tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post114915146687669219..comments2024-01-02T09:18:23.893-05:00Comments on Written World: Sir! Step Away From the Pulpit!Ragnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1154160492431452962006-07-29T04:08:00.000-04:002006-07-29T04:08:00.000-04:00Your post was well-written and articulate, but I d...<I>Your post was well-written and articulate, but I don't really understand the point you are making.</I><BR/><BR/>The cast was too perfect. Did not represent the full range of experiences it should have.<BR/><BR/>Same problem Kalinara had with <A HREF="http://kalinara.blogspot.com/2006/07/reactions-to-young-all-stars-1-8.html" REL="nofollow">Roy Thomas and Young All-Stars</A>.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1150865801290093472006-06-21T00:56:00.000-04:002006-06-21T00:56:00.000-04:00Era Context. I am putting my analysis of Denny O'N...<I>Era Context. I am putting my analysis of Denny O'Neill's GL/GA into context. I'm taking into account the attitudes of the period, and the attitudes before it.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is quite important when reading GL/GA. Of course evertyhing is going to sound soapboxyish. Although we still have a long way to go we have made <I>some</I> progress with regards to social issues. At least to the point where GL/GA should sound a bit anachronistic or a bit like preaching to the masses. But at the time it wasn't necessarily the prevalent view point. (Not that it is now either). They needed to be heavy-handed to draw attention to the issues at hand. Or at least that's the way I see it.lostinubehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04343082700103486584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1150504571866560672006-06-16T20:36:00.000-04:002006-06-16T20:36:00.000-04:00I've read a bit of Green Arrow and Green Lantern, ...I've read a bit of Green Arrow and Green Lantern, and I never once got the impression that a "social agenda" was being forced on me. Even though Green Arrow has been a little uneven recently, it's still a great comic and I've enjoyed the stories.<BR/><BR/>As for Brothers Keeper, I remember when it came out. Matthew Shepard had just been beaten to death in Wyoming. When Terry Berg was beaten, it was not that much of a stretch. A few years ago, one of my own friends was beaten with a baseball bat, in Los Angeles. He is now partially blind and is still suffering from his injuries. The topic was definitely relevent, and Judd Winnick handled it well, I thought.<BR/><BR/>Terry Berg was a developed character -- he had his own funny, sarcastic way of phrasing things, when he wasn't being morose, and I always enjoyed his appearances in GL. It's not like the Terry Berg character was abandoned, though he showed up less and less after Kyle's departure. I wish that when, a few issues later, he asked John Stewart to teach him to fight that he would eventually become a GL himself. Now THAT would have made for a really good story.<BR/><BR/>I must say that don't get a lot of the criticism levelled at Judd's work. Your post was well-written and articulate, but I don't really understand the point you are making. Whatever reasons Winnick has for making his stories diverse, the end result is usually good. And I don't agree that the characters are being used as soapboxes -- they all seem to be clearly-drawn individuals who behave consistently.<BR/><BR/>Now, if I can't understand why Judd Winnick is being criticized for having a "social agenda" -- a dubious term with Limbaughian overtones -- I have to wonder what the REAL reason he's being criticized actually is. The criticism is usually over-the-top and venemous (check out the GA board at DC), and it's almost always delivered in conjunction with a "controversial" subject he's choosen to address. The only reason I can come up with for all the upset is that some people do not agree with his POV. That's fine, and it's okay to say that. It's just not a reason call his qualifications, abilities and character into question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149577614406146782006-06-06T03:06:00.000-04:002006-06-06T03:06:00.000-04:00Anonymous --Pieface: Just because everyone did it...Anonymous --<BR/><BR/>Pieface: Just because everyone did it, doesn't mean it wasn't racist. That is <B>why</B> DC changed it, and likely why Denny O'Neill took the stance with Hal that he did.<BR/><BR/>For the part about the "Jap" slur, see how Roy Thomas delt with the racism in WWII during <I>Young All-Stars #1</I>.<BR/><BR/>These cultural evils weren't always swept under the rug and totally retconned away. They were part of the culture back then and thye were called on it later.