Free to Good Home: The Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans

Remember this?

EQUALITY IS OUT THERE

Even today, some fandoms seem to have a “No Girls Allowed” sign. Created by men and for men, and populated with men who don’t realize that women also dream of telepathic communication, traveling to the stars, dragon-slaying and x-ray vision, it can get stifling for a female fan. Often a search for positive female portrayals is answered by “This is not for you, so go read Harlequinn romance,” “CENSORSHIP!! She’s crying for CENSORSHIP!!” “I know at least two women who like [simpering, annoying female stereotype "character"]” or even “If you are actually a woman, online its hard to tell.”

(At least, that’s how it seems in superhero fandom.)

But there are female-friendly stories out there. There are female-friendly sites and communities. There are female-friendly fans out there. And yes, there are even feminists out there! Which brings us here.

The Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans periodically collects posts from the hazy side-reality where feminist social consciousness meets the outer limits of the imagination. This is to draw attention to lesser known bloggers, to bring individuals of like-minded (or at least, understanding) interests together, and to foster the growth of feminist fan communities.

I used to take great pride in keeping the Feminist SF Carnival going. Not just keeping my friends connected, but also being able to sustain meaningful conversation about such a niche subject as feminist analysis of genre fiction. That's not easy to do.

Unfortunately, over the last couple years I've let it slide as my career's become more and more demanding. Since at least January I've fully intended to ask around for another organizer to take over, but even that's fallen by the wayside. I only really read a select few blogs anymore, so I don't even know if there's been drama and splits in the community. I don't even know if I've been replaced in the meantime or if we're going through an odd period of quiet or if the old gang has simply self-destructed while I wasn't watching. As a result, I've been reticent about offering this up. I used to keep my finger on the pulse of the community--at least the comics portion--and it's very weird to be so disconnected from everyone that I don't know who would be able to do this, and would have the social skills/connections to keep everything together.

But I figure after reading that guy yesterday, and the reaction of disgust he got, and the idiocy responding to that disgust... There'll be enough activity soon for a blog carnival on this subject.

I won't be able to host or organize, though, and I don't want to be the one occupying a slot that can be filled by an active person.

The organizer job involves finding a host, giving the host guidance on running a blog carnival, and promotion promotion promotion. You need to be diplomatic, attentive, passionate, obsessive, and on decent terms with the crew of Feminist SF -- The Blog! because they're associated.

So if someone wants to take this thing and run with it, email me.

*Ahem*

Fuck this guy.

ETA: Fuck his friend, too.

Even the Title Screams Hopelessness

Several of my so-called friends this evening took it upon themselves to remind me that Trina Robbins once wrote Wonder Woman. To be fair, they were thinking of a charming miniseries she helped illustrate, but the first thing that came to my mind upon broaching this best-forgotten subject was a little known one-shot from the 90s entitled Wonder Woman: The Once and Future Story.

If you are interested in viewing Colleen Doran's beautiful depiction of the iconic female superhero, this is the book to purchase. But I would advise you to flip through and view the artwork without actually paying attention to the plot or dialogue, because you greatly risk exposing yourself to a display of feminine powerlessness singularly unsuited to the concept of Wonder Woman.

It's been years since I looked at this miserable pamphlet, but the pertinent details are still clear in my memory. Wonder Woman befriends a female archaeologist (a coworker of Julia's, I think) who is being abused by her husband. Diana's feeble and flailing attempts to understand and improve the situation culminate in the drunken husband holding a gun to his hapless wife's head. Despite Wonder Woman having super-speed, and super-strength, and the Eye of the Huntress, and the ability to communicate with animals, and the ability to force people to see the truth with a nifty golden rope she carries, and a nifty golden rope that can be used to humanely restrain crazy people, and talent in negotiation/social strategy gifted to her by ATHENA AND APHRODITE THEMSELVES; the woman (and I believe her husband) is killed because Diana is too late to prevent the tragedy and too naive to see it coming.

