Terry Pratchett, recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's, has given half a million pounds (about one million dollars) to Alzhiemer's research foundations. There's a charity drive on challenging his fans to collectively match his donation.
Match it For Pratchett
Look, it's kind of hard for me to come up with words to push this. There's a lot worthwhile places to put a spare couple bucks. This one, though, is pretty important to me. My Great-Grandmother had Alzheimer's, and I got to see just how devastating this illness is at a very young age. And honestly, it scares me more than anything else that happens when you grow up. I had relatives with Diabetes, heart problems, cancer, arthritis and a host of illnesses. I had one grandmother who constantly advised me never to get old. But none of that, even the stuff keeping people in their bed constantly seemed to me to be as horrible as Alzheimer's. Her daughter, a woman who had spent a good deal of time traveling the world before her mother got ill, stayed with her to take care of her. We went over her house regularly. It was where all the family gatherings were. She didn't usually seem to recognize us. There was one Halloween when she had no candy, and we came there to trick or treat. So she went to give us some of those chalky Canadian mints she kept around. I was young, and we'd just had a long lecture on safe trick-or-treating, and I said I wasn't supposed to take something unwrapped. I'll never forget her posture, I hadn't realized I'd said something wrong but it was clear I had. She seemed to not have caught up with the conversation. We were talking more around her than to her. It was how it always was there, though, but this was the first time she seemed self-conscious about it to me. I still feel guilty about that.
And I remember when I got older and snuck upstairs in my Great-Grandmother's house I once found a room full of paintings. Pretty nature scenes, mostly, in those ornate golden wood frames. A few of them weren't finished. It turned out she'd painted not only them, but a picture that had been hanging in our living room as long as I could remember. I'd always been a kid who loved drawing and writing and making up stories, and I had trouble with the art so I was very impressed with her talent. That was the saddest thing of all, I think. Having had so much talent before. And now not recognizing her grandkids.
Alzheimer's is scarier than death. Consider a donation, or at least spreading the word.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Remnants of My Partially-Remembered Youth
There was a surprise at the comic book store when I went to get my copy of Green Lantern Corps. My local shop had four boxes of My Little Pony sets. This wasn't a complete surprise, given how much of this store is dedicated to Hello Kitty collectibles.
What was a surprise was that they were anniversary sets, remakes of 1984 Ponies.
I remember very few toys that were definitely mine growing up, and it's entirely possible that my favorites were hand-me-downs from my sister. But many of my cherished (thought cloudy) childhood memories are of me playing with a yellow winged pony. I cut her hair. I drew on her wings. I may have burned one of her legs. But she was my favorite toy for years.
And she was at the comic book store.
Yeah, I shelled out the money. I'd been having an exceptionally crummy day and just seeing these packs cheered me up.
I was so excited that rather than read my comics tonight (Yes, rather than read Green Lantern Corps and Wonder Woman), I instead sat down to fix the hair on each pony so that it would flop properly on the side of the head. (They pack it in the package so it will look windswept, but the tape and the little plastic piece make it end up very messy and vertical when it's time to play. You have to wet the hair and comb it in the proper style.)
Also, I've been reading word-books. Why did no one ever recommend The King in Yellow to me?
What was a surprise was that they were anniversary sets, remakes of 1984 Ponies.
I remember very few toys that were definitely mine growing up, and it's entirely possible that my favorites were hand-me-downs from my sister. But many of my cherished (thought cloudy) childhood memories are of me playing with a yellow winged pony. I cut her hair. I drew on her wings. I may have burned one of her legs. But she was my favorite toy for years.
And she was at the comic book store.
Yeah, I shelled out the money. I'd been having an exceptionally crummy day and just seeing these packs cheered me up.
I was so excited that rather than read my comics tonight (Yes, rather than read Green Lantern Corps and Wonder Woman), I instead sat down to fix the hair on each pony so that it would flop properly on the side of the head. (They pack it in the package so it will look windswept, but the tape and the little plastic piece make it end up very messy and vertical when it's time to play. You have to wet the hair and comb it in the proper style.)
Also, I've been reading word-books. Why did no one ever recommend The King in Yellow to me?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A Momentary Glimpse at my Magnificent Social Prowess
Yes, I am actually answering comments again! Or at least this one:
But I digress (habitually). One of my motives for starting the blog (along with venting so as not to spend another dinner describing to a blind date why the Yellow Weakness in Green Lantern was the Best Arbitrary Silver Age Weakness Ever -- I'm still waiting on him to call me back) was to get used to writing regularly, so that someday I could pursue a career as a writer (It was also one of my Super-Secret Super-Silly Reasons for Joining the Military because hey, seeing the world worked for Hemingway! -- Don't judge, I was seventeen, there was no way I was getting a decent college but I had to get out of my hometown that year or I was destined to end up as a little old spinster lady working for the historical society who was saving her pennies to finally take that trip to Niagara Falls so she could see another country for the first time in her memory! and it seemed to please my parents. After all, my father was laughing when he signed the age waiver. He had to have been happy) and gain fame and legendary status as one of the luminaries of my generation! (Plus being a writer is a great excuse to act weird.) Closed comments would be a way to get used to writing and just leaving it rather than continuing a conversation forever. (I imagine editing would help with the run-on sentences and choppy writing, but I'm not going to edit the shit out of blog posts. Too much work for a hobby.)
Thing is, I like my comments. I like the instant gratification of praise from consistent readers. I like to see what holes were in my argument, and see if someone can use it as a piggyback for another idea. I like watching a conversation that I started form. Most of all, I like seeing that someone read what I wrote.
That's part of why I get frustrated at times. The reaction is often not what I was hoping for, and I was indeed hoping for a reaction. Sometimes I steam over a misinterpretation or respond rudely or politely or steer the subject to a different place. I lose my temper when the content of a comment indicates that someone didn't read what I wrote and they just want to use my comment section for their soapbox. There's not a problem with using one post to point out something about your own pet peeves/issues/ideas, but when I want to use someone else's post as a jumping off point for my own rant, I come back here to do it. If something's spam or overly rude or from someone I completely despise, I roll my eyes and delete it. If something grates on my nerves, I write a post ranting about my commenters. If I feel playful, I can wade in there and fight. If I'm bored I can watch you guys fight.
To summarize: I read comments when I want to talk to people. I want the comments there for the times I do.
So why don't I moderate, then?
Well, because of the times I don't want to read my comments.
I get email notifications, but I have a nifty little filter that sends comments to a little file that I check when I feel up to reading comments. When I don't, I simply don't bother with the file until I do. If a thread has gotten out of hand, I'll often just ignore all comments marked with that thread title. The conversation continues, people enjoy themselves, and I can look through it at my leisure. If the conversation has gotten to a very stupid track or I'm tired of arguing that point or I'm just not interested in the topic anymore? I never have to read those comments, so I just let the thread die on it's own. Hell, sometimes I'm overworked at my dayjob so I don't check the comments for long periods of time so the file has gotten intimidatingly full, so I just start a new thread and continue on from there.
See, if I moderated, I would have to read all of those comments in order for any conversation to take place. I don't want to do that. I don't have the time. I don't have the energy. I don't have the interest. I don't have the patience. There are more enjoyable uses for my time. (Such as fighting with the commenters that I do read.)
Also, the control. A lot of people like moderation because they get control over what's said on their blogs. I don't care that much. I'm not your Mama. (I'm your MAMA DENTATA! *Ahem*) I'll tell you off if you offended me and I feel like telling you off, but I'm not going to be responsible for what's written by someone else. And I enjoy watching the conversation weave in unexpected ways. It's fun and exciting! That's not going to happen if every leg of the conversation is waiting for me to come home and release it every night. People'll lose interest. I'll lose interest.
To summarize: Moderating would force me to confront frustrations that I can avoid. Moderating would take more work. Moderating would take the joy that I get from my comments out of my comments.
To summarize the entire post so far: Blogging is a fun hobby. I enjoy comments sometimes. They sometimes piss me off, but turning off the comments would make blogging less fun. And moderating the comments would make blogging more work. More work would make blogging less fun. Complaining about the comments is simply more blogging, and so it allows me to get a small amount of fun and writing practice out of being pissed off.
I've been thinking about this entry for a while now, off and on, and I've been wondering...I have considered going to closed comments. I confess to a bit of jealousy about some of the nice, calm, commentless blogs out there. (Particularly when I do a Blog@Newsarama post.) It would be better for my, because when I read my comments I often have a compulsion to answer them or stew about them. Partially I want to be proven right, partially because I want the last word, but mostly because I enjoy seeing the conversation go on for a very long time at some points. I've been working on a "Let the commenters talk amongst themselves in the comment section and pipe in on a different post" policy for a number of reasons. It's less work and energy for me, it's less repeating myself and rephrasing myself which gets tedious, it takes the conversation in a more interesting direction when I can't predict either side, it's a way to get my opinion out there but not actually interact with people and the whole reason I'm on the Internet is because I'm a terribly unpleasant person trying to avoid interacting with people, and it prevents me from getting into arguments that escalate to the point that some dude deletes all his comments, and his blog, and proceeds to spend the next two years complaining about me and my friends in any comment section that seems even the slightest bit sympathetic to his situation.
Have you ever thought about disabling comments? I don't mean to imply that you can't handle criticism, or anything, but it honestly does seem that they provide you with more stress than entertainment. You've posted on more than one occasion about frustrating or irritating commenters, and there's even a little "warning" in the sidebar of your blog about it.
I mean this as friendly advice, and I hope it doesn't upset you. I'm just saying that you can get rid of them if you think it'll make you happier. Comments aren't mandatory. If you don't enjoy reading them, disable them. Nobody's going to think any less of you. (And if they do, you'll never know! :) )
But I digress (habitually). One of my motives for starting the blog (along with venting so as not to spend another dinner describing to a blind date why the Yellow Weakness in Green Lantern was the Best Arbitrary Silver Age Weakness Ever -- I'm still waiting on him to call me back) was to get used to writing regularly, so that someday I could pursue a career as a writer (It was also one of my Super-Secret Super-Silly Reasons for Joining the Military because hey, seeing the world worked for Hemingway! -- Don't judge, I was seventeen, there was no way I was getting a decent college but I had to get out of my hometown that year or I was destined to end up as a little old spinster lady working for the historical society who was saving her pennies to finally take that trip to Niagara Falls so she could see another country for the first time in her memory! and it seemed to please my parents. After all, my father was laughing when he signed the age waiver. He had to have been happy) and gain fame and legendary status as one of the luminaries of my generation! (Plus being a writer is a great excuse to act weird.) Closed comments would be a way to get used to writing and just leaving it rather than continuing a conversation forever. (I imagine editing would help with the run-on sentences and choppy writing, but I'm not going to edit the shit out of blog posts. Too much work for a hobby.)
Thing is, I like my comments. I like the instant gratification of praise from consistent readers. I like to see what holes were in my argument, and see if someone can use it as a piggyback for another idea. I like watching a conversation that I started form. Most of all, I like seeing that someone read what I wrote.
That's part of why I get frustrated at times. The reaction is often not what I was hoping for, and I was indeed hoping for a reaction. Sometimes I steam over a misinterpretation or respond rudely or politely or steer the subject to a different place. I lose my temper when the content of a comment indicates that someone didn't read what I wrote and they just want to use my comment section for their soapbox. There's not a problem with using one post to point out something about your own pet peeves/issues/ideas, but when I want to use someone else's post as a jumping off point for my own rant, I come back here to do it. If something's spam or overly rude or from someone I completely despise, I roll my eyes and delete it. If something grates on my nerves, I write a post ranting about my commenters. If I feel playful, I can wade in there and fight. If I'm bored I can watch you guys fight.
To summarize: I read comments when I want to talk to people. I want the comments there for the times I do.
So why don't I moderate, then?
Well, because of the times I don't want to read my comments.
