Isn't that awesome? The blogger who made it has a few more pictures up.
Friday, August 31, 2007
For anyone living in the Oklahoma City area
Atomik Pop is having an anniversary sale this weekend. 50% off back issues and buy one get one half off for trades and toys. I don't remember the manga, anime and Hello Kitty deals, but at least everyone's reduced by 10% if someone's looking to save a little money in OKC.
Amazons Attack will not kill Wonder Woman.
Hey, everyone. I already spoke about those who seem to feel the changes in Amazons Attack were permanent.
Now I speak to two other camps.
First, to those of you who feel the changes are "permanent" because they are now in continuity, let me remind you -- so is Diana working at Taco Whiz, Hippolyta being Hercules' battered wife, Artemis as Wonder Woman, and Hippolyta arranging for Artemis' death. None of that killed Wonder Woman.
Second, to those who think that Amazons Attack is ruined because of simply how awful the story was, I just want you to know that you made me laugh. Do you know why? Because I started reading during John Byrne's Wonder Woman run. I also read through every crappy fill-in storyarc from Perez's reboot to Rucka's series ending.
There's been sexism (to an unbelievable degree at times), there's been shitty symbolism, there's been contrived plots, there's been stupid plots, there's been disrespectful ideas, there's been authors inserting themselves into the supporting cast and there's been downright crappy at times, but bad storytelling has never killed Wonder Woman.
This is not the worst Wonder Woman story I have read. This isn't even the worst Wonder Woman story that's been put out Post-Crisis.
Hell, this isn't even the worst Wonder Woman story involved that particular cliffhanger villain I've read.
She survived all that shit, and she survived the horrors of the 70s and the 80s.
Amazons Attack will not kill Wonder Woman.
Now I speak to two other camps.
First, to those of you who feel the changes are "permanent" because they are now in continuity, let me remind you -- so is Diana working at Taco Whiz, Hippolyta being Hercules' battered wife, Artemis as Wonder Woman, and Hippolyta arranging for Artemis' death. None of that killed Wonder Woman.
Second, to those who think that Amazons Attack is ruined because of simply how awful the story was, I just want you to know that you made me laugh. Do you know why? Because I started reading during John Byrne's Wonder Woman run. I also read through every crappy fill-in storyarc from Perez's reboot to Rucka's series ending.
There's been sexism (to an unbelievable degree at times), there's been shitty symbolism, there's been contrived plots, there's been stupid plots, there's been disrespectful ideas, there's been authors inserting themselves into the supporting cast and there's been downright crappy at times, but bad storytelling has never killed Wonder Woman.
This is not the worst Wonder Woman story I have read. This isn't even the worst Wonder Woman story that's been put out Post-Crisis.
Hell, this isn't even the worst Wonder Woman story involved that particular cliffhanger villain I've read.
She survived all that shit, and she survived the horrors of the 70s and the 80s.
Amazons Attack will not kill Wonder Woman.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
If you realize what I'm talking about, this post contains Spoilers.
I wanted to not be pissed off in my 800th post (I've been going through my archives, I swear my blood pressure wasn't always in the stratosphere whenever I wrote), but Kalinara just can't keep her links to herself and just had to show me something that pissed me off. She showed me a post which had scanned pages from a book that came out today.
The events in the comic book did not piss me of.
The reaction of the fans did.
I know, I know, I've spent most of my time lately yelling at other fans for one reason or another but seriously, there's a lot of people out there who are annoying the shit out of me and some things need to be said about it. So I'm not going to link the post (so I won't be singling out just one idiot) or name the comic (because that will spoil it), but I am going to say some of the mean things that need to be said to keep my sanity.
I talk a lot about narrative clues and artistic clues, but there's another huge method by which writers communicate their intentions to readers, and that is by using tried and true narrative tropes that some people know as "genre rules."
Serialized superhero comic books are a genre, and most readers are intimately acquainted with the narrative clues, artistic clues, and genre rules for superhero comics and they know when a ending is actually the beginning of another huge storyline.
Despite the fact that it may appear that the character's setting is now in ruins from a "permanent" change, certain clues let you know that this is not the case. The situation is one that the writers realize is a state of ruin, the "permanent" change is anything but, and rebuilding the setting will be a future plotline.
One of those clues, ladies and gentlemen, is when in the last three pages of a storyline a major company-wide villain is revealed to have been disguised as the traditionally benevolent power behind the "permanent" change.
This usually means that the person who appeared to be the benevolent power is lying (lying is something supervillains sometimes do) and that the whole damned point really was to fuck up things for the hero but from and in-story standpoint and not from a meta-standpoint. Now the hero has to fix it.
And if I have to tell you this, you either need to read more serialized superhero comics or stop reading them altogether, because you are doing it wrong.