Every once in a while, a well-meaning writer chooses to touch upon serious issues in superhero comics. Now, I'm all for a little real-world awareness raising. But there's a danger, when touching on certain issues, of stripping the superhero of the very thing that draws readers to superheroes--the fantasy that you have power to affect your world. Hell, what makes them heroes is not only that they have direct power over the world and use that power to better it, but that when they come across a situation their powers can't fix they go about fixing it through wit or by seeking help from a hero who can fix it. It is absolutely vital to the story that writers find the fine line between treating the chosen issue too flippantly, and robbing the hero of their heroic appeal.

Different characters are better for this than others. Some characters are just win-some, lose-some heroes so they can be helpless in the situation without losing too much for the reader. Some characters only suit certain situations. Some are so ridiculously powerful in certain realms that being unable to affect certain lives positively is not a huge blow to the hero's appeal. And some characters are Batman, and will be awesome even though no one's life can really be improved in their traditional setting.

And some characters are like Wonder Woman, specifically packaged as an icon for a disenfranchised portion of the population. Custom-made and marketed as someone who teaches little girls that they are important and able to make a difference in the world.

Some issues are personal issues, things the writer can deal with directly. Things where one person's life can be improved but everyone's can't so it's a win-one, lose-the-rest or lose-one but maybe-save-the-next resolution. Some issues (such as ongoing genocides) are so fucking huge that they can only be handled in a metaphor, because it would just suck to have the heroes lose. Some issues are close to home, and some are far away and distorted.


And some issues are like domestic violence against women, immediate and personal and directly tied to the core concept and appeal of a character like Wonder Woman. This issue is specifically a matter of women losing their power to direct their own lives. This is an issue that hits close to home for a large number of women, whether they were directly affected or watched a friend or relative suffer through it. This issue is the very definition of powerlessness for many women.

Of course, any well-meaning writer is going to handle it delicately. A good many writers are inclined to end stories of domestic violence in tragedy, so that they can show how a naive girl learns a lesson, raise awareness, or even just vent some of their own helpless feeling a bit. And a number of writers would probably see any victory, however small, against domestic violence as betraying the seriousness of the issue. I can understand why any writer would hold these positions.

But why any writer would think that the Portrait of Feminine Power and Agency completely unable to help a friend suffering from domestic violence would make a good Wonder Woman story, I don't know.

The "Once and Future Story" is the perfect example of where writers go wrong with serious issues and Wonder Woman stories. The problems facing women in the world are overwhelming and quite depressing, and it seems most natural that a character who was raised free of these problems would be unable to effectively wade through the morass of misogyny she encounters. It probably seems most respectful to these problems that a magical princess from an island out of time is unable to make any true headway with them. But that angle strips Wonder Woman of her power, and turns her from a symbol of hope into just another helpless woman pushed around by a cold world

This nicely illustrated piece of shit grated on my nerves more than any stale Greg Horn cover could, because this kind of plot gives a very specific message to readers. Even if you get wisdom and wit as a gift from the goddesses themselves, you can't resolve a conflict peacefully. Even if you have the help of the gods themselves and all the animals of the forest, you're still getting tripped up by the mundane stuff. Even if you can fly high enough to skim the clouds and run faster than a cheetah, you'll never make any headway where it really matters. Even if you can pick up a Mack truck, throw it at a target two miles away and hit exactly what you aimed for, you can't ever fix things.

That's not the message we're supposed to get from Wonder Woman.

Cry for Justice #3

I'm quite a bit behind the curve since I went overseas, and I'm only paying slight attention to the rest of the Blogosphere.  That's the way my life is now.  Even I couldn't miss the Cry for Justice thing, in no small part because Chris was IMing me for my righteous Hal Jordan defense.

I know, in the past couple weeks this subject has been covered ad nauseum and probably better, but I've let it stew too long.

