I know I've mentioned this before, but I finally caught up with GLC and Blue Beetle and one question just kept running through my head.
Why does Brik have breasts?
At first glance I love her design. She's big and blocky and strong. Not normal for a female character. But... She has boobs. Big honkin' boobs.
Okay, I know, they wanted something to mark her as "female" and a basically humanoid female-shaped rock can work, but even with that in mind it makes no fucking sense that they should be round.
She's not a mammal or even made of flesh. She's not carved by an artificer. They don't suit her original story purpose. She was made to be the "ugly girl" who had a crush on Hal while he went crazy for Carol! Why did they feel a need to give her boobs?
Its just so fucking ridiculous. I can't read a scene with Brik without wondering why she has them. I especially can't read a scene where the artist draws her shirt torn without wondering why they're drawn like Arisia's breasts. I mean, okay, a Generation 1 Arcee-style "shelf" placed strategically in the spot where it mimics a human woman's chest (a "rack"?) would be one thing, but these are round bouncy boobs. They are almost always drawn as round bouncy boobs, even though the rest of her character design suggests there should be a blocky shelf instead. (The blocky shelf would imply female just as well, by the way.)
It just doesn't work. Why does a silicone-based rock entity have boobs?! There's no in-story reason for it. What sort of fucked up evolutionary path led to giant rockwomen with breasts? (It must be an evolutionary path, because if there was a deity actively involved in her creation there's no way that sort of feature would be there. Agony in childbirth? At least there's a physiological reason. Giant rockwomen with breasts? No reason. No reason whatsoever. Only humans think of that shit.) What kind of universe do they live in that such a design came about? What was the artist thinking when they designed her? Did they realize it totally takes you out of the story that you have to stop and think "oh yeah, some artist wanted to draw boobs" and then try and immerse yourself back into the universe of Green Lantern which only works until you see Brik's boobs again. They boggle the mind. Why do they exist?
It distracts from an otherwise lovely story.
Come to think of it, this is the first I've seen Brik since Recharge. Did they realize her design is tough to explain and just shove her in the background until the Blue Beetle guy wanted to use her, or do they just not know what to do with a full-figured rock-woman whose primary story purpose is to crush on Hal?
And I think I'd be okay with them if just one single character were to wonder aloud why a rock entity has boobs. Just a throwaway line in the dialogue. You can't tell me Guy's too polite to mention it. Or that the Doctor isn't curious.
I mean, is there no sanity in Green Lantern whatsoever?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Using someone else's words as a jumping-off point for my own angst.
Kevin on the current Marvel Universe setting:
Its not that political and social issues can't be done in superhero comics, its just that you get to a point where all of the wonder and fantasy of superheroes get sucked out of the story in order to serve "the point," and the world you're reading about becomes a place you don't want to spend your spare time in anymore.
I don't read any Bendis anymore for kind of the same reasons. I don't want a story where my heroes knuckle down under the sort of stuff that I have to worry about every day, only with a supernatural/superpowered flavor. Give me something with space aliens trying to take over the universe, please. Or a plot to kill God. Or a side-trip to Hell to rescue someone. I don't need to see drug-dealers, rapists and jackass street toughs beating the shit out of my heroes.
Think about how frightening it would be to live in the Marvel Universe now. Think about being a political commentator not knowing if your thoughts were being monitored because of a blog post you made. Think about being someone in power, not knowing if you were actually standing beside who you thought you were at a government banquet. Think about being a person with extraordinary abilities who's forced to sign up with The Initiative or stay in the closet for fear of prosecution. Finally, think about being an ordinary citizen having to tolerate a de facto police state because of an accident in a small town in Connecticut.As I said to someone about the prospect of Millar writing a Superman movie (that rumor is dead now, by the way) -- What, you don't want heavy-handed political allegory that reminds you how much the situation in the real world sucks in your escapist entertainment?
This is probably me being some sad Captain Yesterday sort, but when I pick up a superhero comic, I want something that doesn't provide a version of our current state of affairs with even more paranoia lumped on top. Weird, I know.