I didn't know there could be a wrong way to read something you enjoy, but if you are getting an impression that is so far from the traditional intent and the narrative mechanics of serialized superhero comics, something is going wrong between you and the page. As a result of this something wrong, you are going to be unable to enjoy these stories as intended because even when the writers blatantly violate these tropes they are still playing off of the expected result to get the effect they need from the reader for the story to work.
That's not to say that based on other factors that the whole thing was not just a crappy story. Its not to say the ending wasn't stupid. Its not to say the twist wasn't stupid. Its not to say its not annoying to read something and get a cliffhanger like that. Its not to say the entire thing wasn't poorly handled, poorly written, poorly drawn, or had some dreadful symbolism. Its not to say you didn't find it contrived or overly complicated. Its not to say that there's nothing to criticize or dislike or that all criticism/dislike of the story is stupid. No, no none of those. "You should be happy about what you just read" is not what I'm saying, that's not it at all.
However, this sort of thing is not called "ruining" or "trampling" a character or a franchise. This sort of thing (for good or bad) is called "Plot."
Next time, we'll discuss how when a hero is placed under mind-control and used as a villain in the kickoff issue of a large crossover it usually means he will be rescued and/or save himself from this state by the final issue, and how it is usually not the ruination of the hero unless the writer is playing on narrative tropes to surprise the audience.
Because that's another one a lot of people seem to be missing.
The events in the comic book did not piss me of.
The reaction of the fans did.
I know, I know, I've spent most of my time lately yelling at other fans for one reason or another but seriously, there's a lot of people out there who are annoying the shit out of me and some things need to be said about it. So I'm not going to link the post (so I won't be singling out just one idiot) or name the comic (because that will spoil it), but I am going to say some of the mean things that need to be said to keep my sanity.
I talk a lot about narrative clues and artistic clues, but there's another huge method by which writers communicate their intentions to readers, and that is by using tried and true narrative tropes that some people know as "genre rules."
Serialized superhero comic books are a genre, and most readers are intimately acquainted with the narrative clues, artistic clues, and genre rules for superhero comics and they know when a ending is actually the beginning of another huge storyline.
Despite the fact that it may appear that the character's setting is now in ruins from a "permanent" change, certain clues let you know that this is not the case. The situation is one that the writers realize is a state of ruin, the "permanent" change is anything but, and rebuilding the setting will be a future plotline.
One of those clues, ladies and gentlemen, is when in the last three pages of a storyline a major company-wide villain is revealed to have been disguised as the traditionally benevolent power behind the "permanent" change.
This usually means that the person who appeared to be the benevolent power is lying (lying is something supervillains sometimes do) and that the whole damned point really was to fuck up things for the hero but from and in-story standpoint and not from a meta-standpoint. Now the hero has to fix it.
And if I have to tell you this, you either need to read more serialized superhero comics or stop reading them altogether, because you are doing it wrong.
I didn't know there could be a wrong way to read something you enjoy, but if you are getting an impression that is so far from the traditional intent and the narrative mechanics of serialized superhero comics, something is going wrong between you and the page. As a result of this something wrong, you are going to be unable to enjoy these stories as intended because even when the writers blatantly violate these tropes they are still playing off of the expected result to get the effect they need from the reader for the story to work.
That's not to say that based on other factors that the whole thing was not just a crappy story. Its not to say the ending wasn't stupid. Its not to say the twist wasn't stupid. Its not to say its not annoying to read something and get a cliffhanger like that. Its not to say the entire thing wasn't poorly handled, poorly written, poorly drawn, or had some dreadful symbolism. Its not to say you didn't find it contrived or overly complicated. Its not to say that there's nothing to criticize or dislike or that all criticism/dislike of the story is stupid. No, no none of those. "You should be happy about what you just read" is not what I'm saying, that's not it at all.
However, this sort of thing is not called "ruining" or "trampling" a character or a franchise. This sort of thing (for good or bad) is called "Plot."
Next time, we'll discuss how when a hero is placed under mind-control and used as a villain in the kickoff issue of a large crossover it usually means he will be rescued and/or save himself from this state by the final issue, and how it is usually not the ruination of the hero unless the writer is playing on narrative tropes to surprise the audience.
Because that's another one a lot of people seem to be missing.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Beautiful, isn't it?
Darwyn Cooke's cover to The Comics Journal, as seen on various blogs yesterday.
I can't believe I didn't do this back in March, actually...
James Nicoll found a blog, and now his readers and the Howling Curmudgeons are discussing Dave Sim's "Fifteen Things."
In the interest of lazy posts I figured this would be a nice time to link my reaction from a few months back when I first read it.
And if that doesn't make anyone smile, here's Dave Sim through the Regenderizer.
In the interest of lazy posts I figured this would be a nice time to link my reaction from a few months back when I first read it.
And if that doesn't make anyone smile, here's Dave Sim through the Regenderizer.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Kyle has strange hobbies.