I get email notifications, but I have a nifty little filter that sends comments to a little file that I check when I feel up to reading comments. When I don't, I simply don't bother with the file until I do. If a thread has gotten out of hand, I'll often just ignore all comments marked with that thread title. The conversation continues, people enjoy themselves, and I can look through it at my leisure. If the conversation has gotten to a very stupid track or I'm tired of arguing that point or I'm just not interested in the topic anymore? I never have to read those comments, so I just let the thread die on it's own. Hell, sometimes I'm overworked at my dayjob so I don't check the comments for long periods of time so the file has gotten intimidatingly full, so I just start a new thread and continue on from there.
See, if I moderated, I would have to read all of those comments in order for any conversation to take place. I don't want to do that. I don't have the time. I don't have the energy. I don't have the interest. I don't have the patience. There are more enjoyable uses for my time. (Such as fighting with the commenters that I do read.)
Also, the control. A lot of people like moderation because they get control over what's said on their blogs. I don't care that much. I'm not your Mama. (I'm your MAMA DENTATA! *Ahem*) I'll tell you off if you offended me and I feel like telling you off, but I'm not going to be responsible for what's written by someone else. And I enjoy watching the conversation weave in unexpected ways. It's fun and exciting! That's not going to happen if every leg of the conversation is waiting for me to come home and release it every night. People'll lose interest. I'll lose interest.
To summarize: Moderating would force me to confront frustrations that I can avoid. Moderating would take more work. Moderating would take the joy that I get from my comments out of my comments.
To summarize the entire post so far: Blogging is a fun hobby. I enjoy comments sometimes. They sometimes piss me off, but turning off the comments would make blogging less fun. And moderating the comments would make blogging more work. More work would make blogging less fun. Complaining about the comments is simply more blogging, and so it allows me to get a small amount of fun and writing practice out of being pissed off.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
I ate'nt dead.
I'm just watching lots of rented horror movies.
I wish I could avoid subtitles. I don't mind subtitles for a regular show, but for a horror movie it means you have to keep watching the screen even when there's a really gory part or a particularly startling image. I'm too much of a wuss for one.
Still, some of these Korean and Japanese films don't come dubbed. And they look really creepy. (And are no doubt better than the Hollywood remakes). After napping through four years of High School Spanish, I'm pretty sure I don't have the ability to learn Korean. So my options are limited.
Plus I spent my damned money, and I'm going to see my movie.
I wish I could avoid subtitles. I don't mind subtitles for a regular show, but for a horror movie it means you have to keep watching the screen even when there's a really gory part or a particularly startling image. I'm too much of a wuss for one.
Still, some of these Korean and Japanese films don't come dubbed. And they look really creepy. (And are no doubt better than the Hollywood remakes). After napping through four years of High School Spanish, I'm pretty sure I don't have the ability to learn Korean. So my options are limited.
Plus I spent my damned money, and I'm going to see my movie.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
For Future Reference
I like the Parallax retcon. Not just the results, but I like the idea. I think that Emerald Twilight was abrupt (though yes, there were some character moments prior to it that screamed "Not normal"), and that mind control explains it perfectly. I have no problems with the cheesiness of a giant yellow grasshopper (fFROM OUTER SPAAAACE!!!) with the ability to control minds, possess bodies, and instill fear in the hearts of sentient beings. We're talking about superhero comic books here, after all.
I think the retcon fits seamlessly into continuity. I don't think it ruins the previous stories. I even think that there are points where Ron Marz left the option out to explain Hal's behavior as the result of mind control/possession (Emerald Knights) so it fits very well in there. I think it is awesome to have all the Lanterns active, and the GLC back.
I like that it was the Guardians fault this thing got out.
I don't mind the re-explanation of the yellow weakness.
I don't think that Hal needs to be responsible or punished for his actions during and after Emerald Twilight. He's a comic book character.
I don't mind that he's angsty over the Parallax thing. Or that he lost some face. Or that he gained it back.
I think it was cool that Kyle got possessed, because that was always his big fear.
I like the Fear theme to the Green Lantern franchise. I find it relevant to today's society. I find it comforting to escape into a story where a hero literally has to wrestle with willpower and emotions.
I kind of like that the emotions are represented by colors and big psychic energy organisms.
I find it fun and appropriate that, when revealed, that the Personification of Fear is a fucking absurd concept that nevertheless would make you shit your pants were you to meet it.
I'm not saying Geoff Johns is a genius. I'm not saying that we are wasting our time discussing comic books. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you if you disagree with me.
I'm just saying that I like it, and I would like the commenters who don't like it to avoid pissing in my cheerios when I'm happy over Green Lantern. There is precious little that I get joyful about, and I would like these feelings of joy to be sustained as long as possible.
I think the retcon fits seamlessly into continuity. I don't think it ruins the previous stories. I even think that there are points where Ron Marz left the option out to explain Hal's behavior as the result of mind control/possession (Emerald Knights) so it fits very well in there. I think it is awesome to have all the Lanterns active, and the GLC back.
I like that it was the Guardians fault this thing got out.
I don't mind the re-explanation of the yellow weakness.
I don't think that Hal needs to be responsible or punished for his actions during and after Emerald Twilight. He's a comic book character.
I don't mind that he's angsty over the Parallax thing. Or that he lost some face. Or that he gained it back.
I think it was cool that Kyle got possessed, because that was always his big fear.
I like the Fear theme to the Green Lantern franchise. I find it relevant to today's society. I find it comforting to escape into a story where a hero literally has to wrestle with willpower and emotions.
I kind of like that the emotions are represented by colors and big psychic energy organisms.
I find it fun and appropriate that, when revealed, that the Personification of Fear is a fucking absurd concept that nevertheless would make you shit your pants were you to meet it.
I'm not saying Geoff Johns is a genius. I'm not saying that we are wasting our time discussing comic books. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you if you disagree with me.
I'm just saying that I like it, and I would like the commenters who don't like it to avoid pissing in my cheerios when I'm happy over Green Lantern. There is precious little that I get joyful about, and I would like these feelings of joy to be sustained as long as possible.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Yay!!!
Newsarama has a GL#28 preview up.
Check out the narration box in the upper left corner of the first page, telling you where the first scene is located. (It's kind of spoilery)
I've been waiting for them to bring this one up since Rebirth.
Check out the narration box in the upper left corner of the first page, telling you where the first scene is located. (It's kind of spoilery)
I've been waiting for them to bring this one up since Rebirth.
Carnival Notes
I know I've been slacking on the blogging lately. 2008 has been... interesting. And promises to get moreso.
But I am still alive, and I have a responsibility I need to catch up on.
See, while I was so caught up in my runaway February, the 20th Feminist SF/F Carnival was posted on the Podblack Blog. (Sorry Kylie!) And I've been neglecting to link it, or find a host for the 21st.
Well, enjoy the Carnival if you didn't find it on your own, and if you're interested in hosting #21 drop me an email.
And if you need more to read: POC in SF Carnival #8: Intra-Racial Dialogues - What Lies Between Us (Willow needs a host for March, too.)
But I am still alive, and I have a responsibility I need to catch up on.
See, while I was so caught up in my runaway February, the 20th Feminist SF/F Carnival was posted on the Podblack Blog. (Sorry Kylie!) And I've been neglecting to link it, or find a host for the 21st.
Well, enjoy the Carnival if you didn't find it on your own, and if you're interested in hosting #21 drop me an email.
And if you need more to read: POC in SF Carnival #8: Intra-Racial Dialogues - What Lies Between Us (Willow needs a host for March, too.)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Horror Heaven
So I got Justice League: The New Frontier and really enjoyed it. Particularly the first Flash sequence, that was fun. Neil Patrick Harris as Barry Allen works. Also, can't believe I didn't realize before watching that this release is perfectly timed politically.. Because of the Silver Age setting and the McCarthy era backdrop, there's a lot of dialogue that is custom-designed to comfort Americans who are feeling kind of shitty about how their government is behaving and hoping for an inspirational figure to usher in change.
I like my new toy, too. He has a little lantern to go with him, and he's molded to the base so I can leave him out somewhere.
And while I was at the store I saw one of those cheap collections of old black and white movies. 50 black and white horror movies for 20 bucks. I picked it up on a whim because it had the original The House on Haunted Hill. On getting home I discovered it had silent movie classics Nosferatu and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. One of the first Superman stories I ever read was the Superman: Metropolis elseworlds, which led me to checking out the movie out of curiosity. It has a special place in my heart and now I own it.
I found a book of classic ghost stories (Not just Poe reprints, but it has Ambrose Bierce and Washington Irving stories).
I also got my hands on a copy of John Keel's Mothman Prophecies book. I'm only 25 pages in and this book is Urban Legend Paradise. There's UFOs, metaphysical speculation, multiple counts of small-town weirdness, a giant fucking bird with hypnotic red eyes, the US government trying to act like they know what the hell is going on and that nothing is going on anyway, military red tape stupidity, historical ties to stories about faeries, The Devil, and encounters with the inhuman kind of Men in Black (not the run-of-the-mill government spooks, these are the MiBs who are like aliens or robots trying to cover their tracks).
I'm starting to come to terms with being a horror fan. I started out with kid's ghost story anthologies (The Dark Thirty, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Are You Afraid of the Dark?), and I worked my way up to the hard stuff (Lovecraft, Internet and Radio tales of ghost encounters) from there. and have been utterly hooked on these sorts of things ever since. I hate the current trend of torture porn, and have no interest in mortal slasher flicks. But I can't stay away from a good ghost tale (particularly one that purports to be true). I can't help but research weird and frightening occurrances. I absolutely adore horror movies made before 1970 (I love the camera tricks that cover for bad special effects). I like modern supernatural thrillers provided they have a creepy air. The only romance I read is paranormal horror romance. I can't resist this stuff.
But there's a problem. It's the same as the reason my favorite superhero is Green Lantern. I'm a huge wuss, a neurotic person with a highly active imagination. I am what is politely referred to as high strung. Other people are amused by my nervousness. In my first year in the USAF, the guys in the dorm used to knock on my door when they walked by. They knew I was in there watching or reading something creepy and I would scream audibly. I haven't calmed down. Right now my boss greets me suddenly and boisterously every day because it never fails to make me jump, yelp, and drop whatever I'm carrying.
I never watched horror movies as a teenager because I always figured I'd have nightmares. (Oddly enough, I rarely have nightmares from this stuff. The problem is getting to sleep.) Trailers and commercials for horror movies spook me out. I have an irrational terror of witch stories (yes, I know just how wrong that is for me). I don't have mirrors or televisions in my bedroom because reflected light (and my own ghastly snarl-haired pale visage) is too unsettling in the dark. I stay up late reading ghost stories and then kick myself for it. But I can''t stop. I'm drawn to it.
It always seemed like I was being incredibly unwise by exposing myself to this stuff. My brain clearly hates me, and I'm giving it ammunition. Then I was completely flipping out at work on Friday over something my physician suggested I might have when I realized just why I adore urban legends, ghost stories, and creepy suspenseful horror. I'm the kind of person who makes her own life 50 times more stressful than it needs to be. I panic needlessly and worry endlessly about my lot in life. No matter how secure my job, my financial health, my physical health, my safety and my future is I will always be convinced everything I love is about to dissolve and slip through my fingers like purple art project scenery sand. Or worse, crash on the floor and spill out like brains and blood from a crushed skull. Supernatural tales of terror give me something else to worry about.
Something fun to worry about.
It's time to stop calling myself stupid for this, and embrace it.
I'm off to go replace my worries with the Scariest Thing Ever Written (Dreams in the Witch House by HP Lovecraft -- Witches, ghosts and geometry, oh my!), then I'm going to bury myself in modern North American mythology. Dig me out when the next issue of Green Lantern comes out.