<BR/><BR/>Era Context. I <I>am</I> putting my analysis of Denny O'Neill's GL/GA into context. I'm taking into account the attitudes of the period, and the attitudes before it.<BR/><BR/>Hal and John: I very much doubt that subtext was unintentional in a <I>racism</I> story.<BR/><BR/>1) What exactly indicates telepathy to you? As I've seen them, the Guardians have always just automatically had insights for the characters.<BR/><BR/>Yes, just as Hal routinely lied about his secret identity throughout his career. Green Lanterns were honest, but not <B>totally</B> honest.<BR/><BR/>Hal's response is a defensive one, and it's hypocritical. He's defending his insubordination (of saying John was unworthy candidate) by saying that John is insubordinate, and so he is an unworthy candidate.<BR/><BR/>His concern is not entirely <A HREF="http://ragnell.blogspot.com/2006/06/this-could-get-ugly.html" REL="nofollow">about attitude</A>.<BR/><BR/>2) Or Hal may have been expecting attitude from John and had that sort of answer prepared.<BR/><BR/>(Well, first off, <B>we are <I>not</I> raising pitchforks here</B>. We are discussing Hal's attitude and how he is a sympathetic portrayal of someone who is prejudiced by background, but <I><B>good-hearted and willing to change</B></I> anyway. Secondly, we were discussing Hal and not John. John's prejudicial slip was <B>immediately</B> called on <I>in-story</I>, where Hal's prejudice is more subtle.)<BR/><BR/>3) Yes, Hal points that out. He would have made the same argument with Ollie. Just because Hal defends free speech and condemns an extremist position does not mean that he doesn't have a slight leaning towards that position anyway.<BR/><BR/>To use an innocuous analogy, I know a number of Christians who condemn Christian Fundamentalists and defend free speech, yet they still believe in Christ and the God of Abraham. Does not accepting an extremist viewpoint mean they don't agree on some basic beliefs? Not at all.<BR/><BR/>(And no, I don't mean to imply that Christianity is bad and wrong, so don't you dare read it that way. I'm using it as an analogy because its a belief system with degrees)<BR/><BR/>And you win nothing, as your arguments prove that you want Hal and his viewpoints to be described as anything but racist.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149564391153321132006-06-05T23:26:00.000-04:002006-06-05T23:26:00.000-04:00kalarina:Umm....*everyone* called Tom Pieface, or ...kalarina:<BR/><BR/>Umm....*everyone* called Tom Pieface, or Pie for short...not just Hal. Carol Ferris does, heck even Barry Allen does. It was his nickname. If you have one of those handy dandy Showcase editions...read GL #13 (or any other story featuring Tom + others).<BR/><BR/>DC changed that in the late 1970s or so.<BR/><BR/>Like I said, no one would use such a term <B>now</B>. It's insensitive (although people still use it in England, since there it apparently refers to an overweights person). But it was acceptable in the US back then - just like "Jap" was an acceptable description of a Japanese person then, too. It's not acceptable now, any more than "oriental" is. Different world, back then.<BR/><BR/>Which was my point about context. Y'know, 50 years from now all your grandkids kids will read old books and watch movies that use the term "black people". And they might just call the writers / actors racists for using an "offensive" term.<BR/><BR/>And they'd be wrong for that, too. Because in the context of the era (say late 20th century)...it was an acceptable term. Context is key.<BR/><BR/>Hal and John: You're reading subtext that simply isn't there. I pulled out my GL trades and reread that story. Here we go:<BR/><BR/>1. Clearly no telepathy at work here: Firstly, that implies that Hal was lying in his statement that it wasn't his race that bothered him (and remember, in those days, GL simply didn't lie.)<BR/><BR/>More importantly, when the Guardian points out that he's not interested in GL's petty bigotries, GL responds:<BR/><BR/><I>Hey - that's not what I meant. Maybe he's brave...honest...and has the right kind of mind... But it's obvious he also has a chip on his soulder the size of the rock of gibraltar.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, his concern is about attitude. And its a valid concern, too. The Guardian acknowedges it as such, by pointing out that while it may end up being a mistake, it's their decision to make.<BR/><BR/>2. Hal tells John not to call him "whitey", pointing out the "he who is without sin casting the first stone". This just reinforces Hal's perspective: John does indeed have a chip on his shoulder in this story.<BR/><BR/>(by the by...are we raising pitchforks to call John a racist for using such an offensive term? Of *course* not...he gets a free pass. Wow.)