We all know Kyle Rayner as the Lord of the Fridge, Collector of Angst and Bringer of Death to Supporting Cast Members. Certainly the young lady in black (or dude on the skis if you so prefer) seems to follow Kyle like a lost puppy. I mean, she's picked up not only every woman the boy takes to bed with him but much of the Silver Age Green Lantern Corps during Kyle's early years. (Seriously, read the first 50 issues of Marz's run on Green Lantern. It was supposed to be all Hal's fault, but really it was everyone Kyle came into contact with who got folded, spindled, and mutilated.) Thing is, there's another trend that popped up toward the end of Winick's run and has stuck with the guy since.
Start with Green Lantern #150 where (along with the battery) he brings the formerly deceased Guardians back to life as children (with little girls too!).
Then look at the Obsidian Age storyline in JLA (JLA #66-76) after that, where he agrees to offer up his heart so that the souls of the rest of the League can be safely housed there for a few thousand years and then be brought back to life.
Then he goes to outer space, and encounters the resurrected and possibly undead Kilowog. Kilowog had been brought back to life by Boodika and several other ex-lanterns in the Last Will and Testament of Hal Jordan (I have no fucking clue what is up with this storyline since Green Lantern 10-13 because this is the storyline where Kilowog came back and where Oa was reconstructed so it can't be totally retconned out, but Boodika can't have been there and she was a major antagonist.) So Kilowog gets collected by the keepers of his people's afterlife because he's from one of those planets where they frown on this sort of thing. Which leads to the bright spot of Raab's run (Green Lantern #169 I believe, but I didn't like Raab's run so I've only read this one a few times) when Kyle literally follows a friend to Hell and physically pulls him back to the land of the living. We can count that.
And then, of course, there's the famous Rebirth storyline where Kyle retrieved the body of Hal Jordan from the sun so that Hal could be brought to life in a storyline involving Ganthet and the Spectre. Since Kyle was pretty damned active in bringing this about, I'd like to count that as well.
Then there's the end of the Ion maxiseries where Kyle brings his mother to life until she tells him that's a bad idea. This one probably only fell through because (unlike everyone else he's seen resurrected) she's a religious civilian woman and not a superhero who has actually spoken to various deities from a number of different cultures. Kind of a different view on the afterlife there. Still, despite being a tap back, this counts.
So, there we have it. Kyle Rayner has either actually performed or facilitated the resurrection of a dead person (or persons) on five different occasions. These aren't deaths that are just retconned away as never having happened. These are people who were in-continuity dead, and the plot was that he went out of his way and brought them back to life.
And, if you take into account that there were 5 dead Leaguers (not counting Kyle) in that JLA story, and the dead Guardians numbered 15, 31, or 35 (Kalinara and I are still arguing this one), that's actually quite a lot of people.
Under 5 different writers come to think of it.
I have no impressive conclusion to this train of thought. Its just one of those things that keeps popping up. Only while I'm absolutely certain they've done the dead girlfriend/relative thing consciously (so that Kyle can angst that he's cursed and be reluctant to grow close to anyone) I don't think they've realized yet that they created a character who raises the dead as a hobby (or that the two trends are intrinsically connected characterization-wise). There would be more in-jokes about it at convention panels I imagine.
Start with Green Lantern #150 where (along with the battery) he brings the formerly deceased Guardians back to life as children (with little girls too!).
Then look at the Obsidian Age storyline in JLA (JLA #66-76) after that, where he agrees to offer up his heart so that the souls of the rest of the League can be safely housed there for a few thousand years and then be brought back to life.
Then he goes to outer space, and encounters the resurrected and possibly undead Kilowog. Kilowog had been brought back to life by Boodika and several other ex-lanterns in the Last Will and Testament of Hal Jordan (I have no fucking clue what is up with this storyline since Green Lantern 10-13 because this is the storyline where Kilowog came back and where Oa was reconstructed so it can't be totally retconned out, but Boodika can't have been there and she was a major antagonist.) So Kilowog gets collected by the keepers of his people's afterlife because he's from one of those planets where they frown on this sort of thing. Which leads to the bright spot of Raab's run (Green Lantern #169 I believe, but I didn't like Raab's run so I've only read this one a few times) when Kyle literally follows a friend to Hell and physically pulls him back to the land of the living. We can count that.
And then, of course, there's the famous Rebirth storyline where Kyle retrieved the body of Hal Jordan from the sun so that Hal could be brought to life in a storyline involving Ganthet and the Spectre. Since Kyle was pretty damned active in bringing this about, I'd like to count that as well.
Then there's the end of the Ion maxiseries where Kyle brings his mother to life until she tells him that's a bad idea. This one probably only fell through because (unlike everyone else he's seen resurrected) she's a religious civilian woman and not a superhero who has actually spoken to various deities from a number of different cultures. Kind of a different view on the afterlife there. Still, despite being a tap back, this counts.
So, there we have it. Kyle Rayner has either actually performed or facilitated the resurrection of a dead person (or persons) on five different occasions. These aren't deaths that are just retconned away as never having happened. These are people who were in-continuity dead, and the plot was that he went out of his way and brought them back to life.