I like my new toy, too. He has a little lantern to go with him, and he's molded to the base so I can leave him out somewhere.
And while I was at the store I saw one of those cheap collections of old black and white movies. 50 black and white horror movies for 20 bucks. I picked it up on a whim because it had the original The House on Haunted Hill. On getting home I discovered it had silent movie classics Nosferatu and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. One of the first Superman stories I ever read was the Superman: Metropolis elseworlds, which led me to checking out the movie out of curiosity. It has a special place in my heart and now I own it.
I found a book of classic ghost stories (Not just Poe reprints, but it has Ambrose Bierce and Washington Irving stories).
I also got my hands on a copy of John Keel's Mothman Prophecies book. I'm only 25 pages in and this book is Urban Legend Paradise. There's UFOs, metaphysical speculation, multiple counts of small-town weirdness, a giant fucking bird with hypnotic red eyes, the US government trying to act like they know what the hell is going on and that nothing is going on anyway, military red tape stupidity, historical ties to stories about faeries, The Devil, and encounters with the inhuman kind of Men in Black (not the run-of-the-mill government spooks, these are the MiBs who are like aliens or robots trying to cover their tracks).
I'm starting to come to terms with being a horror fan. I started out with kid's ghost story anthologies (The Dark Thirty, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, Are You Afraid of the Dark?), and I worked my way up to the hard stuff (Lovecraft, Internet and Radio tales of ghost encounters) from there. and have been utterly hooked on these sorts of things ever since. I hate the current trend of torture porn, and have no interest in mortal slasher flicks. But I can't stay away from a good ghost tale (particularly one that purports to be true). I can't help but research weird and frightening occurrances. I absolutely adore horror movies made before 1970 (I love the camera tricks that cover for bad special effects). I like modern supernatural thrillers provided they have a creepy air. The only romance I read is paranormal horror romance. I can't resist this stuff.
But there's a problem. It's the same as the reason my favorite superhero is Green Lantern. I'm a huge wuss, a neurotic person with a highly active imagination. I am what is politely referred to as high strung. Other people are amused by my nervousness. In my first year in the USAF, the guys in the dorm used to knock on my door when they walked by. They knew I was in there watching or reading something creepy and I would scream audibly. I haven't calmed down. Right now my boss greets me suddenly and boisterously every day because it never fails to make me jump, yelp, and drop whatever I'm carrying.
I never watched horror movies as a teenager because I always figured I'd have nightmares. (Oddly enough, I rarely have nightmares from this stuff. The problem is getting to sleep.) Trailers and commercials for horror movies spook me out. I have an irrational terror of witch stories (yes, I know just how wrong that is for me). I don't have mirrors or televisions in my bedroom because reflected light (and my own ghastly snarl-haired pale visage) is too unsettling in the dark. I stay up late reading ghost stories and then kick myself for it. But I can''t stop. I'm drawn to it.
It always seemed like I was being incredibly unwise by exposing myself to this stuff. My brain clearly hates me, and I'm giving it ammunition. Then I was completely flipping out at work on Friday over something my physician suggested I might have when I realized just why I adore urban legends, ghost stories, and creepy suspenseful horror. I'm the kind of person who makes her own life 50 times more stressful than it needs to be. I panic needlessly and worry endlessly about my lot in life. No matter how secure my job, my financial health, my physical health, my safety and my future is I will always be convinced everything I love is about to dissolve and slip through my fingers like purple art project scenery sand. Or worse, crash on the floor and spill out like brains and blood from a crushed skull. Supernatural tales of terror give me something else to worry about.
Something fun to worry about.
It's time to stop calling myself stupid for this, and embrace it.
I'm off to go replace my worries with the Scariest Thing Ever Written (Dreams in the Witch House by HP Lovecraft -- Witches, ghosts and geometry, oh my!), then I'm going to bury myself in modern North American mythology. Dig me out when the next issue of Green Lantern comes out.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Heroes don't HAVE to be stupid, do they?
I rented The Mothman Prophecies because I enjoy watching creepy supernatural stuff when there's no one around but my cat. (Mild Spoilers below.)
The main character (the one played by Richard Gere) is pretty dumb. I mean, I thought he was smarter than the average horror protagonist when he got creeped out by the phone call where Cold knew everything, so he turned off the lights and closed the shutters (where a normal person would not want to sit in a dark hotel room and listen to that creepy voice).
But he thinks the chemical plant is going to blow up, so he accosts the Governor and asks him to close the place down. He's ranting and raving like a complete madman, and gets escorted away When if he really wanted to shut the place down he could have just called in a bomb threat (what's really amazing to me is that they assume he's heard a bomb threat, call one in, and he says "I didn't get a bomb threat!" and torpedoes the option they'd take him seriously). Yes, he'd have gotten in trouble if he got caught phoning in a threat. It's illegal, he'd have been arrested. But he wouldn't look completely fucking insane, and he'd have accomplished what he wanted.
(I haven't read the book, so I don't know if John Keel actually acted like this, but I know they changed a whole bunch of stuff so I'm going to assume that any character behavior is the fault of the writers.)
And it makes me worry about the heroes in these supernatural thrillers. They're supposed to seem like rational people, so that we can be drawn into the story. It's not supposed to be someone we can write off as a nut, but someone like us who is experiencing this stuff. Makes it more believable.
But damned if every time we get to the point where the hero is trying to get the police or the government on their side to prevent a disaster, they go the route of looking like a complete lunatic and risk getting committed for their trouble. And they know, going in, that there is no way in hell that the authorities will take them seriously. But they try anyway, and that's supposed to be the heroic part. Except they just seem stupid to me, because there are usually sneakier and more effective ways to accomplish that objective in today's society.
And don't give me "we don't want our hero to lie." If he's really so fucking sure that a whole bunch of people are going to die, he should lie if he has a better chance of being believed and getting the place evacuated. Even if he's wrong.
The main character (the one played by Richard Gere) is pretty dumb. I mean, I thought he was smarter than the average horror protagonist when he got creeped out by the phone call where Cold knew everything, so he turned off the lights and closed the shutters (where a normal person would not want to sit in a dark hotel room and listen to that creepy voice).
But he thinks the chemical plant is going to blow up, so he accosts the Governor and asks him to close the place down. He's ranting and raving like a complete madman, and gets escorted away When if he really wanted to shut the place down he could have just called in a bomb threat (what's really amazing to me is that they assume he's heard a bomb threat, call one in, and he says "I didn't get a bomb threat!" and torpedoes the option they'd take him seriously). Yes, he'd have gotten in trouble if he got caught phoning in a threat. It's illegal, he'd have been arrested. But he wouldn't look completely fucking insane, and he'd have accomplished what he wanted.
(I haven't read the book, so I don't know if John Keel actually acted like this, but I know they changed a whole bunch of stuff so I'm going to assume that any character behavior is the fault of the writers.)
And it makes me worry about the heroes in these supernatural thrillers. They're supposed to seem like rational people, so that we can be drawn into the story. It's not supposed to be someone we can write off as a nut, but someone like us who is experiencing this stuff. Makes it more believable.
But damned if every time we get to the point where the hero is trying to get the police or the government on their side to prevent a disaster, they go the route of looking like a complete lunatic and risk getting committed for their trouble. And they know, going in, that there is no way in hell that the authorities will take them seriously. But they try anyway, and that's supposed to be the heroic part. Except they just seem stupid to me, because there are usually sneakier and more effective ways to accomplish that objective in today's society.
And don't give me "we don't want our hero to lie." If he's really so fucking sure that a whole bunch of people are going to die, he should lie if he has a better chance of being believed and getting the place evacuated. Even if he's wrong.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Yay!
Blog@Newsarama informs me that the Justice League: The New Frontier DVD (which comes out on February 26th) will come with a toy at Best Buy. And I've been collecting Green Lantern dolls. And there is a brand new Best Buy very close to where I work.
It's not the best Hal figure I've seen. But I still want it.
It's not the best Hal figure I've seen. But I still want it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Preview Perceptions
So the May solicits are up.
First, I'm going to postulate that the "red-eyed invader" in Wonder Woman #16 is actually the Mothman disguised as a human!
Okay, probably not. But Wonder Woman fighting the Mothman in the streets of Washington, DC would be pretty cool. You have to admit that.
Also fun would be Green Lantern showing up at some of the UFO sightings to write out citations. By now I'm convinced that the Guardians and most of the other cosmic powers in the DCU are looking at Earth as a Wildlife Preserve (I mean, what with the Last Kryptonian, the Last Martian, and a few other extremely endangered species making their home there) so it's just a matter of time until they start acting like Park Rangers and charge fines for trashing the place.
And speaking of Green Lantern, check out the cover to May's Green Lantern Corps.
Now, I adore Pat Gleason and you all know this. But that cover seems wrong to me. And not just because Arisia's boobs can't be that big.
Notice there's Isamot, Vath, Arisia, Kyle, and Sodam Yat on that cover. Sodam Yat is a fucking Daxamite, who wears a ring that actively keeps his system from being poisoned by lead and hosts the GLC's godlike mascot, Ion the Willpower Whale!
Why the hell is he the one who is the least physically entangled by Black Mercy plants? I'd have buried him in them if I saw him coming.
First, I'm going to postulate that the "red-eyed invader" in Wonder Woman #16 is actually the Mothman disguised as a human!
Okay, probably not. But Wonder Woman fighting the Mothman in the streets of Washington, DC would be pretty cool. You have to admit that.
Also fun would be Green Lantern showing up at some of the UFO sightings to write out citations. By now I'm convinced that the Guardians and most of the other cosmic powers in the DCU are looking at Earth as a Wildlife Preserve (I mean, what with the Last Kryptonian, the Last Martian, and a few other extremely endangered species making their home there) so it's just a matter of time until they start acting like Park Rangers and charge fines for trashing the place.
And speaking of Green Lantern, check out the cover to May's Green Lantern Corps.
Now, I adore Pat Gleason and you all know this. But that cover seems wrong to me. And not just because Arisia's boobs can't be that big.
Notice there's Isamot, Vath, Arisia, Kyle, and Sodam Yat on that cover. Sodam Yat is a fucking Daxamite, who wears a ring that actively keeps his system from being poisoned by lead and hosts the GLC's godlike mascot, Ion the Willpower Whale!
Why the hell is he the one who is the least physically entangled by Black Mercy plants? I'd have buried him in them if I saw him coming.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
I haven't posted in too long.
I'm feeling considerably better lately, but haven't been quite motivated to post on this blog or do a WFA roundup despite the horrendous backlog that's piled up. Oh, i'm still reading and loving my comics, it's just the current discourse is driving me crazy.
I mean, just today I saw one person compare attempts to draw attention to and protest the inappropriate sexualization of women in comic books to supporting segregation and anti-semitism.
And another person throwing a fit about how "you can't reason with these kinds of fans" because a few people poked fun at her in her comments for some continuity mistakes.
And the resurfacing of the most pathetic concern troll I've ever had the pleasure of chasing off my blog, once again talking about how everyone's against him.
And one of my favorite blogs dedicating itself to a week reviewing cheerleader movies (Yes. I mean you, Chris).
And I realized that my own actions have resulted in not one, but two different people deleting their blogs and starting over. Both because I've pointed out inconsistencies in their arguments and linked them. Perhaps I can be a bit harsh at times.
I hate to use the word "over-sensitive" because too often it's applied to someone engaging in legitimate social criticism. I'm a big believer in shades of grey. I'm in favor of examining intersection of race and gender discrimination, but often comparisons merely make your original argument look absurd and end up alienating allies. I'm in favor of continuity nitpicking and joking around to a point, because we're comic book nerds and that's how we do things--and I even think that a badly placed continuity/character mistake can invalidate someone's point if it's important to the argument (for example, complaining a character is out of place when you're mistaking him for another guy) but I don't think they invalidate all points. I also don't think everyone who points out a continuity error and jokes around in comment sections is even trying to invalidate the original post. We read comics, comics are supposed to be fun and continuity nitpicking is a pasttime all it's own. I do believe in the purpose of well-reasoned discourse, but I see a place for ranting and venting all the same.