Its not that political and social issues can't be done in superhero comics, its just that you get to a point where all of the wonder and fantasy of superheroes get sucked out of the story in order to serve "the point," and the world you're reading about becomes a place you don't want to spend your spare time in anymore.
I don't read any Bendis anymore for kind of the same reasons. I don't want a story where my heroes knuckle down under the sort of stuff that I have to worry about every day, only with a supernatural/superpowered flavor. Give me something with space aliens trying to take over the universe, please. Or a plot to kill God. Or a side-trip to Hell to rescue someone. I don't need to see drug-dealers, rapists and jackass street toughs beating the shit out of my heroes.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
For Future Reference
If you want to link-bait When Fangirls Attack, there is no need to troll my personal blog and drop little hints about reactions on your own blog, then force me to follow your name to your profile and check all your blogs looking for the topical post. There's a good chance I might miss what I'm looking for that way and instead link something that makes you look like an ass. (Now if the post that makes you look like an ass is actually the one you meant, then yes this can work. But you may not always be so lucky.)
Also, don't count on linking my personal blog, my name, or WFA. That won't always get you noticed. Search engines are unreliable in this aspect, I don't always check for links to catch my links, and I'm not shelling money out for the long referral list on the WFA stat counter. I'm only doing this so long as I can up my blood pressure for free, dammit.
And if I've linked you once, I may not find you again. Whether I consider the site worth remembering depends on how many posts about the subject in question you had on your front page and my mental state at the time I found you.
There are two reliable ways to get linked on When Fangirls Attack. First, there is contact information for both myself and Kalinara on the sidebar. Use it. Email your link to us. If it is not on topic, we will ignore you. If it is, we will link you. Second, comments on When Fangirls Attack are once again open (and if I see fifty comments questioning our policies again, I will make you all pay somehow) and you can leave your link there.
That said, Written World is my fucking blog. Not yours. My comment section is not your fucking soapbox. I know that sounds childish, but Blogger and Wordpress and Livejournal and Insanejournal are all free services. You can get your own fucking blog and say whatever the fuck you want and delete whatever comments you like and be as rude or nice as you want. (If you are blogging about women in comics, let me know in one of the two reliable ways, I will link you on WFA.) If you're going to be long-winded, make it worth my while. If not, write a post on your own fucking blog and link it in the comments of the appropriate (links on a post that have shit to do with the link will be deleted according to my whims, even if they are from blood relatives and/or about women in comics) post here. (If it is about women in comics, I will link you on WFA.)
However, I'm not completely heartless. If you would like to play with my trolls, feel free. I don't mind if you break them.
Also, don't count on linking my personal blog, my name, or WFA. That won't always get you noticed. Search engines are unreliable in this aspect, I don't always check for links to catch my links, and I'm not shelling money out for the long referral list on the WFA stat counter. I'm only doing this so long as I can up my blood pressure for free, dammit.
And if I've linked you once, I may not find you again. Whether I consider the site worth remembering depends on how many posts about the subject in question you had on your front page and my mental state at the time I found you.
There are two reliable ways to get linked on When Fangirls Attack. First, there is contact information for both myself and Kalinara on the sidebar. Use it. Email your link to us. If it is not on topic, we will ignore you. If it is, we will link you. Second, comments on When Fangirls Attack are once again open (and if I see fifty comments questioning our policies again, I will make you all pay somehow) and you can leave your link there.
That said, Written World is my fucking blog. Not yours. My comment section is not your fucking soapbox. I know that sounds childish, but Blogger and Wordpress and Livejournal and Insanejournal are all free services. You can get your own fucking blog and say whatever the fuck you want and delete whatever comments you like and be as rude or nice as you want. (If you are blogging about women in comics, let me know in one of the two reliable ways, I will link you on WFA.) If you're going to be long-winded, make it worth my while. If not, write a post on your own fucking blog and link it in the comments of the appropriate (links on a post that have shit to do with the link will be deleted according to my whims, even if they are from blood relatives and/or about women in comics) post here. (If it is about women in comics, I will link you on WFA.)