And, if you take into account that there were 5 dead Leaguers (not counting Kyle) in that JLA story, and the dead Guardians numbered 15, 31, or 35 (Kalinara and I are still arguing this one), that's actually quite a lot of people.
Under 5 different writers come to think of it.
I have no impressive conclusion to this train of thought. Its just one of those things that keeps popping up. Only while I'm absolutely certain they've done the dead girlfriend/relative thing consciously (so that Kyle can angst that he's cursed and be reluctant to grow close to anyone) I don't think they've realized yet that they created a character who raises the dead as a hobby (or that the two trends are intrinsically connected characterization-wise). There would be more in-jokes about it at convention panels I imagine.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Yes, another video.
But I needed one to illustrate my suggestion because I'm not sure everyone who reads this blog also watches Comedy Central and this guy just looks and sounds perfect.
Rob Riggle as Hal Jordan.
Who else can see it?
Yeah, that probably says a lot about what I think of Hal.
Rob Riggle as Hal Jordan.
Who else can see it?
Yeah, that probably says a lot about what I think of Hal.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Venting
I know I complain sometimes, but I am generally happy with the comics I'm buying. That's why I buy them. There's just some things that need to be pointed out, particularly when the problem is harmful like sexism. However, as the editorial direction at DC goes, most of it kicks ass in various ways.
(On the contrary, I can't stand what Marvel's doing which is why you rarely see me on Marvel blogs trashing Marvel staff in the comments of perfectly happy Marvel fans.)
Unfortunately, I can't bow out of the online comics community without dumping WFA entirely on Kalinara's shoulders (and that's mean) so I get to go and read everyone constantly complaining about the stuff I really enjoy, and oftentimes marrying it to a complaint I have as though that makes it more legitimate.
For example, A) "There's a conspiracy to kill off JLI characters" is often connected to a complaint about B) the proliferation of rape in comics due to Sue Dibny's treatment in Identity Crisis.
The two opinions can co-exist in one mind, that's no problem for me. The problem is when B is used to prop up the legitimacy of "A."
It comes in a little tiny hint sometimes, like "You hated Identity Crisis, right?" or "You hate retconned rape, like what happened to Sue, right?" in a conversation about hating on a particular writer or editor at DC Comics. The crux of it is that I should agree with them and be hoping for the person in question to be humiliated/fired/maimed/folded/spindled/mutilated because I dislike that storytelling trend and so should dislike everything else associated with the person.
Because apparently no writer has ever written something stereotyped, had the sexism pointed out and gone on to be a better writer. And apparently no good writer has ever let anything slip past him on a bad day.
Its similar to the people who were defending the Killing Joke earlier this week, because "You can't say that about Alan Moore!" Because in that point of view, like the above one, we don't criticize anything unless everything connected with it is utter shit.
All or nothing with some people.
At best, its a serious misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. At worst, its a slimy manipulative technique that places a person somewhere between a worm and a fossilized trilobite in my personal estimation.
(On the contrary, I can't stand what Marvel's doing which is why you rarely see me on Marvel blogs trashing Marvel staff in the comments of perfectly happy Marvel fans.)
Unfortunately, I can't bow out of the online comics community without dumping WFA entirely on Kalinara's shoulders (and that's mean) so I get to go and read everyone constantly complaining about the stuff I really enjoy, and oftentimes marrying it to a complaint I have as though that makes it more legitimate.
For example, A) "There's a conspiracy to kill off JLI characters" is often connected to a complaint about B) the proliferation of rape in comics due to Sue Dibny's treatment in Identity Crisis.
The two opinions can co-exist in one mind, that's no problem for me. The problem is when B is used to prop up the legitimacy of "A."
It comes in a little tiny hint sometimes, like "You hated Identity Crisis, right?" or "You hate retconned rape, like what happened to Sue, right?" in a conversation about hating on a particular writer or editor at DC Comics. The crux of it is that I should agree with them and be hoping for the person in question to be humiliated/fired/maimed/folded/spindled/mutilated because I dislike that storytelling trend and so should dislike everything else associated with the person.
Because apparently no writer has ever written something stereotyped, had the sexism pointed out and gone on to be a better writer. And apparently no good writer has ever let anything slip past him on a bad day.
Its similar to the people who were defending the Killing Joke earlier this week, because "You can't say that about Alan Moore!" Because in that point of view, like the above one, we don't criticize anything unless everything connected with it is utter shit.
All or nothing with some people.
At best, its a serious misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. At worst, its a slimy manipulative technique that places a person somewhere between a worm and a fossilized trilobite in my personal estimation.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Now that I look at it.
I was writing up something on Star Sapphire for Blog@Newsarama and I realized something about this cover. Look at Hal's dialogue.
"She hurled a repelling ray at me! There must be some way I can defeat this mystery woman!"
That picture and those words. That's pretty much Hal and Carol's relationship in a nutshell, isn't it?