I find misogyny and racism in things I enjoy sometimes. I don't think pointing that out means we're calling something a piece of trash. I've had moments where it's ruined an otherwise good story, though.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I remember when I was a kid I read The Dark is Rising sequence. There was a scene in one of the books where someone asked why the agents of the Dark wore black and white. Another character said it was probably because the Dark could only reach people in extremes. That's a thought I've carried with me for a long, long time.
The phrase "Death to Extremists" makes me smile.
I'll try to get back on a regular blogging schedule again soon.
I mean, just today I saw one person compare attempts to draw attention to and protest the inappropriate sexualization of women in comic books to supporting segregation and anti-semitism.
And another person throwing a fit about how "you can't reason with these kinds of fans" because a few people poked fun at her in her comments for some continuity mistakes.
And the resurfacing of the most pathetic concern troll I've ever had the pleasure of chasing off my blog, once again talking about how everyone's against him.
And one of my favorite blogs dedicating itself to a week reviewing cheerleader movies (Yes. I mean you, Chris).
And I realized that my own actions have resulted in not one, but two different people deleting their blogs and starting over. Both because I've pointed out inconsistencies in their arguments and linked them. Perhaps I can be a bit harsh at times.
I hate to use the word "over-sensitive" because too often it's applied to someone engaging in legitimate social criticism. I'm a big believer in shades of grey. I'm in favor of examining intersection of race and gender discrimination, but often comparisons merely make your original argument look absurd and end up alienating allies. I'm in favor of continuity nitpicking and joking around to a point, because we're comic book nerds and that's how we do things--and I even think that a badly placed continuity/character mistake can invalidate someone's point if it's important to the argument (for example, complaining a character is out of place when you're mistaking him for another guy) but I don't think they invalidate all points. I also don't think everyone who points out a continuity error and jokes around in comment sections is even trying to invalidate the original post. We read comics, comics are supposed to be fun and continuity nitpicking is a pasttime all it's own. I do believe in the purpose of well-reasoned discourse, but I see a place for ranting and venting all the same.
I find misogyny and racism in things I enjoy sometimes. I don't think pointing that out means we're calling something a piece of trash. I've had moments where it's ruined an otherwise good story, though.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I remember when I was a kid I read The Dark is Rising sequence. There was a scene in one of the books where someone asked why the agents of the Dark wore black and white. Another character said it was probably because the Dark could only reach people in extremes. That's a thought I've carried with me for a long, long time.
The phrase "Death to Extremists" makes me smile.
I'll try to get back on a regular blogging schedule again soon.
Blogged with Flock
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Violence and Youth
I get really annoyed when people get overly nostalgic and talk about how dreadfully brutal and violent my generation is in comparison to "simpler times." So I was delighted when Ken emailed me this article from a couple years ago debunking the connection between violent video games and the "rise" in youth violence. The writer looks at FBI statistics and finds out that Generation Y is the least violent generation in recorded American history.
I'd figured back when I was in school the hysteria would fade, but every once in a while something like this idiocy (from last fall) comes up and we hear about how Congress is discussing the fucking video games and someone's crying "Think of the children!"
And we have the most violent mass media we've ever had. And the most accessible font of information ever available to young people. And we're a country that is constantly--constantly on the edge, panicking at the stupidest shit. And... the violent crime rate is dropping. (Check the Preliminary 2007 Stats, see all those minuses under "Total"?) The age trend shown in that 2005 article is that each new group of kids was more peaceful than the last.
And each new group of kids has less freedom than the last. The kids in my old High School right now probably wouldn't dream of the day those doors were left unlocked during class hours, of being able to arrive late and sneak in after the bell, or of no one buzzing past the secretary. I don't think by now any of them would have gone to school when we wore normal clothing. And the dogs and the Principal searching the locker isn't a weird thing. Security guards aren't a weird thing. If the trend continues, security guards asking girls about their menstrual cycles won't be a weird thing.
I know someone will attribute this as cause and effect, except the tightening of security and the loss of civil rights is caused by a false perception that these children are more violent than the generation that's making the rules. In reality, they're less violent and therefore deserve more freedom.
Anyway, do me a favor and pass these stats around. The last couple generations have been getting a pretty bad rap.
That first graph is the overall violent crime rate, and we're talking about youth violence here. So I found the data sorted by age, and it turns out that through 2002, youth homicide actually dropped across the board, the only increase being among adults. If I may quote directly from the D.O.J. report, "Recently, the offending rates for 14-17 year-olds reached the lowest levels ever recorded."I remember when I was in High School they had a big fuss over kids who were supposedly carrying guns to school, and I remember seeing the Principal searching lockers and the dogs coming by periodically. And then when Columbine happened and the High School went on lockdown. And banning backpacks, and then taking back the ban, and then banning them again. I graduated the year before they instituted school uniforms in my public school district. (Which was funny to me, because I remember my class protesting the idea, and I remember my sister getting suspended for protesting the dress code before I ever got there.)
The lowest levels ever recorded. In other words, the Playstation era has, in fact, produced the most non-violent kids ever.
I'd figured back when I was in school the hysteria would fade, but every once in a while something like this idiocy (from last fall) comes up and we hear about how Congress is discussing the fucking video games and someone's crying "Think of the children!"
And we have the most violent mass media we've ever had. And the most accessible font of information ever available to young people. And we're a country that is constantly--constantly on the edge, panicking at the stupidest shit. And... the violent crime rate is dropping. (Check the Preliminary 2007 Stats, see all those minuses under "Total"?) The age trend shown in that 2005 article is that each new group of kids was more peaceful than the last.
And each new group of kids has less freedom than the last. The kids in my old High School right now probably wouldn't dream of the day those doors were left unlocked during class hours, of being able to arrive late and sneak in after the bell, or of no one buzzing past the secretary. I don't think by now any of them would have gone to school when we wore normal clothing. And the dogs and the Principal searching the locker isn't a weird thing. Security guards aren't a weird thing. If the trend continues, security guards asking girls about their menstrual cycles won't be a weird thing.
I know someone will attribute this as cause and effect, except the tightening of security and the loss of civil rights is caused by a false perception that these children are more violent than the generation that's making the rules. In reality, they're less violent and therefore deserve more freedom.
Anyway, do me a favor and pass these stats around. The last couple generations have been getting a pretty bad rap.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
John Stewart cast!
According to MTV Movies Blog:
(Via)
From the first time Clark Kent walked into a phone booth mild mannered and walked out able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, the concept of superheroes having dual identities has been almost as important to the genre as the superpowers themselves. Not so for John Stewart, Earth’s fourth Green Lantern and sometimes member of the “Justice League of America” — one of the more prominent heroes to choose not to wear a mask.I love how excited all the actors are for this movie. Hopefully with the strike clearing up they can get it back into production.
Now the actor who was cast to play him is pulling back his.
Long rumored to be in contention for the role, Common confirmed to MTV News for the first time publically that he was cast in the now dormant film, calling being picked for the role “an honor.”
“It’s a blessing really, to know that I could potentially be this superhero,” he enthused. “Justice League itself is an honor, and Green Lantern is an incredible character to play. It’s a blessing to be associated with it.”
(Via)
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Writer's strike may end.
New York Times:
(I know blogging's been sparse, but I came down with some sort of infection this week and haven't felt up to writing. Just wanted to share this one.)
An end to Hollywood’s long and bitter writers’ strike appeared close on Saturday, as union leaders representing 12,000 movie and television writers said they had reached a tentative deal with production companies.Here's the letter they sent to the WGA members.
The strike, which began Nov. 5, remains in effect until the governing boards of the two writers’ guilds gauge the sense of their membership this weekend and decide whether to end the walkout. The boards are expected to meet as early as Sunday, and the strike could be over by Monday morning.
A memorandum sent to some writers guild members summarized a four-hour meeting on Friday in which union leaders briefed a group of 300 strike captains. According to the memorandum, the guild boards and negotiating committee are expected to recommend the tentative deal unanimously, but they are withholding action to end the walkout until after Saturday’s scheduled meetings.
(I know blogging's been sparse, but I came down with some sort of infection this week and haven't felt up to writing. Just wanted to share this one.)
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
My heart's not in this one.
I should say something to this, since he uses my quote as the jumping-off point but I can only come up with a unenthusiastic response.
I don't really care for Journalista much anymore. The blog itself, while theoretically a useful link-source, is unreadable at work because of his use of images. I've taken it off my feed and gotten to checking it when I remember or when it comes up in my searches. Occasionally, I'll get a post or an article out of it. Most of the stuff he links I see in my normal rounds. More often I just link Dirk himself when he writes about women in comics. His opinions aren't particularly interesting, especially from the standpoint of such bitterness. His value as a journalist is debatable. Take this article for example. No neutrality, but it's an op-ed piece. But he gets the facts very wrong. Since when does Girl-Wonder.org operate from a "Think of the Children" standpoint? And how are Pink Raygun, the Spider-man movie-fans who were upset about the statue, Cheryl Lynn, Val, and me part of "the Girl Wonder" crowd? You can really only shove us all under the same tent if you're not paying attention to what we write. He uses the unreliable 10% statistic, and I've yet to see how it was figured out or how it is relevant. 1) Statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate and 2) Some things are wrong no matter who the audience is.
I mean, I know that this is a logical fallacy but Deppey's long since lost credibility to me. So I can't get interested in arguing his main point. Even about this.
And it's... disappointing. When he started up that blog I remember how excited much of the comics blogosphere was and he seems to be a very respected and widely-read person. Which tells me that's the standard of writing for much of the community.
And that makes me sad.
I don't really care for Journalista much anymore. The blog itself, while theoretically a useful link-source, is unreadable at work because of his use of images. I've taken it off my feed and gotten to checking it when I remember or when it comes up in my searches. Occasionally, I'll get a post or an article out of it. Most of the stuff he links I see in my normal rounds. More often I just link Dirk himself when he writes about women in comics. His opinions aren't particularly interesting, especially from the standpoint of such bitterness. His value as a journalist is debatable. Take this article for example. No neutrality, but it's an op-ed piece. But he gets the facts very wrong. Since when does Girl-Wonder.org operate from a "Think of the Children" standpoint? And how are Pink Raygun, the Spider-man movie-fans who were upset about the statue, Cheryl Lynn, Val, and me part of "the Girl Wonder" crowd? You can really only shove us all under the same tent if you're not paying attention to what we write. He uses the unreliable 10% statistic, and I've yet to see how it was figured out or how it is relevant. 1) Statistics are incredibly easy to manipulate and 2) Some things are wrong no matter who the audience is.
I mean, I know that this is a logical fallacy but Deppey's long since lost credibility to me. So I can't get interested in arguing his main point. Even about this.
And it's... disappointing. When he started up that blog I remember how excited much of the comics blogosphere was and he seems to be a very respected and widely-read person. Which tells me that's the standard of writing for much of the community.
And that makes me sad.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Well, what do you know...
It worked:
Most importantly, the idea of female fanbase for Batman comics is in their heads, and it's a fanbase they'll market to.
And on the whole, this is pretty damned impressive from a Green Lantern fan's point of view. I mean, it took ten fucking years to get a straight white male lead's mischaracterization retconned into mind control on our side of the fence.
In those two panels, in that one gesture of Batman contemplating the Robins he’s lost in front of the symbol of those losses, that line of suits in cases, the glass ceiling keeping girls out of the red and green and gold costume at Batman’s side finally cracked and fell.I'm not taking this as DC has gone feminist. But they've noticed that female fans read female characters, and given in to a reasonable request in order to please those fans.