However, I'm not completely heartless. If you would like to play with my trolls, feel free. I don't mind if you break them.
Quote
And further, I would say that that would be something anybody could read about. Thats not--and I'll put this in quotes--"a male power fantasy." I just read that again today and boy did that piss me off--when somebody was talking about comic books--"Typical male power fantasy"--Well no, its not. There's nothing male about it. Its a power fantasy. Everybody has them.-- Lene Taylor, I Read Comics Show #58 (About 3/4 of the way through, and she follows up with a rant on art)
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
More Death of the New Gods Ranting
(Because I have to get this out of my system.)
I mean, what were they thinking? That convention season's a few months off so we'll all pissed at Marvel by the time they have to face us? That no one'll notice? That no one'll throw things at a Comicon panel?
Gooey things, like rotten tomatoes and glops of pudding and jello.
Or did they fucking do it on purpose? To get us riled up. So that in a few months they'll leak a preview image of her in Final Crisis and they can ride the "YAY! She's BACK!!!!" reaction. Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe its because I've seen enough cool female characters killed off then not resurrected as planned (Arisia) or resurrected only to have the death remain in continuity while the resurrection is forgotten (Katma Tui) already that this bugs me. That its a first-issue death that might be undone soon doesn't really soften this blow.
No, on second thought, its the kitchen. Katma died in the same fucking stupid way. Its the fucking kitchen that pisses me off. Even if she's back next issue. Its the fucking kitchen.
I don't like to attribute to malice what can be attributed to cluelessness, but this is a fucking kitchen floor dammit! How can they not have known what it says to readers when they have the body of a female character found on the fucking kitchen floor?!?!
The only way to get closer to referencing Women in Refrigerators is to actually put her in the refrigerator!!!
And its Starlin. He's tricky. A tricky bastard of a writer who probably enjoys watching women yell at him. I wouldn't put this past him. Not for a moment.
Fuck you even if it is a trick Starlin. Because that means you knew. You did it on purpose to piss us off so you could laugh at us. Fuck you, and the editor who signed off on this.
And no, I'm not buying the fucking series just to see if you resurrect her or if you leave the job to someone else. So stuff it old man!
I mean, what were they thinking? That convention season's a few months off so we'll all pissed at Marvel by the time they have to face us? That no one'll notice? That no one'll throw things at a Comicon panel?
Gooey things, like rotten tomatoes and glops of pudding and jello.
Or did they fucking do it on purpose? To get us riled up. So that in a few months they'll leak a preview image of her in Final Crisis and they can ride the "YAY! She's BACK!!!!" reaction. Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe its because I've seen enough cool female characters killed off then not resurrected as planned (Arisia) or resurrected only to have the death remain in continuity while the resurrection is forgotten (Katma Tui) already that this bugs me. That its a first-issue death that might be undone soon doesn't really soften this blow.
No, on second thought, its the kitchen. Katma died in the same fucking stupid way. Its the fucking kitchen that pisses me off. Even if she's back next issue. Its the fucking kitchen.
I don't like to attribute to malice what can be attributed to cluelessness, but this is a fucking kitchen floor dammit! How can they not have known what it says to readers when they have the body of a female character found on the fucking kitchen floor?!?!
The only way to get closer to referencing Women in Refrigerators is to actually put her in the refrigerator!!!
And its Starlin. He's tricky. A tricky bastard of a writer who probably enjoys watching women yell at him. I wouldn't put this past him. Not for a moment.
Fuck you even if it is a trick Starlin. Because that means you knew. You did it on purpose to piss us off so you could laugh at us. Fuck you, and the editor who signed off on this.
And no, I'm not buying the fucking series just to see if you resurrect her or if you leave the job to someone else. So stuff it old man!
Wait a minute...
Why is it that people who answer feminist critique with "This is nothing new" don't seem to realize that that's pretty much the whole problem? That it goes on, that's its been going on, that a whole bunch of people are getting fed up with it and we're reaching the point where creators are going to find themselves dodging thrown maxi pads at conventions if they don't learn to fucking shape up right fucking away?