"She hurled a repelling ray at me! There must be some way I can defeat this mystery woman!"
That picture and those words. That's pretty much Hal and Carol's relationship in a nutshell, isn't it?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Also Unnerving
Someone in my comments recently called me a "Voice of reason."
How the fuck did that happen?
I'm a Green Lantern fan. I'm not supposed to be a voice of reason. I'm not supposed to be in the same room as Reason! I checked Reason at the door of my first GL fan-club meeting and lost the claim ticket while inside.
And I'm certainly not supposed to be the fan writing reality-checks. I'm not supposed to be the level-headed one. I'm supposed to be the one standing on the hood of a rusted lime green Oldsmobile waiving a Sector 2814 T-shirt in the air to distract Ron Marz while my deceptively mild mannered but similarly deranged sidekick fills water balloons with oil-based paint!
Yeesh, when the Lantern fans have to tell you to rein the fannishness a tad, its gotten bad.
How the fuck did that happen?
I'm a Green Lantern fan. I'm not supposed to be a voice of reason. I'm not supposed to be in the same room as Reason! I checked Reason at the door of my first GL fan-club meeting and lost the claim ticket while inside.
And I'm certainly not supposed to be the fan writing reality-checks. I'm not supposed to be the level-headed one. I'm supposed to be the one standing on the hood of a rusted lime green Oldsmobile waiving a Sector 2814 T-shirt in the air to distract Ron Marz while my deceptively mild mannered but similarly deranged sidekick fills water balloons with oil-based paint!
Yeesh, when the Lantern fans have to tell you to rein the fannishness a tad, its gotten bad.
Let's move this conversation here.
So, in my last post (which I figured was going to cause a fight, just not this kind of fight) I said that there was no conspiracy to kill off all old 80s and 90s comedy characters at DC, and some of the commenters thought that the way to refute that statement was to throw my own complaints about how women are treated by the company in my face.
Now, you'll have to pardon me if I misread the statements because my sarcasmometer is still in the shop.
It started here:
Well, if no one gets to be hurt or in danger or have a moral crisis we really have no story. The problem is when it only happens in certain potentially cool ways for one gender and certain crappy ways for the other gender. Invisible Woman being mind-controlled and turned evil isn't shitty. Invisible Woman being mind-controlled and turned sexy-evil is.
Anyway, now I'm spoiling for a fight and I'd prefer to have it here and not in the comments of the other post which really had nothing to do with gender issues.
Thoughts?
Now, you'll have to pardon me if I misread the statements because my sarcasmometer is still in the shop.
It started here:
Well sure. But there is no conspiracy to treat female characters like shit. It just happens. DC still did a good job of pissing over Giffen's league. They appear to be trying to make up for it though, what with books like the new Booster Gold.That irritated me:
Yeah, thing about that comparison is, whenever someone reacts saying "There's no conspiracy" we still get to point out that there's a huge system of societal sexism in place causing that to happen, and that people do things like that because of assumptions they were raised with. We also get to point out that this sort of crap is supporting a system of societal sexism that demoralizes people and shoves them into little boxes.I should have chosen my words more carefully, because that left everything open for another commenter (yes, one of my regulars and not just some random anonymous person) to really piss me off with this statement:
Giffen's league was funny, but DC killing off characters that were basically given to the guy because they were the second- and third-stringers the writers were free to turn evil, maim, or kill off is not the same thing as just about every company in comics falling back on the same shitty tropes, stereotypes and exploitation when it comes to an entire gender.
Killing/maiming/turning evil of 2nd and 3rd tier characters is only a shitty trope if the characters are female?My long answer (the one I posted):
Way to oversimplify my statement. You know there's a serious difference there.My short answer:
Look at how Blue Beetle died and how Jade died. Who died having solved a crime and who was a "vessel" for her signifcant other's power?
Compare Phantom Lady's death scene to Black Condor's. Someone died quickly in mid-air and the other lingered with her clothes torn off and asked a miserable, scared "Why?" of a supervillain.
Stephanie Brown's to Jason Todd's. Who's costume went from loose-fitting to skin-tight? Who was drawn as if they were having an orgasm during their death? Who is now back to life?
Hell, even when they go bad, does Max Lord going evil and damned near managing to take over the world seem nearly as fucking pathetic as Jean Loring arranging for a friend's death to get her ex-husband back?
Tomar Re died during a battle in CoIE. Katma Tui died a few years later on the kitchen floor while her husband was at work, without ever getting to put up a fight.
The shittiness is not in the characters dying/going evil/being maimed, but the how and why and how it conforms to a shitty societal standard for what men are allowed to do and what women are allowed to do.
And guess what, even then its not a fucking conspiracy, but just a bunch of people who are used to thinking one way who need to learn to think another.
I'm not going to tell you what to like or hate, or what to complain about, but I am going to tell you that these things are not equal in any way shape or form. One is a hell of a lot worse than the other because of its real-life reflection.