<BR/><BR/>3. When guarding the racist Senator, Hal points out that the his racist speech is nonsense, and is in fact the price we pay for free speech.<BR/><BR/>That's simply not racism.<BR/><BR/>So I have to ask...is there a prize for <B>wanting</B> Green Lantern to be a racist? If so...what can I win?<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149406502348633442006-06-04T03:35:00.000-04:002006-06-04T03:35:00.000-04:00STBD -- :)James -- Nope, sorry.STBD -- :)<BR/><BR/>James -- Nope, sorry.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149382180391304372006-06-03T20:49:00.000-04:002006-06-03T20:49:00.000-04:00Ragnell and stbd: Thanks for your thoughts. I gues...Ragnell and stbd: Thanks for your thoughts. I guess I have only one question left for you two. Would MY ending have made "Bother's Keeper" a better story (IYO)? :)James Meeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15125466138669301618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149242822530339862006-06-02T06:07:00.000-04:002006-06-02T06:07:00.000-04:00This is what I get for posting at the same time as...This is what I get for posting at the same time as Ragnell herself. Who knew? ;)STBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744790245612351262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149242648384437992006-06-02T06:04:00.000-04:002006-06-02T06:04:00.000-04:00To James Meeley: The add-on is noble in theory, bu...To James Meeley: The add-on is noble in theory, but ironically it would have justified Kyle's violent reaction to a violent problem, which, in turn, could (in the wrong hands) be seen as justifying the original crime.<BR/><BR/>AKA: "I beat someone up because I hated what they stood for, but after being beaten myself, I realize we're all equal. So, sorry about that, new gay friend, but at least I learned something. Doesn't knowing I (probably) won't do this again make it all worth it?"<BR/><BR/>There's a fine line to walk between expanding awareness and vigilante justification for imposing your ideas on others.<BR/><BR/>However, I do agree that having this happen to Guy, Hal or Alan would have made it more compelling than to Kyle. I'm quite sure John is used to seeing the effects of discrimination, though juxtaposing racism with hatred based upon sexual orientation is a fascinating concept that few writers would be able to handle subtly. I can hear Winick speed-dialing the Nobel offices now.STBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14744790245612351262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149242388666156822006-06-02T05:59:00.000-04:002006-06-02T05:59:00.000-04:00Denny O'Neill and Preaching -- Kali's right, that ...Denny O'Neill and Preaching -- Kali's right, that was the point. Those two pages with Roy? <I>Every</I> story has a moment like that. A Soapbox moment. But, in the series, the art, the plotting and the characterization is jsut so amazing that the "Very Special" Lectures that come with it are incidental. The moralization is for the character's benefit as well as the readers. (And although it's hard to get over the Christ-figure in the Enivornimentalism story, it's worth it to see him chew out Ollie for using a gas arrow).<BR/><BR/>Definition of racism and Hal -- Please note the term "prejudice" -- pre-judgement. Hal's racism isn't malicious or based on hatred, it exists because he <I>makes a judgement based on racial characteristics</I>. The definition's right there, everyone.<BR/><BR/>Context is the key -- How's this for context? A High-level telepath outright <B>telling</B> him he's selling John short for petty bigotries? It's on the fifth panel on the page John first appears.<BR/><BR/>He says John has a chip on his shoulder, but note John's actions in his intro story. John did something heroic. He stepped in and deflected the attention of an authority figure who was about to unjustly cause harm on a pair of kids. While I agree that this is probably not the best way to approach a policeman, Hal himself would have done this, and probably had considerably more attitude as he did.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Story being more about Terry than Kyle -- Well, Kyle is a superhero and really, the worst things in the community should be directly attracted to/caused by the superhero and not the civillians. I'd hate to see a supporting cast member take spotlight for too long, but if Terry had a subplot or a single-issue story dedicated to solving a problem Kyle ahd cause, that would have been considerably more interesting than watching Kyle wring his hands.