When I first heard the complaints assumed we were witnessing a case of what I like to call "Civil War Syndrome".  Basically, the phenomenon where they attempt to do a political argument between a character on the Left and a character on the Right, but really end up with a character behaving sanely and a character behaving insanely.   This is because in the past decade American discourse has been skewed so absurdly towards the right on certain issues that people quoting Ronald Reagan's views on torture are considered liberal.  I suspect this is because of the different ways in which both the political parties and the media handles Right-wing and Left-wing crazies in the 21st Century.  The Democrats disavow and distance, the media ignores the Truthers and the wilder sides of the Anti-War movement.  This is to the detriment of the Left because the general public adores the middle of the road, and a little exposure to crazy goes a long way in making your slightly left-of-center view palatable.   On the Right, the Republicans embrace and pander, and the media spotlights the Calhoun Club.  This is to the detriment of the Right because the reasonable viewpoints that are just slightly right of center are glossed over, and never discussed as the centrists and the leftists can only see the dark cloud of madness devouring the landscape and defend themselves accordingly.  And so a proper compromise is never reached.

But that's just me doing my periodic tangent into my Personal Grand Unified Theory of Fiction, the Media and Politics, as required by Paragraph 2(c) subsection 7 of the Universal Blogger's Code.

How does this translate to Civil War and Cry for Justice?  Well, the writer of a story looks at an issue in the media and marks down what the conservative character would do and say, and what the liberal character would do and say.  This way, the writer can have a big relevant story.

This is my Grand Theory of how we get the behavior of Tony "We can totally circumvent the justice system and still be good guys" Stark in Civil War, and more recently Oliver "Are you sure you wanna do this horrible thing?  Okie-dokie, Hal" Queen in Cry for Justice.

When I initially heard of the torture sequence in Cry for Justice, I assumed this was how Robinson placed Hal Fucking Jordan--the guy who was basically the conscience of the Green Lantern Corps up until Emerald Twilight Which Was Recently Proven to Be Not His Fault--in the position of defending the torture of a suspect.

Being quite a fan of the O'Neill/Adams run, I had some expectations about the scene.  I pictured Oliver Queen pitching a fit and Hal having a grief-induced breakdown.  I expected that Oliver Queen would be proven right in the end when, as Mr. Sims informed me on the dark day this issue was released, the suspect was revealed not to be the person they intended to torture after all.

I was outraged and angry that my favorite character would be put in the position of rolling back on his principles to make such an obvious point as "torture is bad" simply because once again the O'Neill/Adams run had been misunderstood, and Hal was needed to play the conservative character when there were plenty of other characters who would canonically be in favor of beating/scaring information out of a prisoner.  Didn't this man understand that there are certain characters that you just don't do that with?   I was fired up and ready to rant but stopped myself until I'd had a chance to read the whole cursed issue, even thought I had already completely made up my mind about just how James Robinson had fucked up the character.

Then I read the issue in question.  And was shocked into silence.

It appeared, on first and second reading, that Robinson was condoning the use of torture on a suspect.  And I'm still not quite sure what to say about that.

I can say that the sequence takes place with three characters acting so far out of character they might be their Crime Syndicate counterparts.  Hal Jordan, who has the role of stopping this sort of thing when it occurs in the Green Lantern Corps is observing as Ray Palmer, who is aware of this technique being used to murder one of his dearest friends, is inside what is apparently the head of Prometheus, tap-dancing.

Oliver Queen, who has the role of stopping this sort of thing anytime it happens anywhere, was timidly asking Hal if this qualified as torture.  The Real Oliver Queen would be standing between Ray and the Prisoner making comparisons to Hitler, but this person wearing Green Arrow's beard and costume was standing slightly behind Hal was asking ever so quietly if they should consider human rights.

And the torture itself.  It was a "clean" torture.  You're supposed to read this and think it's not so bad thing.  This is not watching them argue about getting their hands dirty with something that gets relegated in drama to the
basements of Nazi criminals.  This is something that is designed to say to people "See, this causing pain to other people to get them to talk? That's not bad, that's not really evil.  It's not even a risk to his life."  Just a little headache.  Using the same technique that killed Sue Dibny.