Most importantly, the idea of female fanbase for Batman comics is in their heads, and it's a fanbase they'll market to.
And on the whole, this is pretty damned impressive from a Green Lantern fan's point of view. I mean, it took ten fucking years to get a straight white male lead's mischaracterization retconned into mind control on our side of the fence.
Quick Notes on Green Lantern
1) Once again, John is the only Lantern with any brains.
2) They are seriously foreshadowing that someone is going to come after Jim again.
3) I have some conspiracy theories about Scarface (the female Lantern burned in the fight with the AntiMonitor) but I'm going to let them stew until we get more information in this plot. I will say that I'm increasingly hopeful that this all ends with Ganthet returning to Oa and declaring that he's taking over again because the Council is full of idiots and cowards.
4) Notice that Boodika is the only one of the Lost Lanterns who is still hostile to Hal.
5) I'm annoyed there's no hint as to who the first Blue will be. I'm hoping for a female human.
6) Does anyone else get the feeling that at DC when male characters kill (Black Adam, Wonderman) it sends them to villain territory, but female heroes can kill and stay heroes (Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Manhunter)? Some sexism at work where women are thought to be less frightening and men less rational, maybe?
2) They are seriously foreshadowing that someone is going to come after Jim again.
3) I have some conspiracy theories about Scarface (the female Lantern burned in the fight with the AntiMonitor) but I'm going to let them stew until we get more information in this plot. I will say that I'm increasingly hopeful that this all ends with Ganthet returning to Oa and declaring that he's taking over again because the Council is full of idiots and cowards.
4) Notice that Boodika is the only one of the Lost Lanterns who is still hostile to Hal.
5) I'm annoyed there's no hint as to who the first Blue will be. I'm hoping for a female human.
6) Does anyone else get the feeling that at DC when male characters kill (Black Adam, Wonderman) it sends them to villain territory, but female heroes can kill and stay heroes (Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Manhunter)? Some sexism at work where women are thought to be less frightening and men less rational, maybe?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Carnival Notes
Willow's got the 7th PoC SF Carnival posted at Seeking Avalon!
The 52nd Carnival of Feminists is up recently, too.
Scientiae has their submission call posted, due date is January 30th.
Podblack Cat's got a reminder up, with some submission suggestions:Feminist SF Carnival - In Orbit Soon!
The 52nd Carnival of Feminists is up recently, too.
Scientiae has their submission call posted, due date is January 30th.
Podblack Cat's got a reminder up, with some submission suggestions:Feminist SF Carnival - In Orbit Soon!
I’m looking for those bloggy reflections - whether you’re into space rangers, explorers, fighters, lovers, critiques, oblique-references, hard facts, short temper tantrums, fine analysis, bold statements, bad science, great research, small print, vipers, snipers, con-men, riot-grrrls and just plain representing the spectrum of feminist thought and the intersection with speculative fiction!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
That cover gives me the willies.
I wince whenever I see the April Catwoman cover. (No, I'm not reposting it on my blog. Go look at the link.) It's not normal Adam Hughes eyerolling at the exploitation here. It actually unnerves me to the point I can't really make a judgment on whether it's sexist or not. There's something disturbing there I think would bug me if it were two men. That picture is in the middle of the point where she pulls the lip away with her teeth. Gross. And the color scheme. Blues and blacks versus yellows and browns with red in the middle. I immediately focus on the red when I see it. And it looks like she's eating part of Cheetah's face.
It's a horror cover. It has a worse effect than a Zombie cover on me. 'd examine it in depth but I'd have to stare at the damned thing and I don't like looking at it.
I find it so weird that it's the violence that bothers me with this one. I mean, I'm a Geoff Johns fan. People ripped in half? No problem. Impaled heroes? I'll keep reading. Catwoman biting Cheetah's lower lip? I have to avert my eyes and find another website. Maybe it reminds me of cannibalism or something like that.
Either way, this cover getting reposted around the community is not going to be fun for me.
It's a horror cover. It has a worse effect than a Zombie cover on me. 'd examine it in depth but I'd have to stare at the damned thing and I don't like looking at it.
I find it so weird that it's the violence that bothers me with this one. I mean, I'm a Geoff Johns fan. People ripped in half? No problem. Impaled heroes? I'll keep reading. Catwoman biting Cheetah's lower lip? I have to avert my eyes and find another website. Maybe it reminds me of cannibalism or something like that.
Either way, this cover getting reposted around the community is not going to be fun for me.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Raise a glass to Heath Ledger
Patrick Verona was based on one of the biggest jerks Shakespeare wrote, but Heath Ledger played him and I liked him. I'm still willing to watch 10 Things I Hate About You (a movie in which nothing supernatural happened) multiple times.
I'm still looking forward to The Dark Knight, but it's going to be sad.
I'm still looking forward to The Dark Knight, but it's going to be sad.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I'll believe it when I see it.
Aaron Lopresti to replace the Dodsons on Wonder Woman.
And guess what, it does.
And there's muscle definition.
I'm grumpy to see the Dodsons leave, though. I grumbled when they announced them because Harley Quinn was so cheesecakey, but I was really surprised and pleased with the actual work.
NRAMA: What are your views on Wonder Woman - what is she to you? She seems to have this continuum of meaning and everyone has one or two places upon it that resonate with them...I'd make a joke about him having his work cut out for him, but honestly so long the costume manages to cover her butt and her breasts most fans'll be impressed with his restraint.
AL: For me she is the perfect embodiment of what it means to be a super hero, male or female. In some ways she is like Superman or Captain America (when he was alive). She is a character that has character and it makes her stand head and shoulders above the rest of female
super hero community.
Most importantly, I don't feel I am drawing sexually exploitive material when I am working on Wonder Woman. Somehow she seems to be above all of that. At least in my mind.
And guess what, it does.
And there's muscle definition.
I'm grumpy to see the Dodsons leave, though. I grumbled when they announced them because Harley Quinn was so cheesecakey, but I was really surprised and pleased with the actual work.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
I've gotten to enjoy historical holidays like Martin Luther King Day a lot more since I started blogging. There's really not much on TV or elsewhere that we haven't already seen before, but when you hit the blogfeeds on a day like today you can come up with some substance relevant to the occasion. Even blogs like this one, that don't get political beyond four-color commentary (though Kleefeld's managed to dig up two biographical comic books on Dr. King.) will have a few personal thoughts, or a link or a quote. Among the quoting and posting of "I Have a Dream" there's usually some stuff that you don't see in HS history class or that you don't remember. Last year was the first year I'd ever read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", for example.
This year I found (through this blog) this 1996 article by Ronald Turner about the way the "I Have a Dream" speech gets misused to spread the idea that Dr. King was and claim that attempts to address racially-based injustice are acting against his legacy because they call attention to race.
This year I found (through this blog) this 1996 article by Ronald Turner about the way the "I Have a Dream" speech gets misused to spread the idea that Dr. King was and claim that attempts to address racially-based injustice are acting against his legacy because they call attention to race.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Black Canary
Pictures of Alaina Huffman in costume as Black Canary in an upcoming Smallville episode. (Via)
I really like how her costume came out. Not only does the actress look the part (I always figured on Black Canary as a petite woman with a tough expression), they kept the fishnets and the basic design, so she's recognizable as the comic book character. They went with short hair rather than a long wig that would get torn off during a fight, or long hair that an enemy could grab at in a street-level fight.
The makeup mask is interesting idea. If she has some quick way to smear it on like a spray or something like a solid rouge applicator (one of those big old-fashioned round bars that you could just smear circles on your cheeks with), it makes for a good quick change and won't fall off. But makeup like that doesn't seem to obscure the face very well. I suppose you could say it's a distraction. Between it and the fishnets and the dark alley no one is going to be able to properly describe her.
She must have to carry wipes to clean it off.
I really like how her costume came out. Not only does the actress look the part (I always figured on Black Canary as a petite woman with a tough expression), they kept the fishnets and the basic design, so she's recognizable as the comic book character. They went with short hair rather than a long wig that would get torn off during a fight, or long hair that an enemy could grab at in a street-level fight.
The makeup mask is interesting idea. If she has some quick way to smear it on like a spray or something like a solid rouge applicator (one of those big old-fashioned round bars that you could just smear circles on your cheeks with), it makes for a good quick change and won't fall off. But makeup like that doesn't seem to obscure the face very well. I suppose you could say it's a distraction. Between it and the fishnets and the dark alley no one is going to be able to properly describe her.
She must have to carry wipes to clean it off.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Booster Gold #6
Okay, that was very fun. I like that they did and still kept everything intact. This will come back to bite the characters in the ass, though. I'm pretty sure that the mystery guy -- the one of the three who had the tech for everything to be possible -- will be revealed to be a bad guy in the near future.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Well, this could be interesting.
Hmm..
Ron Howard's Imagine Entertainment and Universal Pictures are negotiating with the estate of legendary SF author E.E. "Doc" Smith for film rights to Smith's seminal Lensman novels, Al Trestrail, Smith's grandson and manager of his estate, told SCI FI Wire.On a scale of 1-20, how pissed off do you guys think the final product would make me?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Public Service Announcement
Far be it for me to denigrate another member of the online comics community, but there are some things that just look strange and should be pointed out. I freely and fully admit that I've reacted to other fan complaints by asking incredulously if the other fan has actually read the work in question (or if they indeed know how to), and I don't see it as a question that off-limits when you find your interpretation of a work (and the tropes of the genre) to be remarkably different from another fan's reading.
However...
If you ask that question (even rhetorically) and the first post you link is by someone who has written the comic book in question, you look stupid.
Just for future reference.
And it doesn't help that Greg Rucka shoots down your main point in the comments of that first link.
However...
But really. From whence comes your indignation, internet? Have you never read a Wonder Woman comic? Ever?
If you ask that question (even rhetorically) and the first post you link is by someone who has written the comic book in question, you look stupid.
Just for future reference.
And it doesn't help that Greg Rucka shoots down your main point in the comments of that first link.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Good News!
The Wonder Woman direct-to-DVD animated movie is being cast:
They... umm... They misspelled Themiscyra in the press release.
"Hand of Rage" sounds pretty cool, though.
Well, no firm release date, but the voice of Wonder Woman will be provided by Keri (Waitresws, MI: III) Russell, according to TV Guide’s Michael Ausiello. According to Ausiello, Russell is in “advanced talks” for the role in the animated feature, which is tentatively slated for a late ’08, early ’09 release. Russell was a favorite choice by many fans for the lead role in a live action Wonder Woman movie before said potential movie sank beneath the waves.Well, I'm going to try and be optimistic about this one. I liked Superman: Doomsday.
According to the original information Newsarama received in August, the Wonder Woman animated feature will be rated PG-13, and is described as follows:
On the mystical island of Themyscria, a proud and fierce warrior race of Amazons have raised a daughter of untold beauty, grace and strength – Princess Diana. When and army fighter pilot, Steve Trevor crash-lands on the island, the rebellious and headstrong Diana defies Amazonian law by accompanying Trevor back to civilization. Meanwhile, Ares (the god of War) has escaped his imprisonment at the hands of the Amazonians and has decided to exact his revenge using the mystical “Hand of Rage,” an ancient artifact with the power to raise armies from the dead and infuse them with a thirst for blood. Ares intends to start a world war that will not only last for centuries – but will wipe out every living being on the planet, starting with the Amazons! It is up to Princess Diana to save her people and the world – by using her gifts and becoming the ultimate Wonder Woman!
Russell will be the second actress to portray DC’s Amazonian princess in the company’s direct-to-DVD features, as Lucy Lawless is providing the character’s voice in JLA: The New Frontier, due for release on February 26th.
They... umm... They misspelled Themiscyra in the press release.
"Hand of Rage" sounds pretty cool, though.
I need a distraction
(This'll be my seventh post, counting all three blogs, on this subject, but by now I'm pissed off. For the record, I wouldn't be posting so much if I hadn't made that resolution to post once a day.)