<BR/><BR/>James -- While your suggestion sounds good on the initial part, I dislike it because it highlights Kyle having done a very wrong thing. He beat the crap out of these guys, and Kyle's had a few years worth of training by this point. As it stands, you can get an evil pleasure out of it, he beat up bad guys. But if you go and redeem the abd guys he beat up, well...<BR/><BR/>Taking Judd out of context -- Well, that's really all he said in the newstory. "When I get gripes for my need to force my social agenda into comics, I always ask.." He doesn't make a distinction for prejudice. Most of the Winick-bashing I've heard from Brother's Keeper is more about not liking the story, Kyle's characterization, and less about introducing a gay character.<BR/><BR/>I think I got all the pertinent ones.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149240958567154232006-06-02T05:35:00.000-04:002006-06-02T05:35:00.000-04:00Regarding "Brother's Keeper" as being Kyle's story...Regarding "Brother's Keeper" as being Kyle's story.<BR/><BR/>COME ON. It's Kyle. When Kyle's around, it's <I>all</I> about him.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661580119449756549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149225003037562332006-06-02T01:10:00.000-04:002006-06-02T01:10:00.000-04:00I've often wondered about this Winick story, if he...I've often wondered about this Winick story, if he'd have done one small thing (which I thought of after having read it) if it would have made any difference in the story.<BR/><BR/>In MY version, before Kyle leaves Earth, he visits Terry. While he's there, one of the guys who beat Terry shows up. The guy looks very shamed and very humbled.<BR/><BR/>He goes on to apologize to Terry for beating him. And he says that he himself was recently the victim of someone else's hate (Kyle's, from the attack in the jail) and after he was treated for his wounds, came to realize just hoiw wrong he was to have attacked Terry, simply because of his own prejudices and that he could (just like the guy who beat him did).<BR/><BR/>Before he leaves, he says that he's going to accept his punishment from the court for what he'd done and hopes that, once he's paid his debt, he can find some way to help others to learn the lesson he had to the hard way.<BR/><BR/>After seeing this, of course, Kyle would not leave Earth. He would, instead, focus on his own actions (that of what he did to the guy in jail) and attempt to come to terms with his own sense of prejudice. Learning that, just because you strike out at one wrong, doesn't make your actions "better" than those you are against.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't sure if such a scene would have made much of a difference at the time I thought of it. Now, I'm thinking maybe it might have. What do you guys think?James Meeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15125466138669301618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149224826942371902006-06-02T01:07:00.000-04:002006-06-02T01:07:00.000-04:00I don't know enough back history on Hal to really ...I don't know enough back history on Hal to really know if he was a racist or not, but I do agree with this post. It seems that it's been a growing concern for many fans that Winnick is becoming far too preachy too often in his books. However, I did like his run on Batman and have liked his Green Arrow since One Year Later, but even in that title I can see the heavy-handedness begin to overcome the story and characters. <BR/><BR/>I think Judd can be an amazing writer at times and I believe it's well within his talent to write these issues into his stories without these issues becoming the story themselves. When he's on, he's on.night-of-columbushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13457561947214117305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149219084582814902006-06-01T23:31:00.000-04:002006-06-01T23:31:00.000-04:00Of course Hal didn't hate black people or Eskimos....Of course Hal didn't <I>hate</I> black people or Eskimos. Or women for that matter. He knew a lot of them. Some of them were nice people.<BR/><BR/>Hal was just didn't think a woman or a black man could make a good Green Lantern, or that Tom would mind being called an insulting name based on his race, or that a woman could run a successful aircraft company.<BR/><BR/>But he didn't hate them. So he <I>couldn't</I> have been a racist or a sexist.<BR/><BR/>Oh no.