And, even though it turned out to be Clayface rather than Prometheus, the torture worked.  The guy spilled his guts and gave them information.

I was angry before I read it because Hal Jordan is what you'd call a "High Road" character.  I thought that he was being dragged through the mud to present a conservative foil to a moral rant. But no, this doesn't seem like that at all.  This seems like the writer thought it was a perfectly okay way to have them go about.  Edgy.

And yeah, this worked for the Shade, but you know what?  Not every character is the fucking Shade and they shouldn't be.

Why I Hate Greg Horn

Thank god he's not doing the covers for Ms. Marvel anymore.

(Dave reminded me.)

Disney wins Marvel, but do women still lose?

Disney buys Marvel

Of course, the question all over my Twitterfeed is "will this make things better for female fans?" There's some people dreaming of a bright future where X-women marketed side by side with Cinderella and superhero comics aimed for teenaged girls are sold as well as illustrated fairytale classics, but I find myself pessimistic.

Yeah, Disney's good with girls, but a) the word is they acquired Marvel to attract male customers and b) they're the producers of the ultra-feminine Disney Princess line, the long-standing keepers of traditional gender roles. I wouldn't hold out hope that Disney will make Marvel somehow more girl-friendly, when what they want is a boy's club under their banner and they aren't exactly into kickass women themselves.

I suppose there's some hope after the Tinkerbell movie, where Tink was remade based on strength of her name into a complete gadget-geek. The Fairies stuff suggests they're branching out to girls beyond the Princess line, so maybe they'll use some of the superhero characters for that.

At best, we get a court above Judge Joe Q to appeal to when we see something truly heinous. We may even see them pass on the more disgusting ideas for the mainstream titles. But I just don't expect female superheroes to suddenly get better billing and treatment out of this, or that they'll be seen as more than just candy to entice a pubescent male audience.

Aside from the gender-worries, I'm happy for Marvel. Big company, more stable than Marvel on its own. Better resources, more movies and support. Possibly some Uncle Scrooge reprints under the Marvel banner. And a few hours coming up with silly jokes (as well as some inspiring realizations about existing stories.)

Happy Birthday, Jack Kirby

It's about six to midnight my time, and I know that my readership has dwindled to those who have subscribed and never unsubscribed but I'd be remiss if I allowed the 92d anniversary of Jack Kirby's birth go by without saying something.  I'd like to post panels and write essays, but I put it off too much.

So instead, let me just call attention to three things:

24 Hours with Jack Kirby -- Bully's Kirbyathon, currenlty ongoing because the day hasn't slipped away in his timezone yet.

Kirby Facts -- This meme on Twitter.

Stan's Vs. Jack's Sue Storm -- This two-year old livejournal post that I still absolutely love that contrasts Sue Storm as drawn with Sue Storm as written.  Judging by her posture and actions, Kirby envisioned the Invisible Woman as a full and valuable member of the team--the kind of kickass woman that little girls in the 60s could admire. I get a strong impression that pictures spoke louder than dialogue and that's why we have the Sue we have today.

Ahem.

Ryan Reynolds will be Hal Jordan.

That is all.


Oh, and the cat came back. So did Captain America, which you probably already knew but since I'm listing happy thoughts I figured I'd throw that out there.

Kwitter

Part of the usefulness of Twitter is that I can find out pretty quickly if something has happened to my beloved cat (previously referred to as Knight, Hak, Mordred, That Furry Bastard, Buttbrain, Bucky...etc... Generally whatever strikes me as a fun thing to yell at the beginning of GET OFF MY UNIFORM) through my sister's feed. She catblogs via Twitter, and of course is too impulsive to stop herself from bleeting out that the male cat escaped last night.

This after she urged me to give the cat to her because my mother would assuredly let the little beast slip to his dangerous freedom within the first week. My mother kept saying he'd try to find his way back to Oklahoma when I dropped him off there last summer. Since Ma was being a defeatist I agreed.