Well, if no one gets to be hurt or in danger or have a moral crisis we really have no story. The problem is when it only happens in certain potentially cool ways for one gender and certain crappy ways for the other gender. Invisible Woman being mind-controlled and turned evil isn't shitty. Invisible Woman being mind-controlled and turned sexy-evil is.
Anyway, now I'm spoiling for a fight and I'd prefer to have it here and not in the comments of the other post which really had nothing to do with gender issues.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Comic Foundry
I don't like reviewing. It makes this blog into a chore when I have to actively dreg up a coherent opinion on something substantial. Aside from the things I'm really fanatical about (which I obsess about endlessly and need to vent on) or the things that inspire some strange insight (that I need to write just to get it out into the conversation), I just enjoy reading and don't comment on it here.But for whatever reason I accepted an early print copy of Comic Foundry this weekend, even though it meant I had to review it. And now I feel like a total sycophant, because I got something for free and really enjoyed it and now I'm in the position of trying to talk a bunch of people to pay for what I enjoyed for free.
This is awkward.
I tend to stick to comics and the internet for my reading because of my extremely short attention span (it was once described as "the attention span of a gnat on crack" by one of my sister's friends). The first half of Comic Foundry is very nice to my poor attention span. Most of the creator stuff is only a page long, which is good because they have a lot of different personalities packed into this little magazine (the table of contents "Creator Locator" lists about 50 different people). There's a page full of quotes from Darick Robertson [Pg ], a block diagram comparing the Kubert brothers' opinions [Pg 26] and Matt Fraction's guide to seducing Kieron Gillen [Pg 23] sprinkled in along with standard Q&A articles, so it tends towards the surreal sometimes.
The Life+Style section was the best part. It had a feature with four different women reacting to theoretical pickup approaches from five different comic book personalities [Pg 19], cocktail recipes [Pg 19], artists who also play music [Pg 22], a page on items of interest in Maryland [Pg 27], Brian Wood explaining his office decorations [Pg 18] and my personal favorite, tips for comic-themed home decor [Pg 17]!
The longer articles are in the second half of the magazine, and there's a couple that are of particular interest to my regular readers and When Fangirls Attack followers. "Heroine Addict" [Pg 74-77] ranks superheroines by comparing them to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and of course the ones I like score low, I'm not sure whether to bother writing in about that or not) and "Sex and the Superhero" [Pg 62-67], wherein a psychologist analyzes She-Hulk and several covers (including the controversial Heroes for Hire #13).
Which of course brings me to the big draw here. Now, I hear a lot of complaining about Wizard in the feminist comics fan community, and I know from back when I was reading Wizard they really couldn't give two shits about women. As it is, we've been blogging steadily for over a year about women and female characters and most of the online sources have picked up on the issues, and we've seen gender issues touched on in mainstream magazines and news publications but I can't remember when I heard of Wizard or The Comics Journal nodding to anything that's covered on WFA. But here, in black and white print and carried by Diamond Distributors, I see Storm in Black Panther [Pg 77], Wonder Woman in All-Star Batman and Robin #6 [Pg 66], the cover to Heroes for Hire #13 [Pg 67] and how hard it is to tell a sex scene from a cover illustration [Pg 15] all touched upon in the first issue.
I strongly advise anyone who complains about Wizard Magazine and their attitude towards female readers to support this magazine. And if you disagree or have something to add, please write them a letter and see if they print it next issue. Keep the conversation going. I really believe it would be in the best interests of most feminist-minded fans to see this one continue and possibly make it to being a monthly instead of a quarterly magazine.
Comic Foundry is quarterly, black and white, $5.98 an issue and out tomorrow (Wednesday, August 22nd).
Submission Call: 17th Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans
What: The 17th Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans
Where: Spawn of Blogorrhea
When: September 26th
Deadline for Submissions: September 19th
Contact: lee[UNDERSCORE]kottner[AT]mindspring[DOT]com or submission form
Notice: Accepting Volunteers to Host the 18th Carnival. Email Ragnellthefoul[at]hotmail[dot]com if interested.
Where: Spawn of Blogorrhea
When: September 26th
Deadline for Submissions: September 19th
Contact: lee[UNDERSCORE]kottner[AT]mindspring[DOT]com or submission form
Notice: Accepting Volunteers to Host the 18th Carnival. Email Ragnellthefoul[at]hotmail[dot]com if interested.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Four Important Things All DC Fans Should Know
Since I'm already shooting my mouth off and possibly causing hurt feelings in my comments, let's go over some things here on the mainpage:
1) There is no pro-Hal conspiracy to kill/ruin Kyle Rayner. Kyle becoming Parallax just makes fucking sense from a narrative standpoint since that would be his (and the rest of the DCU's) greatest freaking fear since Kyle first found out what happened to Hal. This story had to happen, and it may as well happen now. If you are worried about how the writer feels about Kyle, reread Rebirth.