I was doing so well until I remember that artist who got a C&D notice over Batman. Then rage at the double-standards for male and female characters combined with rage at the fact that a lone artist gets bullied by WB goons but a big magazine like Playboy can get away whatever the fuck they want to really unsettle me for the whole night.
Fucking DC.
And the thing that kills me is once I chased Levitz down after a con panel to ask why Swamp Thing couldn't be in both DCU books and Vertigo books, just with different continuity, and he told me that he wanted to keep the all-ages books separate from adult books, so they try and keep the characters in their own imprints.
That's right, he wants to keep all-ages characters like their iconic superheroes separate from mature readers material.
But apparently it's okay for an all-ages character to be on the cover of Playboy.
Damn, I'm fuming.
I was doing so well until I remember that artist who got a C&D notice over Batman. Then rage at the double-standards for male and female characters combined with rage at the fact that a lone artist gets bullied by WB goons but a big magazine like Playboy can get away whatever the fuck they want to really unsettle me for the whole night.
Fucking DC.
And the thing that kills me is once I chased Levitz down after a con panel to ask why Swamp Thing couldn't be in both DCU books and Vertigo books, just with different continuity, and he told me that he wanted to keep the all-ages books separate from adult books, so they try and keep the characters in their own imprints.
That's right, he wants to keep all-ages characters like their iconic superheroes separate from mature readers material.
But apparently it's okay for an all-ages character to be on the cover of Playboy.
Damn, I'm fuming.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Two more points on that WW cover.
(Continuing from my thoughts here and here)
1) For people who think I'm giving Playboy too much credit, Greg Rucka gives them more:
2) DC has long complained that Wonder Woman just doesn't sell as well as it should.
Well, the original target audience for Wonder Woman was little girls. And here I'm about to have some commenter who has never read the Golden Age Wonder Woman stories pop up and tell me that she was created as kink material. Well, I've read the archives. I've read the interviews. Marston was kind of a nut (he was clearly turned on by female supremacy), but made her to draw in female readers. Check out the archives, guys. Read some of that old Marston stuff before you condemn him as nothing more than a creepy fetishist. He didn't have his bondage kink interfere with the ability of the reader to see her as inspiring, heroic, or strong. It wasn't humiliation and degradation. He wrote fun goofy adventure stories and rope tricks. He uses getting tied up a lot, but her main weapon was a lasso not a gun or a sword. It doesn't stop readers from seeing Wonder Woman as someone they want to be. He wrote a hero first.
The current target audience for Wonder Woman is not little girls. It's not even women. It's so hard to convince a lot of female readers to pick her up because a lot of people just think the character is nothing but kink material (I know a lot of feminists who question her credentials as a feminist character, and go back to that), and always has been. And stuff like this cover perpetuate that myth.
Problem with that is that the character's iconic traits demand that she be more than fetish material, so writing her that way just doesn't work. So people who go to her book for fetish material very likely put it back down too.
Basically what she has is a small core of highly dedicated fans who have loved her forever and were introduced through the television show, or their mother, or accident, or through a highly dedicated fan who went out of their way to show she wasn't just fetish material. While people outside of that small group of fans just write her off and resist reading her.
I have to wonder, does DC have any idea that this (stuff like that cover) is why they have trouble getting people to take her seriously? Why they have trouble getting women to read Wonder Woman, a character made for them?
If they're smart, they'll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we'd see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer's no. You won't see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.
Well, Playboy is considerably higher profile than the linked watercolor artist. But we don't see thing one from DC Comics about this cover.
If Warner Bros had any brains they'd realize they had the iconic female superhero in their company, and do something to prevent the public from randomly writing her off as someone's fetish.
Is it okay this time because Playboy is "Tasteful" (which could mean a) it's okay when it's done to women, b) it's okay because it's heterosexual, or c) it's okay because they have lots of money and have been around a while) do they just not give a damn about Wonder Woman?
ETA: More from Rucka
In that case:
1) For people who think I'm giving Playboy too much credit, Greg Rucka gives them more:
And, for those of you who consider such things, take a look at the banner on the Ms. cover. "Wonder Woman for President."(ETA: But that's not the main point of this post. I'm not sure I can give Playboy so much credit for forethought. Still, another coincidence for the list has me trying to shake the crazy thoughts out of my head: the article is "Sex in America" and has a poll on voter sex lives and the upcoming election.)
Do you really think it's a coincidence that Playboy chose this year, the issue for the month containing "Tsunami Tuesday," to run this particular pictorial? Do you really?
2) DC has long complained that Wonder Woman just doesn't sell as well as it should.
Well, the original target audience for Wonder Woman was little girls. And here I'm about to have some commenter who has never read the Golden Age Wonder Woman stories pop up and tell me that she was created as kink material. Well, I've read the archives. I've read the interviews. Marston was kind of a nut (he was clearly turned on by female supremacy), but made her to draw in female readers. Check out the archives, guys. Read some of that old Marston stuff before you condemn him as nothing more than a creepy fetishist. He didn't have his bondage kink interfere with the ability of the reader to see her as inspiring, heroic, or strong. It wasn't humiliation and degradation. He wrote fun goofy adventure stories and rope tricks. He uses getting tied up a lot, but her main weapon was a lasso not a gun or a sword. It doesn't stop readers from seeing Wonder Woman as someone they want to be. He wrote a hero first.
The current target audience for Wonder Woman is not little girls. It's not even women. It's so hard to convince a lot of female readers to pick her up because a lot of people just think the character is nothing but kink material (I know a lot of feminists who question her credentials as a feminist character, and go back to that), and always has been. And stuff like this cover perpetuate that myth.
Problem with that is that the character's iconic traits demand that she be more than fetish material, so writing her that way just doesn't work. So people who go to her book for fetish material very likely put it back down too.
Basically what she has is a small core of highly dedicated fans who have loved her forever and were introduced through the television show, or their mother, or accident, or through a highly dedicated fan who went out of their way to show she wasn't just fetish material. While people outside of that small group of fans just write her off and resist reading her.
I have to wonder, does DC have any idea that this (stuff like that cover) is why they have trouble getting people to take her seriously? Why they have trouble getting women to read Wonder Woman, a character made for them?
If they're smart, they'll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we'd see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer's no. You won't see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.
Well, Playboy is considerably higher profile than the linked watercolor artist. But we don't see thing one from DC Comics about this cover.
If Warner Bros had any brains they'd realize they had the iconic female superhero in their company, and do something to prevent the public from randomly writing her off as someone's fetish.
Is it okay this time because Playboy is "Tasteful" (which could mean a) it's okay when it's done to women, b) it's okay because it's heterosexual, or c) it's okay because they have lots of money and have been around a while) do they just not give a damn about Wonder Woman?
ETA: More from Rucka
They won't. Playboy had to have permission to use the character, which means that, at the least, it was approved by Warner Bros., and at the worst, it was approved by WB and DC.
In that case:
Paul Levitz, Publisher
DC Comics
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Reason #256 the I enjoy time travel stories
I've been watching episodes of JLU this weekend, and I finally got to see the Once and Future Thing, where there's a time shift and John is replaced by Hal for a couple of scenes.
It's a really cool bit, because Hal steps right into the plot, and answers everyone's stares with "Another time shift. I'm Hal Jordan, I'm up to speed. Carry on." John doesn't miss a beat when he comes back. They're so natural about it.
They did this with Kyle and Hal in JLA/Avengers, too. I think I've seen it in a few other JLA stories. There's some sort of DCU law where for the purposes of a time travel story, any Green Lantern can replace any other Green Lantern, and they won't be fazed or confused by this.
I swear I've seen this in almost every time travel story where a Green Lantern appears. We can only hope the entire GLC never gets together during a time travel story, because the readers wouldn't be able to follow the scene with everyone changing positions. I imagine the characters would laugh it off, though. (It's all fun and games until someone get replaced with a Parallaxed version of themselves, after all.)
They try to do this with other characters, but it works best with Lanterns for the variety. I mean, you have 4 Earth-based Lanterns running around as it is. They've all been with the JLA at once point or another, and given the trouble with Earth it's reasonable to assume that any version of the JLA would have dealings with the local Lantern. Even going before Hal you have Abin Sur (and if you screw up the timeline enough, Donna Parker or Carol Ferris would work) and after Kyle there would be any future Lantern idea you could come up with. You can just randomly throw an alien in there from either way.
Anyway, there's not much point to this post. It's just a fun trait of time travel stories.
It's a really cool bit, because Hal steps right into the plot, and answers everyone's stares with "Another time shift. I'm Hal Jordan, I'm up to speed. Carry on." John doesn't miss a beat when he comes back. They're so natural about it.
They did this with Kyle and Hal in JLA/Avengers, too. I think I've seen it in a few other JLA stories. There's some sort of DCU law where for the purposes of a time travel story, any Green Lantern can replace any other Green Lantern, and they won't be fazed or confused by this.
I swear I've seen this in almost every time travel story where a Green Lantern appears. We can only hope the entire GLC never gets together during a time travel story, because the readers wouldn't be able to follow the scene with everyone changing positions. I imagine the characters would laugh it off, though. (It's all fun and games until someone get replaced with a Parallaxed version of themselves, after all.)
They try to do this with other characters, but it works best with Lanterns for the variety. I mean, you have 4 Earth-based Lanterns running around as it is. They've all been with the JLA at once point or another, and given the trouble with Earth it's reasonable to assume that any version of the JLA would have dealings with the local Lantern. Even going before Hal you have Abin Sur (and if you screw up the timeline enough, Donna Parker or Carol Ferris would work) and after Kyle there would be any future Lantern idea you could come up with. You can just randomly throw an alien in there from either way.
Anyway, there's not much point to this post. It's just a fun trait of time travel stories.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Responding to Cheryl Lynn
"Arrgh! I would have never seen this wack crap if not for you guys!"
Speaking only for my part, I would have let it go a little while and linked it in a normal WFA post but I needed a column and four people emailed me links. (Now I two days' worth of material spanning three blogs out of this. Go me!)
Anyway, answering your question:
See, the big deal isn't that she's "dressed" as WW. The thing's in the article. I know, no one reads Playboy articles but Pink Raygun scanned it so we all saw it.
The writer is calling a reality-TV-Queen the "modern-day Lynda Carter" without listing a single heroic role or action. This is just more of the mixing of feminine symbols up. I mean, you said it yourself:
A heroic and strong symbol is considered the same thing as a sex symbol, not because strength and heroism is sexy but because her appearance is sexy. It's related to what's going on in comics, I think, where the heroines are considered to be sexy first and heroic second -- because the guys writing the comics are like the person who wrote the Playboy article. They can't see beyond the sexy. They don't realize that there's a heroic aspect to the appeal of the character.
Zhinxy may have the best analogy:
But it's not. It's the muddling you mentioned. They aren't putting out porn and saying "Here is porn. It has a girl dressed as Wonder Woman in it." They're saying "Here is Wonder Woman. She is porn."
Instead of presenting our hero as fetish material as the comicssometimes often do, they went and presented their fetish material as our hero.
It's a fine difference, but it's there and I think reasoning and writing about it now will help pin down the problems when adventure comics and fetish material collide elsewhere.
Speaking only for my part, I would have let it go a little while and linked it in a normal WFA post but I needed a column and four people emailed me links. (Now I two days' worth of material spanning three blogs out of this. Go me!)
Anyway, answering your question:
Two, is this really a big deal? I've guess I've seen enough ridiculous beefcake pictorials of men dressed as pseudo-superheroes that seeing the gender flipped this time around doesn't bother me. Think this doesn't happen to Superman and Batman? You just haven't been visiting the right sites.No, that's not it.
See, the big deal isn't that she's "dressed" as WW. The thing's in the article. I know, no one reads Playboy articles but Pink Raygun scanned it so we all saw it.