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772087090448461047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149217463387419762006-06-01T23:04:00.000-04:002006-06-01T23:04:00.000-04:00rac·ist [ ráyssist ] adjective Definition: 1. ...rac·ist [ ráyssist ] <BR/><BR/><BR/>adjective <BR/> <BR/>Definition: <BR/> <BR/>1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race<BR/><BR/> <BR/>2. prejudiced against other races: prejudiced against all people who belong to other races<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>noun (plural rac·ists) <BR/> <BR/>Definition: <BR/> <BR/>racist person: somebody who hates others who are not of his or her own race<BR/><BR/> <BR/>Hal is not a racist. He was never portrayed as judging or hating any group due to their race.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149216436802544752006-06-01T22:47:00.000-04:002006-06-01T22:47:00.000-04:00Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams stories may be a littl...Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams stories may be a little heavy-handed--or, let's face it, a lot--when it comes to dealing with social issues, but hey, you know what?<BR/><BR/>The Wright Brothers' plane didn't fly so good.Chris Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08320487883818314339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149208261339888942006-06-01T20:31:00.000-04:002006-06-01T20:31:00.000-04:00If you are never expsoed to something you maybe ig...<I>If you are never expsoed to something you maybe ignorant, but that does not make Hal a racist.</I><BR/><BR/>That's actually the definition of racism. Ignorance (of a race or culture) mixed with arrogance (that what little one knows is all there is to know). How is that <I>not</I> Hal?<BR/><BR/>What's funny is everyone agrees on the characterization. We are just arguing the semantics on what to call it. But let's call a spade a spade here... erm....<BR/><BR/>But let's call things by their name here. <BR/><BR/>Hal Jordan is a <A HREF="http://the-isb.blogspot.com/2006/01/always-remember-part-deux.html" REL="nofollow">Goddamn racist.</A> FACT.<BR/><BR/>And he overcame that, learned his lesson, and became friends with the very people he once mistreated! How cool is that?<BR/><BR/>Ragnell's POINT is that it's better for the hero, and thus you the audience, to realize you are the flawed one, to confront your own prejudices and flaws, rather than having the problem be <I>them</I>, those people over there, who hate gays and blacks and aliens. Being told <I>you</I> are good and <I>they</I> are evil doesn't teach anyone anything new. It's preaching to the choir at best and pandering at worst.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the problem is that it wasn't a story that could be told with Kyle. He's a raver kid, he lived in the East Village, two of his neighbors were gay. It would be unlikely that he would have much homophobia to confront. So finding out his assistant was gay, or that he would be attacked just because he's gay, wasn't really news to him or the audience.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the story would have worked better with <I>Guy,</I> or Alan, even John, people who haven't had as much exposure to gay people, men who come from more conservative backgrounds, who might have had unexplored prejudices about gay men. If, say, Guy had learned that his new head waiter at Warriors, the man he took to a Yankees game and got drunk with and had a great time with, was gay, then maybe Guy would have learned something, grown a little, <I>something</I>. (Kalinara, I'll expect you'll correct me if I got my characterization of Guy wrong).<BR/><BR/>That said, I should I add that I LIKE Winick's writing a lot of the time. This just wasn't one of them.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772087090448461047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149202703370453002006-06-01T18:58:00.000-04:002006-06-01T18:58:00.000-04:00Great post. I think Winick is still learning as a ...Great post. I think Winick is still learning as a writer, but has been heavy handed and the "Terry" story was bad.<BR/><BR/>I will disagree and join with those who think calling Hal a racist is a misnomer. Hal's attitude and characterization reflect a different era, but he was never a racist as much as he was blind to certain facts. Much of our lives are based on our experiences and if you are never expsoed to something you maybe ignorant, but that does not make Hal a racist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149196515165231692006-06-01T17:15:00.000-04:002006-06-01T17:15:00.000-04:00My problem with the "Brother's Keeper" storyline i...My problem with the "Brother's Keeper" storyline is that it was about Kyle, not Terry; Terry's nothing but a catalyst for Kyle's story, which is bad enough, and made worse because Kyle's story is really, really boring: He's mad and angry and he goes too far and that makes him more mad but in a different way and, look, Terry's still in a coma.<BR/><BR/>Gee, that's some great comics there.