Since I've also seen this one theorized, Kyle Rayner is being moved to the Countdown books not to ruin Kyle, but to sucker his rabid fans into buying Countdown. (Seriously, check out today's solicits. See who is prominently featured on the cover of every Countdown tie-in they appear in? Kyle and Donna. Kyle and Donna. Kyle and Donna. They know why people would want to read this stuff, and its not the creative team or the storyline.) Its working for me, and I know its working on some of the rest of you too. If anything, this proves Kyle is safe because they need a character who can draw 40K readers into their crappy crossovers.
(Also, they finally gave him a good costume. Things are looking up!)
2) There was no plot to kill all of JLI and ruin everything Keith Giffen created. (If there was, why is Ice back?) That is why they joke about that at conventions. They are making fun of fans who think that.
3) There is no conspiracy to kill off Young Justice characters. Superboy's copyright was complicated. Bart wasn't selling (possibly because so many of his fans were boycotting DC over other matters, but I'm just guessing based on who I've seen complaining about what online). Secret and Arrowette were removed in the original series. Empress has a fucking stupid civilian name and will never be prominent again because her creator couldn't resist a stupid pun. Lil' Lobo was one of those jokes that was funny for one panel but got overused. (Like a lot of the jokes in Young Justice. I swear, that series was like the Saturday Night Live of superhero comics).
That team is down to two, but they'd be mad to get rid of Tim and I'm just not lucky enough to see Cassie die.
That series wasn't all it was cracked up to be anyway, take it from someone who was the age range of those heroes when they were created. It was good for a laugh, but in the end I remember preferring the big guns in the JLA or the grumpy old men in JSA than the heroes that were supposed to have been my generation's.
4) They actually do hate Kirby fans. Starlin was overjoyed to get to kill off the New Gods. Bastards.
(Or, y'know, that sort of joking around at a convention could be just them fucking with our conspiracy theories again like they consciously did leading up to Identity Crisis, GL: Rebirth, Infinite Crisis...etc...)
1) There is no pro-Hal conspiracy to kill/ruin Kyle Rayner. Kyle becoming Parallax just makes fucking sense from a narrative standpoint since that would be his (and the rest of the DCU's) greatest freaking fear since Kyle first found out what happened to Hal. This story had to happen, and it may as well happen now. If you are worried about how the writer feels about Kyle, reread Rebirth.
Since I've also seen this one theorized, Kyle Rayner is being moved to the Countdown books not to ruin Kyle, but to sucker his rabid fans into buying Countdown. (Seriously, check out today's solicits. See who is prominently featured on the cover of every Countdown tie-in they appear in? Kyle and Donna. Kyle and Donna. Kyle and Donna. They know why people would want to read this stuff, and its not the creative team or the storyline.) Its working for me, and I know its working on some of the rest of you too. If anything, this proves Kyle is safe because they need a character who can draw 40K readers into their crappy crossovers.
(Also, they finally gave him a good costume. Things are looking up!)
2) There was no plot to kill all of JLI and ruin everything Keith Giffen created. (If there was, why is Ice back?) That is why they joke about that at conventions. They are making fun of fans who think that.
3) There is no conspiracy to kill off Young Justice characters. Superboy's copyright was complicated. Bart wasn't selling (possibly because so many of his fans were boycotting DC over other matters, but I'm just guessing based on who I've seen complaining about what online). Secret and Arrowette were removed in the original series. Empress has a fucking stupid civilian name and will never be prominent again because her creator couldn't resist a stupid pun. Lil' Lobo was one of those jokes that was funny for one panel but got overused. (Like a lot of the jokes in Young Justice. I swear, that series was like the Saturday Night Live of superhero comics).
That team is down to two, but they'd be mad to get rid of Tim and I'm just not lucky enough to see Cassie die.
That series wasn't all it was cracked up to be anyway, take it from someone who was the age range of those heroes when they were created. It was good for a laugh, but in the end I remember preferring the big guns in the JLA or the grumpy old men in JSA than the heroes that were supposed to have been my generation's.
4) They actually do hate Kirby fans. Starlin was overjoyed to get to kill off the New Gods. Bastards.
(Or, y'know, that sort of joking around at a convention could be just them fucking with our conspiracy theories again like they consciously did leading up to Identity Crisis, GL: Rebirth, Infinite Crisis...etc...)
November DC
Its that time of the month again! (Shut up Sims, I don't mean that time of the month.) Newsarama has the November pre-solicits up. The full ones should be around by 5 PM on Monday, but it looks like all of the Green Lantern stuff made the early ones.
Funny how every other special has been about an active bad guy as the title character, but this one is the second one about Kyle and instead of Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Parallax #2 or Green Lantern Special: Ion we have Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Ion. It makes me wonder if Sinestro's going to try to place Ion inside one of his lackeys to make a second Parallax-level ally. I mean, everything we've seen has suggested that Kyle was in the driver's seat while Ion was boosting the engine. Sinestro himself said Ion wasn't a possessing force like Parallax, but a support entity. There's no reason to think that a bad guy hosting the whale would be anything other than a bad guy. Sinestro would be stupid not to try this.