The writer is calling a reality-TV-Queen the "modern-day Lynda Carter" without listing a single heroic role or action. This is just more of the mixing of feminine symbols up. I mean, you said it yourself:
The material should be kept separate though. Wonder Woman can't be all things to all people in the same book, comic or magazine. And DC shouldn't be seen as sanctioning all things either. That's where the trouble starts. Keep your fetish material out of my adventure comic. It's not like chocolate and peanut butter. They don't taste good together.By listing a bunch of reality TV shows and calling her the "modern-day Lynda Carter" because they painted her into a WW costume, they presented the adventure story as fetish material.
A heroic and strong symbol is considered the same thing as a sex symbol, not because strength and heroism is sexy but because her appearance is sexy. It's related to what's going on in comics, I think, where the heroines are considered to be sexy first and heroic second -- because the guys writing the comics are like the person who wrote the Playboy article. They can't see beyond the sexy. They don't realize that there's a heroic aspect to the appeal of the character.
Zhinxy may have the best analogy:
Wonder Woman porn is fine in my book. Maybe even more than fine, from time to time. But that write-up feels a bit like… taking pictures in the “naughty nun” vein and then claiming you’re celebrating virtue?I figure sex culture is okay as long as it doesn't try to be higher than itself. If it was just a Wonder Woman spread with some talk about her being hot, that'd be one thing. And if it was a superheroine spread where she was fighting bad guys in various costumes and/or she was an actress who typically played asskickers, and the whole thing was about how sexy that was, that would also just be one thing. I could go about my existence not acknowledging what was on the cover of or inside any issue of Playboy.
But it's not. It's the muddling you mentioned. They aren't putting out porn and saying "Here is porn. It has a girl dressed as Wonder Woman in it." They're saying "Here is Wonder Woman. She is porn."
Instead of presenting our hero as fetish material as the comics
It's a fine difference, but it's there and I think reasoning and writing about it now will help pin down the problems when adventure comics and fetish material collide elsewhere.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Friday Night Fights
(Is it just me or does Wonder Woman spend a lot of time fighting doppelgangers?)
Submitted for the weekly tournament.
Submitted for the weekly tournament.
What a way to start the day.
Damn, I just got three links about that Playboy cover with the painted Wonder Woman model. (NSFW, but that's the first link I got sent.)
It's not even the cover that bugs me (people will always fetishize everything) as much as the phrase "champion of truth, justice, and American sensuality" and the calling a reality-TV Queen the modern day equivalent of 70s role-model for little girls Lynda Carter.
At first I thought I didn't have the energy (especially given how crazy sexist and racist the election news has been over the past week) to rant properly at the moment, and was just going to link but.. then I got going. (And I'd had another post I ended up scrapping because this derailed my train fo thought.) I'm proud of myself. I didn't swear.
It's not even the cover that bugs me (people will always fetishize everything) as much as the phrase "champion of truth, justice, and American sensuality" and the calling a reality-TV Queen the modern day equivalent of 70s role-model for little girls Lynda Carter.
At first I thought I didn't have the energy (especially given how crazy sexist and racist the election news has been over the past week) to rant properly at the moment, and was just going to link but.. then I got going. (And I'd had another post I ended up scrapping because this derailed my train fo thought.) I'm proud of myself. I didn't swear.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Two doses of Kyle this week.
Green Lantern Corps #20 was a weird experience when you take last issue into account. Last issue was like turning onto the freeway and finding the speed and direction of the rest of the traffic, and this issue was like making a U-turn in the middle of that freeway. I mean, he completely indicated last issue what Kyle and Guy were going to do with themselves, and then changed his mind in the first few pages here and went for a totally different setup. A bit disconcerting (though I prefer this setup for Kyle).
Countdown #16 was pretty cool. I really like this series when they focus almost completely on the Kyle/Donna/Jason storyline, and actually move it forward. It's fun and the ending makes me anxious for next week. This storyline was mildly amusing at parts when they did the specials (and I still found it the most interesting one), but it really got going once they got to Earth-51. I've already been amazed by how much I like Donna here. I've just realized that I've been liking Jason too, which is a weird feeling. He annoyed the shit out of me up until this week with the exception of the Gotham By Gaslight special. I'm glad I followed it this far.
Countdown #16 was pretty cool. I really like this series when they focus almost completely on the Kyle/Donna/Jason storyline, and actually move it forward. It's fun and the ending makes me anxious for next week. This storyline was mildly amusing at parts when they did the specials (and I still found it the most interesting one), but it really got going once they got to Earth-51. I've already been amazed by how much I like Donna here. I've just realized that I've been liking Jason too, which is a weird feeling. He annoyed the shit out of me up until this week with the exception of the Gotham By Gaslight special. I'm glad I followed it this far.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
It still puzzles me.
I've been reading the cross-community blogathon about the whole Spider-man thing, and I swore I wouldn't post on it but I broke that rule two days ago and I may as well get this one off my chest.
Admittedly, as a DC fan I'm probably more accepting of soft reboots, so I can get over the reset button and the regression. The problem is that I will never, ever understand what Marvel was thinking with Mephisto.
I mean, okay, so you don't like the marriage, you want to go back to fanland and you're too chickenshit to do a divorce (that's a rant for another day). That's one thing (). There are ways to do it without killing your character's moral standing.
There's The Scarlet Witch!, for one.
I mean, this character was ruined for a reason, right? Her powers were vague and unwieldy as a protagonist, so they made her crazy. That way she's available for use as a crossover villain and/or cheesy plot-device to make whatever the hell they want happen?
Ever since Peter took off the mask in Civil WAr I've been expecting her to pop up and fix everything. (It's not like anyone remembers what happened to her after House of M, anyway.)
Why the hell didn't they just do that? Have Peter or MJ personally piss her off.
*Sigh*
Stupid Marvel.
Admittedly, as a DC fan I'm probably more accepting of soft reboots, so I can get over the reset button and the regression. The problem is that I will never, ever understand what Marvel was thinking with Mephisto.
I mean, okay, so you don't like the marriage, you want to go back to fanland and you're too chickenshit to do a divorce (that's a rant for another day). That's one thing (). There are ways to do it without killing your character's moral standing.
There's The Scarlet Witch!, for one.
I mean, this character was ruined for a reason, right? Her powers were vague and unwieldy as a protagonist, so they made her crazy. That way she's available for use as a crossover villain and/or cheesy plot-device to make whatever the hell they want happen?
Ever since Peter took off the mask in Civil WAr I've been expecting her to pop up and fix everything. (It's not like anyone remembers what happened to her after House of M, anyway.)
Why the hell didn't they just do that? Have Peter or MJ personally piss her off.
*Sigh*
Stupid Marvel.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
19th FSF Carnival!
Karen Healey has the 19th Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans up at Girls Read Comics (And They're Pissed).
She did a great job and there's a ton of reading there. Check it out at your leisure.
Looking for a host for the 20th issue. Please contact me if interested.
She did a great job and there's a ton of reading there. Check it out at your leisure.
Looking for a host for the 20th issue. Please contact me if interested.
Monday, January 07, 2008
This bothers me.
And it's not just that Mark Waid's leaving the Flash:
He's not taking into account (and this worries me that other writers might not take this into account either) that different characters have different stories that fit them, different books have different themes to them, and different companies have sincerely different feels. Add to that, different fans have different expectations for the characters. So these contradicting fan tastes aren't really so contradicting.
I've noticed people (and myself) annoyed that Quesada's anti-marriage for Spiderman but he was perfectly fine with Black Panther and Storm together. Well, we're being a bit unfair to him there. Spiderman and Black Panther (and Storm, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he didn't give Storm two thoughts here. She's been really underused in the comics during Quesada's reign) are totally different characters. The same stories are not going to be told about these two characters. Fans expect different characters in the two books. Writers write different characters in the two books. The story goes in different directions.
You might disagree with those directions (and in the case of Quesada's choices there I do, early and often), but I don't see the inconsistency in expecting different things from different characters. I would hope that writers and editors would like to tell different stories with different characters, and would understand that marriage might not fit a certain character very well but that same character would suitably have to deal with their own biological children anyway, or guardianship of a niece or nephew. They'd understand that other characters would settle down and do the nuclear family thing (I think it suits the Flash very well), and other characters would settle into marriage and be married for a long time before starting a family. And, of course, there are still others who wouldn't think of children, or marriage at all.
I mean, the last thing we want is writers writing every character the same, what would be the point of reading more than one book?
Really, though, with the fan complaints it's all a matter of how fans take change. The Spidermarriage was status quo for twenty years, and that Wally's only had children (I don't think as many people are complaining that he's married as they are complaining about the twins) for a few storylines now. Spiderman changed by going backwards (which in my opinion, if you want it and you probably do because you're reading this blog, was kind of a shitty direction), Flash changed by going forwards (and in my opinion, that's a pretty good idea). Fans who have been reading the status quo for a while saw change and reacted. And in some cases they reacted badly. This makes perfect sense insomuch as the behavior of people makes perfect sense.
For me -- it just really bugs me that Mark Waid, the guy who wrote the definitive Wally West, talked about the Park-Wests and the Watson-Parkers as though they were the same couple. That just seems wrong.
And at this moment in time, I just ... in terms of superhero work, I feel frozen. I kind of... I feel like I'm momentarily out of step with what fandom wants because I don't get it. The same voices that are screaming that we gave Flash a wife and kids and family, because they say that's not what Flash is, are the same people who are screaming that they've broken up Mary Jane and Peter Parker. "How dare you take his family away!" I'm like, wait! Wait! What? Which way is it? So... growth and change good... or growth and change bad?Hmmm. I've noticed that too. Of course, I'm a fan who thinks married with children works for Wally myself but yeah, I've seen this.
He's not taking into account (and this worries me that other writers might not take this into account either) that different characters have different stories that fit them, different books have different themes to them, and different companies have sincerely different feels. Add to that, different fans have different expectations for the characters. So these contradicting fan tastes aren't really so contradicting.
I've noticed people (and myself) annoyed that Quesada's anti-marriage for Spiderman but he was perfectly fine with Black Panther and Storm together. Well, we're being a bit unfair to him there. Spiderman and Black Panther (and Storm, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest he didn't give Storm two thoughts here. She's been really underused in the comics during Quesada's reign) are totally different characters. The same stories are not going to be told about these two characters. Fans expect different characters in the two books. Writers write different characters in the two books. The story goes in different directions.
You might disagree with those directions (and in the case of Quesada's choices there I do, early and often), but I don't see the inconsistency in expecting different things from different characters. I would hope that writers and editors would like to tell different stories with different characters, and would understand that marriage might not fit a certain character very well but that same character would suitably have to deal with their own biological children anyway, or guardianship of a niece or nephew. They'd understand that other characters would settle down and do the nuclear family thing (I think it suits the Flash very well), and other characters would settle into marriage and be married for a long time before starting a family. And, of course, there are still others who wouldn't think of children, or marriage at all.
I mean, the last thing we want is writers writing every character the same, what would be the point of reading more than one book?
Really, though, with the fan complaints it's all a matter of how fans take change. The Spidermarriage was status quo for twenty years, and that Wally's only had children (I don't think as many people are complaining that he's married as they are complaining about the twins) for a few storylines now. Spiderman changed by going backwards (which in my opinion, if you want it and you probably do because you're reading this blog, was kind of a shitty direction), Flash changed by going forwards (and in my opinion, that's a pretty good idea). Fans who have been reading the status quo for a while saw change and reacted. And in some cases they reacted badly. This makes perfect sense insomuch as the behavior of people makes perfect sense.
For me -- it just really bugs me that Mark Waid, the guy who wrote the definitive Wally West, talked about the Park-Wests and the Watson-Parkers as though they were the same couple. That just seems wrong.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Thoughts
After four days, three nights, six full trashbags, three donation bags marked for Goodwill and twenty-two episodes of the 1991 live-action Flash series, I can finally see the floor in all of my closets! My storage areas are officially clean!