<BR/><BR/>The story I want to see is the one where Terry faces some sort of less dramatic but more common discrimination or social problem or family dispute and, thanks to the fact that he's been hanging out with a superhero, Terry's able to deal with it creatively and successfully when he wasn't able to do so in a similar situation in the past. Make KYLE the catalyst for TERRY's story, not the other way around. Hell, tell the story in such a way that Kyle never knows what happened, but by the last page, Green Lantern's friendship and trust made it possible for Terry to be a better and stronger person.<BR/><BR/>It's not as flashy and it won't get scads of media coverage, but it would be a hell of a better story, and one that would resonate with just about anyone who loves super-hero comics.Matter-Eater Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07582100232490047227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149195071830879712006-06-01T16:51:00.000-04:002006-06-01T16:51:00.000-04:00anonymous:Actually as I recall, in one of the earl...anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Actually as I recall, in one of the early issues where "Pieface" got his nickname, he was actually quite angry about it. He ended up tolerating it for the sake of their friendship.<BR/><BR/>Later, he even says that Hal is the only person that he will allow to use the nickname, because Hal's moved past his initial assumptions, it's now a sign of their friendship.<BR/><BR/>But the fact that Tom is very insistant that only Hal use the name, and his initial reaction...<BR/><BR/>Besides, it doesn't *matter* if it's not considered derogatory by the terms of the 1960. It's still a name centered around a racial characteristic. The fact that it was in common use is indicative of "institutionalized racism." It's still racism.<BR/><BR/>Which makes Hal an even more powerful character in the end, because he moves *past* it. Rather than how pointless it would have been if he'd never been like that at all.kalinarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417686761943716312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149192445249536002006-06-01T16:07:00.000-04:002006-06-01T16:07:00.000-04:00Thanks Ragnell!Yet again you have assured me that ...Thanks Ragnell!<BR/><BR/>Yet again you have assured me that I'm not alone in the universe :) I'd go into all the stuff I agreed with you on but I recently posted on a similar subject so I'm pretty typed out on the matter. <BR/><BR/>I will say that Denny O'Neil did a much better job with such matters and I love the point you made about haivng the characters grow as to not make the reader feel on the defensive. Readers don't want to feel as if they're bad people and that's how a lot of current comincs seem to approach the subject. Growing with your heroes makes much more sense and gives people the comfort of learning from the characters they empathize with. Fantastic post!Gwenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14840270045390557504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149191859725605342006-06-01T15:57:00.000-04:002006-06-01T15:57:00.000-04:00I haven't read any of Judd's superhero work. But ...I haven't read any of Judd's superhero work. But it's disappointing that the man behind "Pedro & Me" seems to have forgotten how to tell a good story about a social issue without letting that agenda overshadow his plot or characters. It is understandable that these are issues he cares about. But having an axe to grind is hardly a defense for poor writing, regardless of one's intent.<BR/><BR/>[That said, I think you took his quote a bit out of context: it sounds to me like he's responding to people who complain about his social agenda being worked into his writing, rather than those critizing his writing skills. It's possible he's equally defensive about literary criticisms of his work, but that's not what that quote sounds like it's about to me.]<BR/><BR/>P.S. Congrats on hitting 250 posts. :-)Ferrous Bullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09707719932073719083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149185488468893282006-06-01T14:11:00.000-04:002006-06-01T14:11:00.000-04:00kalarina:In early Green Lantern, Hal *is* very cle...kalarina:<BR/><BR/><I>In early Green Lantern, Hal *is* very clearly racist. ("Pieface", his interaction with John). He's not a card carrying KKK member or anything like that. He doesn't *hate* people of other races. But he definitely begins with a set of prejudged notions and assumptions about people of other races. </I><BR/><BR/>Wow. Pieface - Tom's nickname - wasn't intended to be deregatory. (Even though that by today's standards, it most certainly is.)