Most importantly though, who the fuck is Michael Lacomb and can he get the hair right?
GREEN LANTERN #25"Why has Earth been assigned so many Green Lanterns?" There needs to be an explanation for that? Haven't they seen what Earth in the DCU is like? I'd stick a few extras there too! Hell the Guardians could save a lot of time by just basing the Corps on Earth, because if a universal threat isn't from there its headed there anyway.
Written by Geoff Johns
Art and cover by Ivan Reis & Oclair Albert
Variant cover by Gary Frank
This is it! The most talked-about storyline of the summer, “The Sinestro Corps War,” concludes in this double-sized anniversary issue! Why does Sinestro believe he has won? How will Hal Jordan stop his greatest enemy? What is the truth behind the prophecy of “The Blackest Night”? Where will the end results of this battle take the Green Lantern Corps? What is the bizarre fate of the Anti-Monitor? Why has Earth been assigned so many Green Lanterns? Learn all the secrets! Witness all the battles! Prepare yourself for the startling ending of the greatest epic in the history of Green Lantern!
Retailers please note: This issue will feature two covers that may be ordered separately. For every 10 copies of the Standard Edition (featuring a cover by Ivan Reis & Oclair Albert, retailers may order one Variant Edition (featuring a cover by Gary Frank). See the Previews Order Form for more information.
On sale November 28 • 64 pg, FC, $4.99 US
GREEN LANTERN CORPS #18Oa is seriously still on fire in November? This started in June and they still haven't managed to douse it. They need a Green Lantern Fire Brigade because this is hardly the first time in the last 25 years that place has been set ablaze.
Written by Peter J. Tomasi
Art and cover by Pat Gleason & Prentis Rollins
“The Sinestro Corps War” epilogue! The fires still burn, the dead are many, and the Green Lantern Corps rises from the ashes to rebuild and continue their mission to protect the universe as the Guardians’ recent decision in the midst of the Sinestro Corps War reverberates within the ranks and alters the Corps forever!
On sale November 28 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US
TALES OF THE SINESTRO CORPS PRESENTS: ION #1That bug is still inside Kyle by this point? Damn, I was betting on the Parallax special being when it gets moved. DC, that's another dollar you've lost me.
Written by Ron Marz
Art by Michael Lacomb
Cover by Ivan Reis
Ion is the chosen one of the Green Lantern Corps, whose coming was foretold as a prophecy in the Book of Oa. But now that Kyle Rayner has been possessed by Parallax, can he ever bear the mantle of Ion again? Or will it pass to a completely new bearer? This all-important Sinestro Corps tie-in reveals the answers, and sets the stage for Green Lantern — and Kyle Rayner — for years to come!
On sale November 7 • 32 pg, FC, $2.99 US
Funny how every other special has been about an active bad guy as the title character, but this one is the second one about Kyle and instead of Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Parallax #2 or Green Lantern Special: Ion we have Tales of the Sinestro Corps: Ion. It makes me wonder if Sinestro's going to try to place Ion inside one of his lackeys to make a second Parallax-level ally. I mean, everything we've seen has suggested that Kyle was in the driver's seat while Ion was boosting the engine. Sinestro himself said Ion wasn't a possessing force like Parallax, but a support entity. There's no reason to think that a bad guy hosting the whale would be anything other than a bad guy. Sinestro would be stupid not to try this.
Most importantly though, who the fuck is Michael Lacomb and can he get the hair right?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Now that I've recovered from actually attending the convention...
I thought I'd point out something I witnessed (I'll quote the Newsarama writeup, though) since I've had a few commenters on this blog worried about this:
(Not to mention the Green Lantern artist sounded absolutely horrified at the thought of killing that character.)
Beyond that Didio said that Green Lantern #26 would lead directly in Kyle joining Countdown at the Friday panel.
Now will you guys please stop angsting about Kyle's fate and let me enjoy the current storyline?
- Will Kyle Rayner die?There. The freaking Publisher telling the Editor-in-Chief he didn't want Kyle Rayner dead. If that Green Lantern was ever on the fabled kill-list, he's not anymore.
Didio asked the panel: Should Kyle die?
Van Sciver: "Absolutely not"
Starlin: "I missed the question because I was talking" (to a woman in a Power Girl costume), but then he added, "yes."
Calafiore - Yes
Wayne - No
Jones- No
Levitz - No
Didio said "Stop right there."
Aureliani, who would have been next after Levitz, said - "What, you don't ask the cartoonists?" To which Didio said, "He's the boss."
(Not to mention the Green Lantern artist sounded absolutely horrified at the thought of killing that character.)
Beyond that Didio said that Green Lantern #26 would lead directly in Kyle joining Countdown at the Friday panel.
Now will you guys please stop angsting about Kyle's fate and let me enjoy the current storyline?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)