Then, on the other hand, part of me wants to say "No, it wasn't this bad. I started reading in the fucking 90s, and it wasn't this bad. There were T&A characters, and I ignored them, but the characters I liked got treated with respect and at some point that started to erode and now I'm just trying to get through this anti-woman nightmare period by complaining about the problems so I won't have to give up on the male characters I love as the only way I can avoid watching all the female characters I love are being dragged through pigshit of varying viscosity in order to conform to the wish-fulfillment fantasies of some jackass creator and his flock of jackass fans because the 21st Century is apparently the ideal time to put uppity women back in their place after that nasty feminist movement."
I think there's an ebb and flow, and we'll have a few years of decent female character treatment followed by a few years of backlash. I figure that's why it seems like things are getting worse when in the past they have been this bad before, because right before this we had a period of relative calm and complacency. So we get this illusion of this sort of thing having been "always there" at the same time we get the creeping feeling things are getting so much worse.
Then, on the other hand, part of me wants to say "No, it wasn't this bad. I started reading in the fucking 90s, and it wasn't this bad. There were T&A characters, and I ignored them, but the characters I liked got treated with respect and at some point that started to erode and now I'm just trying to get through this anti-woman nightmare period by complaining about the problems so I won't have to give up on the male characters I love as the only way I can avoid watching all the female characters I love are being dragged through pigshit of varying viscosity in order to conform to the wish-fulfillment fantasies of some jackass creator and his flock of jackass fans because the 21st Century is apparently the ideal time to put uppity women back in their place after that nasty feminist movement."
I think there's an ebb and flow, and we'll have a few years of decent female character treatment followed by a few years of backlash. I figure that's why it seems like things are getting worse when in the past they have been this bad before, because right before this we had a period of relative calm and complacency. So we get this illusion of this sort of thing having been "always there" at the same time we get the creeping feeling things are getting so much worse.
Death of the New Gods Spoilers (Big one)
I still think this is a trick, and that if it isn't it'll all be undone after the next crossover. These characters aren't ever really gone.
But still..
On the kitchen floor?
No signs of battle?
Katma Tui-style.
You killed that character on the fucking kitchen floor.
That character.
Okay, not only had this better be a trick, this had better be a trick undone next fucking issue because anything less than an immediate "there is no way she could possibly die like this so its obvious that the whole matter is a HOAX" is an insult and proves that somebody at DC clearly has their head up their ass.
And reminds me I'm still pissed off about Katma.
But still..
On the kitchen floor?
No signs of battle?
Katma Tui-style.
You killed that character on the fucking kitchen floor.
That character.
Okay, not only had this better be a trick, this had better be a trick undone next fucking issue because anything less than an immediate "there is no way she could possibly die like this so its obvious that the whole matter is a HOAX" is an insult and proves that somebody at DC clearly has their head up their ass.
And reminds me I'm still pissed off about Katma.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Oh, this is lovely...
I love it when people comment on two-week old posts and expect you won't notice:
1) I'm full of hatred for daring to say that I dislike something I would have to pay money for myself.
2) I'm a feeble little worm because it often prevents me from spending money I otherwise would.
3) I'm jealous because I find much of his work exploitive and insulting to the female form.
4) I know nothing of art because I'm not forced to pander to the lowest common denominator (usually the basest of human desires) so that I can scrape up a profit.
5) My opinion does not matter, because the man makes money.
6) I do nothing but spew hatred on a computer when I state my opinion in a public forum.
7) All of the listed companies know better than I do, because they make money at it.
We're all on the same page now, right?