<BR/><BR/>But back in 1960, it wasn't seen that way...otherwise they simply wouldn't have used it. Let's remember...the guy that wrote that series ended up teaching English in Japan; I doubt he had a problem with Asians. And the larger point is that Tom was a heroic character and a true friend to GL. GL goes out of his way to help Tom help his people. And Tom was the only person he trusted his secret identity with. That doesn't sound like racism - in the least - to me.<BR/><BR/>A nickname that doesn't hold up 40 years later aside, the comraderie, friendship and trust displayed between Hal and Tom make the label of racism incorrect in <B>context</B>.<BR/><BR/>Also...Hal was not racist towards John in any way either. He expressed a valid concern: That the chip on John's shoulder could make for bad a space cop. Hal even tells John that his style bugged him at first. But that didn't stop them from becoming great friends, though, did it? Obviously not racism.<BR/><BR/>In short:<BR/><BR/>1. Context is key.<BR/>2. Actions always speak loudest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149183374047829852006-06-01T13:36:00.000-04:002006-06-01T13:36:00.000-04:00This is a nice rant. Winick's soap-box stories do...This is a nice rant. Winick's soap-box stories do not deserve defense, but at the same time, I see 2 problems with your argument:<BR/><BR/>1. As stdb pointed out, your witness to the defense (the GL/GA stories) is just as bad as the accused (Winick's GL) when it comes to preachiness.<BR/><BR/>Those stories were not only heavy-handed, they were also *extremely* tilted toward the far-left sensibility of Denny O'Neil...a member of the Peace movement of the time.<BR/><BR/>2. As Daniel pointed out, this is incorrect:<BR/><BR/><I>That's where Green Lantern/Green Arrow worked in the Seventies. The two main characters were a hypocrite and a racist. A blatant hypocrite and blatant racist.</I><BR/><BR/>First off...we're *all* hypocrites, usually on many levels. 2nd of all...Green Lantern was not depicted as a racist. The black guy in those panels points out that GL's never done anything specific for the African-American community. Hal acknowledges the truth of this, and calls himself a dummy for it. He then decides he has to do something to change things.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't strike me as racist in any way...in fact, it's <B>heroic</B> - he realizes he can do more, and tries.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, a nice rant. Personally, I think Winick should leave his social agendas at the door...or at least make them multi-faceted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-1149183326499183882006-06-01T13:35:00.000-04:002006-06-01T13:35:00.000-04:00Lovely post Ragnell, I don't have the ire toward J...Lovely post Ragnell, I don't have the ire toward Judd Winick that you do, but the Terry storyline *was* poorly done.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not pissed off, but I am sorely confused. Hal is "undeniably racist"? You and I must have radically different definitions of the term.</I><BR/><BR/>In early Green Lantern, Hal *is* very clearly racist. ("Pieface", his interaction with John). He's not a card carrying KKK member or anything like that. He doesn't *hate* people of other races. But he definitely begins with a set of prejudged notions and assumptions about people of other races. <BR/><BR/>He's also quite sexist early on as well, as is evidenced by a lot of his behavior toward Carol, Dinah, and other female heroes.<BR/><BR/>Now the important thing about this is that he got this behavior called on. Ollie, Tom/"Pieface", John, even the Guardians (when Hal <A HREF="http://ragnell.blogspot.com/2006/04/hal-and-guardian.html" REL="nofollow">expresses skepticism</A> about the choice of John as replacement). Carol or Dinah get to call him on being sexist. And in the end, Hal, not being a genuinely malicious or closed-minded person, comes out learning something by the end of the day. He's just a guy who got taught a few wrong things and is unlearning them along the way.<BR/><BR/>But I'd be surprised anyone could look at the scene in which Hal meets Tom Kalmaku for the first time and not see Hal as being undeniably racist. <BR/><BR/><I>That Speedy accusation monologue is almost laughable.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's her point. As laughable and over-the-top as O'Neil's politicking was, Winick's is possibly even worse. At least with O'Neil you didn't get the chance that he was spending more time trying to think of a way to get another award rather than write his story.kalinarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417686761943716312noreply@blogger.com