The rest of the place is not.
Baby steps, though.
Admittedly, the Flash was more of a distraction than a help. I popped the DVDs in because I'd seen most all of the episodes a long time ago, but I forgot that that was a long time ago. I had to stop and watch.
I really liked that this series had a different continuity than the comics. Part of the fun of was getting to see how much of which villains made it to television, and how much of which plots. The Flash series had some overt references to the Rogue's gallery (Trickster showed up in name and costume, but in personality he was Mark Hamill's audition for the Joker), some medium references (Mirror Master showed up with his civilian name, personality and tech intact, but no costume or villain name), and some subtle ones (the episode where three bad guys of varying degrees of evilness and competence team up to put the city to sleep -- The guy who makes all of the equipment has a green vest and bow tie). Everything's mixed and matched.
I do think they should've kept the comic book connection, though. Barry in the series came up with the lightning symbol on his own and the papers named him the Flash. Nothing really indicated he'd ever read a comic, and there's a few places in the series it might have helped him. In one episode, he gets an old classmate a job as Night Watchman at STAR Labs. See, anyone who's ever read a comic book knows that is the most dangerous job you can possibly get in a superhero city, but Barry thought he was doing the guy a favor (until the bad guy showed up at the lab and locked them in a death trap). Come to think of it, that should be logical by that point in the series. STAR Labs in Central City has no security. It was broken into every other episode. You'd have to be an idiot to think that's a safe place to be overnight. Night watchmen is a job you get your worst enemy.
Interestingly enough, we never saw the character again. (And there were a couple other injured STAR Labs Night Watchmen before the end of the series.)
Artist Iris was annoying too. She doesn't need to be a photojournalist, but man the girl in the pilot was a dull, shallow love interest. Very unlike the woman in the comics. (I prefer to think of her as some other girl named Iris, and that somewhere in that TV continuity there was another Iris West they would've brought in with Wally for the second or third series.) They were right to get rid of her for the rest of the show.
I also kind of wish the Nightshade had made it to the comics during the Golden Age Revisionist movement in the 90s. Yeah, he's only a TV cross between Jay Garrick and Wesley Dodds, but I think he could've been adapted as a Golden Age Central City counterpart to Jay in the comics.
Of course, I'm probably just disappointed he only got two episodes. It's a shame this series never caught on.
The rest of the place is not.
Baby steps, though.
Admittedly, the Flash was more of a distraction than a help. I popped the DVDs in because I'd seen most all of the episodes a long time ago, but I forgot that that was a long time ago. I had to stop and watch.
I really liked that this series had a different continuity than the comics. Part of the fun of was getting to see how much of which villains made it to television, and how much of which plots. The Flash series had some overt references to the Rogue's gallery (Trickster showed up in name and costume, but in personality he was Mark Hamill's audition for the Joker), some medium references (Mirror Master showed up with his civilian name, personality and tech intact, but no costume or villain name), and some subtle ones (the episode where three bad guys of varying degrees of evilness and competence team up to put the city to sleep -- The guy who makes all of the equipment has a green vest and bow tie). Everything's mixed and matched.
I do think they should've kept the comic book connection, though. Barry in the series came up with the lightning symbol on his own and the papers named him the Flash. Nothing really indicated he'd ever read a comic, and there's a few places in the series it might have helped him. In one episode, he gets an old classmate a job as Night Watchman at STAR Labs. See, anyone who's ever read a comic book knows that is the most dangerous job you can possibly get in a superhero city, but Barry thought he was doing the guy a favor (until the bad guy showed up at the lab and locked them in a death trap). Come to think of it, that should be logical by that point in the series. STAR Labs in Central City has no security. It was broken into every other episode. You'd have to be an idiot to think that's a safe place to be overnight. Night watchmen is a job you get your worst enemy.
Interestingly enough, we never saw the character again. (And there were a couple other injured STAR Labs Night Watchmen before the end of the series.)
Artist Iris was annoying too. She doesn't need to be a photojournalist, but man the girl in the pilot was a dull, shallow love interest. Very unlike the woman in the comics. (I prefer to think of her as some other girl named Iris, and that somewhere in that TV continuity there was another Iris West they would've brought in with Wally for the second or third series.) They were right to get rid of her for the rest of the show.
I also kind of wish the Nightshade had made it to the comics during the Golden Age Revisionist movement in the 90s. Yeah, he's only a TV cross between Jay Garrick and Wesley Dodds, but I think he could've been adapted as a Golden Age Central City counterpart to Jay in the comics.
Of course, I'm probably just disappointed he only got two episodes. It's a shame this series never caught on.
Amazons Attack 30 Second Recap
Yes, I'm pushing the deadline, but I worked on it so I'm posting it anyway.
In honor of the ISB's Third Awesomeversary, Ragnell's Written World presents...
In honor of the ISB's Third Awesomeversary, Ragnell's Written World presents...
Amazons Attack! (in 30 Seconds)
Friday, January 04, 2008
Quiz time!
It was bound to happen eventually. Someone went and made a Lantern quiz with all seven colors.
I got a really good result:
Kalinara didn't.
What did she get? Ask Batman:
I got a really good result:
Which Power Ring would come to you? |
 You have the ability to overcome great fear. Welcome to the Green Lantern Corps. Your ring will guide you to Oa where you will be instructed in the proper use of your newfound powers as Green Lantern of sector 2814. Take this quiz!  QuizillaJoin | Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code |
Kalinara didn't.
What did she get? Ask Batman:
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Unhappy Meals
"Boy" Toys:
When I go to McDonald's and they ask the dreaded "Is this for a girl or a boy?" question, I'm always stuck. My daughter always wants the boy toy, but if I say it's for a boy, she freaks. If I say "It's for a girl, but we want a boy toy", invariably we get the girl toy anyway. Even if I just say "I'd like a boy toy, please", my daughter cries. "I don't want the BOY toy, mama, I want the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles toy! They're not just for boys, are they? Why do the boys always get the good toys?"(That one's an old post so if you go there and comment there's no telling if you'll see the blogger reply or not.)
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Quick Check-in
Okay, I made one more resolution. I want to try to post daily because I leave this place for too long at a time. (I'm trying a "Watercolor A Day" calender as well, and the prospects for that one don't look any better. I'll give them both a try, though.)
I do have a post idea (I was going to explain which character I hated more than Jade and why) but my first resolution is cleaning my habitat so I'm too busy arranging a make-shift night stand with my shortboxes to do a detailed post. I just wanted to get one done before the day runs out. Here's a picture of my Soranik Natu mini-Barbie repaint (from back in August) instead. I threw in the Guy and Kyle figures for a vacation group photo feel.
I do have a post idea (I was going to explain which character I hated more than Jade and why) but my first resolution is cleaning my habitat so I'm too busy arranging a make-shift night stand with my shortboxes to do a detailed post. I just wanted to get one done before the day runs out. Here's a picture of my Soranik Natu mini-Barbie repaint (from back in August) instead. I threw in the Guy and Kyle figures for a vacation group photo feel.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Happy New Year
Almost missed the holiday again, but my only resolution is to keep the house clean and I was distracted by putting that off.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Yeah, off-topic but I've been neglecting this blog.
Some interesting stuff in this thread about women and religion, particularly Artic Stranger's Post #40:
For men, women represent a loss of power. To fall in love is to give your heart away. If you give your heart away, you can be hurt...very badly. (There was a recent play where one character tells her daughter, "Don't be the one in the relationship who loves the most. That person gets hurt. You need to be the one who is loved the most. You wont get hurt then."
Throw in the sexual drive, and boom...you have a very threatened man. How does that song go? "When a man loves a woman..." (See song lyrics at the end of Post)
Then throw in the historical feeling of men that one of the worst things you can be called is "sissy" or "pussy" or some other term to denote that you were a feminine type man. (In ancient Rome homosexuality was rampant...well SODAMY was rampant, homosexuality did not exist... and it was considered fine to be the one screwing other men, but you did not want to be the one who was screwed by other men.) Sexuality is a fluid thing, and most women have some masculine characteristics, and most men have some feminine characteristics. Men are much less comfortable with their feminine side than women are with their masculine side. (These are tendencies, not iron clad rules.) So when the feminine appears in a man, he feels threatened, from within, but he can easily focus the threat outward to other women.
Now throw in religion. Let's take Augustine, one of the main culprits in the Christian wrong turn on sexuality. Augustine was a man obsessed with sex. He was the one who prayed, "Lord make me chaste, but not today." It was his attraction to his mistress that kept him from fully converting to Christianity. When he did convert he renounced her and his child he had with her.
Now as I was writing that last paragraph, I ALMOST wrote, "It was his mistress who kept him from fully converting." Notice how I almost put the blame on her. It was rather instinctual, and I had reframe my own thoughts. That "innocent" little slip is a habit for many men who want to devote their lives to God. The major impediment most will encounter will be their relationship with women. And since we are masters at self-delusion and self-justification, it is rather easy to see how the problem shifts from "I have a problem dealing with my desires about women" to "Women are a problem to me." When that move is made, men must be protect from women.
(And remember that sexual roles were pretty segregated at one time. A lot of what women did was a HUGE mystery to men. And we did not know as much about anatomy either, so even the way women were structured was a mystery. Where DOES that baby come from? What is the deal with all that blood?)
So eventually, to "protect" men from the effects of women, they eventually put them into one of two boxes; virgin saint, or whore. They are either helping us toward our goal of sainthood (usually by making an incredible sacrifice of their own sexuality, violently and graphically) or they are seducing us with their sexuality and are poison apples.
Blogosphere!
Cheer me up, dammit.
Kalinara has been regaling me with a list of unusual fictional properties that people will write male-on-male pornography about, but this just seems to be depressing me more.
(Though if she could find enough Lensmen slash I'd feel a certain justice was served for riddling the space opera genre with sexism. Sure, I probably wouldn't read it. But I want it to exist.)
Kalinara has been regaling me with a list of unusual fictional properties that people will write male-on-male pornography about, but this just seems to be depressing me more.
(Though if she could find enough Lensmen slash I'd feel a certain justice was served for riddling the space opera genre with sexism. Sure, I probably wouldn't read it. But I want it to exist.)
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Weird
My referral stat suggests that a number of people are reaching my sites through the Mary Jane Statue posts from May and June.
There must be a new post out there on this subject that I haven't found yet.
There must be a new post out there on this subject that I haven't found yet.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
This is odd. (And annoying)
How is it that the last hour and a half that I've seen tonight is stuff parodying feminism?
I mean, seriously, two sexual harassment storylines and a gender-separated education storyline that all have "The feminists are overreacting" as a major plot point. (Well, I've seen the last one before and I guess it's fair to say the theme there was "The feminists are being naive" but the other two paint feminists as jumping the gun and men as needing women to civilize them which pisses me off too) Those stories as irritating on their own, but three in a fucking row is infuriating.
It's especially bad because I don't get a night off to just watch television very often, so it really sucks when it's the night of the antifeminist backlash.
Time to put in a DVD, I suppose.
I mean, seriously, two sexual harassment storylines and a gender-separated education storyline that all have "The feminists are overreacting" as a major plot point. (Well, I've seen the last one before and I guess it's fair to say the theme there was "The feminists are being naive" but the other two paint feminists as jumping the gun and men as needing women to civilize them which pisses me off too) Those stories as irritating on their own, but three in a fucking row is infuriating.
It's especially bad because I don't get a night off to just watch television very often, so it really sucks when it's the night of the antifeminist backlash.
Time to put in a DVD, I suppose.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
I almost skipped the whole holiday.
Anyway, since there's about ten minutes left of this one, have a Happy Christmas and here's a cute video for you.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)