This post is stupid, mean, and spiteful. These people get on Newsarama just to state how bad they think Greg Horn’s art is when the truth is so plainly the oppposite? You guys are all just haters. Take a look at Greg Horn’s client list (pasted from his website at www.greghornjudge.com) over the past 6 years and PLEASE explain to me why all these art directors and brand managers are WRONG and you are RIGHT? These art directors are trying to preserve their livelihoods by hiring the best possible talent! Meanwhile, you guys are giving your hateful opinions for free. I think you guys are feeble little worms, AND you are jealous jealous haters. Quit hatin’!!!So, to recap:
D_Nife187
GREG HORN’S CLIENT LIST:
Marvel Comics
Allstate Insurance Company (LEO BURNETT)
Nike (WIEDEN & KENNEDY)
MAD magazine
Powerade (WB)
ESPN Gamezone (WB)
2K GAMES
Electronic Arts- EA SPORTS
Random House Publishing
Universal Studios/ Vivendi Games
Top Cow Productions
Virgin Comics
Wizard Entertainment magazine
Official XBOX magazine
Bacardi.com
HIP Interactive
3D Realms
Warner Bros.
Mattel (WB)
Jumbo Games (Big Ideas)
Penguin books (The Berkley Publishing Group)
Carlsberg Lager (Saatchi & Saatchi)
GM General Motors (McLaren McCann)
Integrated Beverage Group
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus
Image Comics
Pontiac (Marvel Comics)
Blizzard entertainment
Sony Online Entertainment
Digital Extremes
Dynamic Forces
Clampett Studios (WB)
Wizards of the Coast
Inquest Gamer magazine
ToyFare magazine
Bicycle playing Cards
100% Playstation magazine
PSE Playstation Entertainment
PCGamer magazine
Devil’s Due publishing
Fantasy Imperium (Shadowstar Games)
Harris Comics
Malibu Comics
Fleer Corporation -Overpower card set
Diamond Select
Platinum Studios
GREG HORN’S ART WORK SELLS COMIC BOOKS AND MERCHANDISE ALL OVER THE WORLD, WHILE YOU SPEW PURE HATRED ON A KEYBOARD. How’s that working out for ya?
1) I'm full of hatred for daring to say that I dislike something I would have to pay money for myself.
2) I'm a feeble little worm because it often prevents me from spending money I otherwise would.
3) I'm jealous because I find much of his work exploitive and insulting to the female form.
4) I know nothing of art because I'm not forced to pander to the lowest common denominator (usually the basest of human desires) so that I can scrape up a profit.
5) My opinion does not matter, because the man makes money.
6) I do nothing but spew hatred on a computer when I state my opinion in a public forum.
7) All of the listed companies know better than I do, because they make money at it.
We're all on the same page now, right?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I haven't bashed the Perez Reboot in a while...
You know, I don't always agree with Scipio when it comes to women in comics. (I actually tend to rub my hands together wickedly in anticipation when I see him post specifically about feminism because I am a bad bad person who likes to watch people fight.)
This time he hit the nail on the head:
To be fair, I believe it was Greg Potter and Len Wein who plotted and scripted the first storyarc of the reboot, the retrofitted origin story, while Perez did art. Perez took over writing chores with issue 5 or 6. Still, the Bana-Mighdall nightmare parody of feminism is Perez's fault.
This time he hit the nail on the head:
But writers seems intent on using Hercules as a bad guy. Maybe that's because, as much as she needs friends, WW needs enemies even more. Personally, I blame George Perez, who needed a cheap and easy Overbearing Male Bad Guy from myth to use in the version of the Amazons' origin he wanted to tell. Instead of using the traditional version of Amazons (the one used by both the Ancients and Marston) -- buttkicking women warriors who founded a society that didn't need men -- Perez chose to make them victims.Putting rape into the backstory of the entire population of Themiscyra is just one of a long list of WW reboot sins. (That list also includes sucking the life out of the Gods, making Wonder Woman a newbie after Crisis when the other franchise leaders were kept as experienced heroes, and removing the love interest.)
Why? Because in Perez's mind and time, the only people with virtue are victims, and all villains are victimizers. If you remember, Perez's Amazons were formed from the souls of women who'd been the victims of male aggression and violence. Because, you know, gods forbid women should decide to do anything except as a reaction to or consequence of men!
So he made Hercules an Evil Male, who deceived Hippolyta (et al.) with promises of love, then drugged, enslaved, and raped her. So that the gods could criticize the Amazons for being soft-hearted, trusting, and open to love; women's weaknesses! So the gods could punish them for being equally open to both war and love; so the gods could punish them for being well-rounded people instead of axe-wielding mankillers (so blame Perez the Scythian for that, not Pfeiffer). Once again, Perez paints the Amazons not as exemplars, but as victims.
