've never seen Matthew solder, but he's got all the qualifications and nothing he has said or done gives me a reason believe he can't do it. Christina's screwed up on different things, but she has actually given me a lot of reason to think she'll succeed admirably at soldering. I've seen her do it before. If I were to refuse to let either person do the soldering job and then tell the boss it was because of Christina's preflight, I would be quietly transferred to a position where I wouldn't have access to personnel or aircraft. And the boss would be right to do so, because I would be making a decision that is totally unfair to everybody.

I mean I've nothing against criticizing creators, and I've nothing against drawing conclusions based on past weaknesses. But you have to make sure that the conclusion is based on is something they actually did that constitutes an actual weakness in the area that you are coming to a conclusion about. You should criticize a creator's actual weak spots. Jodi Piccoult and Will Pfiefer are on the list of writers I don't trust with Wonder Woman, Gail Simone and Grant Morrison have given me no reason to put them on the list. I wouldn't let Geoff Johns touch certain characters (Wonder Girl, Bart Allen) with a ten-foot pole if I had a choice but he knows his fucking Lanterns.

You don't like Geoff Johns or Gail Simone? I'm sure you've got your reasons (more than once these reasons have been the exact same ones I put on my "reasons I like this writer" list) and you probably won't enjoy the stories anyway. But if you expect Geoff Johns to give you a surprise even though he's an incredibly predictable writer, I have to disagree and tell you you're misreading the stories. And if you've no faith in Gail Simone just because of Will Pfiefer's work, your reasoning is just plain skewed.

Now, this is your money and there's no reason for you to spend it when you don't think the storyline will work out, but there's still the matter of talking about why you won't spend your money on the internet. Under that subject falls perfectly understandable opinions, excellent reasoning, reasoning that proves to be on shaky (or in some cases nonexistent) ground, stupid assumptions based on unrelated events, and stupid conclusions that make my head hurt and cause me to blog these sort of posts.

Hypothetically Speaking

You're watching a television show and it has a "To be continued..." ending. When showing the scenes to advertise the next part the announcer says:

Ben Cassidy is the greatest drag racer in all of Kunda County, but even he couldn't make it through Dead Man's Run without crashing. What chance does his cousin Will have now that he's been forced to make that run?

Now, being a rational, thinking human being with brain -- what do you think that means?

It usually means Will is going to get through Dead Man's Run in one piece, and get a slap on the back from cousin Ben. Sure, there's a slim chance that the plot will be that Ben shows up and pulls Will out of the burning wreckage. I figure in that case the advertisement would focus a bit more on Ben at the end, but there's a slim chance. More often than not, Will is going to come through in the end here. The trick is to make the predictable outcome exciting to watch unfold.

See, the reason they position Ben as "the greatest drag race in all of Kunda County" is to highlight the difficulty of Will's adventure here. If "the greatest drag racer in Kunda County" made Dead Man's run and ended up having to be pulled from a flaming wreckage, then man Will's in trouble isn't he? It'll be something to see if he makes it.

I suppose they could have the announcer say:

Local Schmuck Ben Cassidy crunched his car in Dead Man's Run. Can Will the much better racer survive the challenge?

But then what's the fucking point of watching?