To be fair, I believe it was Greg Potter and Len Wein who plotted and scripted the first storyarc of the reboot, the retrofitted origin story, while Perez did art. Perez took over writing chores with issue 5 or 6. Still, the Bana-Mighdall nightmare parody of feminism is Perez's fault.
Proof DC pays attention to complaining fans...
...and tries to get money off of them without giving them exactly what they want. From the January Solicits:
As a Green Lantern fan who bought so many Hal Jordan flashback stories, this really made me laugh. The editors may change, but the business never actually does.
(Thanks for catching this one Matt.)
JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL HCA hardcover.
Written by Keith Giffen & J.M. DeMatteis
Cover by Maguire & Austin
Art by Kevin Maguire, Terry Austin and Al Gordon
A new hardcover collecting the classic JUSTICE LEAGUE #1-6 and JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL #7 from the late 1980s! Can an unlikely new Justice League line-up work as a unit to stop terrorists at the U.N., a brigade of Rocket Reds, the Royal Flush Gang, and other threats — or will they succumb to in-fighting and bad jokes?
Advance-solicited; in stores March 12 • FC, 192 pg, $24.99 US
As a Green Lantern fan who bought so many Hal Jordan flashback stories, this really made me laugh. The editors may change, but the business never actually does.
(Thanks for catching this one Matt.)
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
See, we're not so crazy after all! (More Dark is Rising stuff)
As a fan, I've had a lot of people tell me "the movie doesn't have to be just like the book!" and that I'm overreacting when they change something stupid and it annoys me. Now, personally I think I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to movie changes I don't think Superman: Doomsday butchered the plot of a graphic novel, but rather told a lovely alternate version of that story. Same for the DCU animated series from the past ten or fifteen years, the last two X-men cartoons, and the Batman Begins. (X-3, on the other hand, was like someone took a jackhammer to the X-Men mythos, but I digress). Change can be good in a good movie.
Still, I get "You're overreacting" a lot when I complain about a Hollywoodized property.
Its not often I see anything along the lines of "Maybe you're not being that melodramatic." Today I saw something like that:
Okay, so the reviewer isn't completely on our side, but she changed her mind about making fun of us. That's better than I (dyed-in-the-wool Green Lantern fan that I am) usually see. She says after that she doesn't fully empathize, but she's asking for people to share the traumatic destruction of their childhood favorites as they moved from book to film. Go share.
And as long as I'm sharing Seeker reviews, these guys are pretty mean to the movie.
Still, I get "You're overreacting" a lot when I complain about a Hollywoodized property.
Its not often I see anything along the lines of "Maybe you're not being that melodramatic." Today I saw something like that:
However, when properly processing the aforementioned list of changes, it does seem like director David Cunningham and writer John Hodge stepped over the line. I can see the justification for a large number of the modifications (which mostly seemed geared towards increasing conflict and tension), but in total it's a pretty dramatic reinvention of the story. For one thing, instead of learning about his powers by magically absorbing the content of an ancient text, our young hero learns about "the light and the dark" by Googling it. For real.(Googling, good god.)
Okay, so the reviewer isn't completely on our side, but she changed her mind about making fun of us. That's better than I (dyed-in-the-wool Green Lantern fan that I am) usually see. She says after that she doesn't fully empathize, but she's asking for people to share the traumatic destruction of their childhood favorites as they moved from book to film. Go share.
And as long as I'm sharing Seeker reviews, these guys are pretty mean to the movie.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Countdown 29
Oh thank you. That character has been treading on my nerves since he was introduced.
Now, can anyone tell me what the fucking point of his existence was?
Now, can anyone tell me what the fucking point of his existence was?
Green Lantern #24 Spoilers
Dear Geoff Johns,
Its time to talk. You have a serious problem. You need help with your dialogue.
Okay, maybe your word processor deleted a few lines in that Kyle-Hal scene. (And in that exchange between Parallax and John, because John's line about staying black came out of nowhere.) But there's not excuse for Kyle's words on the last panel. I know what you intended, it didn't work.
Also, work on your timing. Just because we all know to expect several issues of action that amounts to twiddling your thumbs and then an issue where everything happens at once (well, everything happens one panel after another, but he always packs more in the issue right before the resolution than in the past year of the series, and things seem to move too fast).
Bad stuff out of the way, I liked this issue. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want Kyle free without any help, but I think the way it unfolds works nicely.
I can't express how happy I am you had Hal point out that he had help from the fucking Spectre. I was beginning to think you retconned that out, and it would be annoying. Now, I'm going to go ahead and assume Kyle's stronger since Hal needed an entity of Biblical power, the embodied wrath of God, to get him loose and Kyle just needed a pep talk.
I'm also a little annoyed that Guy was so quick with those construct shorts, but we can't have everything we hope for. I'm going to lose money on the lack of a scar, but we have two months for aftermath stories and there's a chance that Reis missed it.
Thank you for turning Kyle back to a regular Green Lantern, and thank whoever designed that new costume. (except the mask -- what is it about Kyle and masks?) I hope it has a zipper. It looks like the top is a zip-up jacket and I think it would be cool to have him standing around with the coat part unzipped and a Green Lantern T-shirt.
I look forward to the next installment.
Its time to talk. You have a serious problem. You need help with your dialogue.
Okay, maybe your word processor deleted a few lines in that Kyle-Hal scene. (And in that exchange between Parallax and John, because John's line about staying black came out of nowhere.) But there's not excuse for Kyle's words on the last panel. I know what you intended, it didn't work.
Also, work on your timing. Just because we all know to expect several issues of action that amounts to twiddling your thumbs and then an issue where everything happens at once (well, everything happens one panel after another, but he always packs more in the issue right before the resolution than in the past year of the series, and things seem to move too fast).
Bad stuff out of the way, I liked this issue. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want Kyle free without any help, but I think the way it unfolds works nicely.
I can't express how happy I am you had Hal point out that he had help from the fucking Spectre. I was beginning to think you retconned that out, and it would be annoying. Now, I'm going to go ahead and assume Kyle's stronger since Hal needed an entity of Biblical power, the embodied wrath of God, to get him loose and Kyle just needed a pep talk.
I'm also a little annoyed that Guy was so quick with those construct shorts, but we can't have everything we hope for. I'm going to lose money on the lack of a scar, but we have two months for aftermath stories and there's a chance that Reis missed it.
Thank you for turning Kyle back to a regular Green Lantern, and thank whoever designed that new costume. (except the mask -- what is it about Kyle and masks?) I hope it has a zipper. It looks like the top is a zip-up jacket and I think it would be cool to have him standing around with the coat part unzipped and a Green Lantern T-shirt.
I look forward to the next installment.
Monday, October 08, 2007
"We never said that bad bad thing!"
Deny, deny, deny...
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!
Hello,I hope they're not counting Wonder Woman, because I've seen that slated to be released in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007...
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
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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:
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.
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.And Warner Bros Entertainment on the Time-Warner site turns up this:
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY10019-8016
Phone 212.4848000
Susan FleishmanIf anyone is better investigator, please tell me what you turn up.
Phone 818.954.1919
Corporate Communications Office
Phone 818.954.7304
Sunday, October 07, 2007
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 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.)
Saturday, October 06, 2007
I'm not flying off the handle... Yet...
(Via) From Newsarama:
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:
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.
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 producersOriginal 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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 05, 2007
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 say DC owes us a real Wonder Woman Annual.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
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?
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?
Friday, September 28, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, September 24, 2007
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
*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.
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
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?
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.)
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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 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.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
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?
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.
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
December Solicits
From Newsarama:
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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Yeesh
Take a look at this:
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.
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
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.
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.
And of course all the stores are closed when I get a chance to notice.
Monday, September 10, 2007
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."
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."
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Basics
Kitty in Lyle's comments about treatment of straight white male vs. other characters:
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)