I figured he'd be fine since I had him for three years in a tiny apartment and he never once tried to bolt, despite my holding the door open while I paid the pizza guy. Should have known he wouldn't like my sister as much as me.

I'm not mad at her. Yet.

Hunger might set in still. He might come scratching around the screen door soon. I hope he does. He might be okay on his own, but I can't replace him. He's too perfect for me. Friendly, likes to be picked up and carried around, enjoys chasing pacing people, talkative, adventurous, dumb, amusingly clumsy... All the best cat traits.

Anyway, if you're in the Endless Mountains area and you see a big black cat that's wandering around (probably bumping into things) wearing a green collar (it had better still be green) and an expression on his face like Kyle Rayner's first week in outer space, be nice to him. He's a sweetheart.

EDIT: He's back.

Hopefully that long break has finally cleared out all of the remaining comic book fans in the audience. Now I can finally blog about 17th Century teacup handles like I always wanted.

Don't Panic

Okay, so I found out on Twitter (via various) last night that Tom Brevoort dropped a fun Captain America image in our laps. A female Bucky.

I'd like to smack the guys who say that Natasha and Sharon are the obvious choices over the head, and not for lack of continuity knowledge. It's an insult. Natasha and Sharon have identities. Damned good ones, at that. Sharon may arguably be the sidekick-girlfriend (which works for her, she's as very cool sidekick/girlfriend and right-hand woman to Nick Fury--they really should've kept her that way in the Ultimate Avengers movie rather than trying to put her personality on Natasha), but she is a well-established as a superspy and a sidekick/girlfriend under the name Agent 13. Black Widow is commonly a partner and love interest, but she's one of the leading female Avenger characters, and of all the supporting cast roles she's had she's never changed identities to suit her boyfriend. Switching to be a female Bucky would be a serious downgrade from their own well-rooted identities.

And nothing that these women have done, and nothing in their plotlines suggests that taking on Bucky's costume would be natural. If Tasha wants to hide her connection to the New Captain America, it's too late. Sharon's emotional connections are to Steve. She may have a lot in common with Bucky, but she's got no reason to emulate him. It could be pulled off--as part of some temporary trick--but the assumption is horrible. It just doesn't fit either woman.

Not to mention they have the Spy vs. Spy theme going on with their current costumes and we've yet to see an artist play with that.

My own first thought on just reading about the picture was that Bucky had a long-lost daughter or granddaughter surface because there is ample opportunity for him to have had children. And grandchildren. (I still fully expect some day he'll run into Rick Jones and ask if his grandmother was a Red Cross volunteer named Katherine Jones who was in London during 1943. It explains nicely why there was a perfect Bucky lookalike around when Steve defrosted.)

Then I saw the picture.



Admittedly, she does look like Natasha (its the red shading), and if Natasha ever had any kids it would have been pre-Widow treatment (I've been informed she's sterile since getting that Russian serum). A writer who wanted a Black Widow/Winter Soldier story would be easily able to fit the affair with Bucky in while she could still have kids, and get a baby or a set of twins out of it. Especially with Tasha's messed up memory. Perfect soap opera/superhero baby setup. They could bring them in at any age they want and do their motherhood story with Tasha without taking her out of action for nine-plus months of storytime.

But it's almost certainly not a new character. It's also certainly not Natasha or Sharon. She's wearing goggles. I adore goggles on a superhero costume, but they are like leather jackets -- a 90s thing. Tasha or Sharon would have been given a more 21st Century look for a new costume. Same with a new character.

It's the Heroes Reborn character (Yes, that's all the poor girl gets on Wikipedia), and I'm really happy about that. I always liked the idea of a female sidekick for Cap, but the art was just too horrible to try out. I've been wanting a chance to read this character without really dreadful art.

I'll be happy as long as she doesn't die horribly. (Yes, I'm looking at you DC and your female Robin stunt.) I sincerely hope this is not just killing an "excess character" off. It's one thing if she's just a ten-page backup story that ends with her retiring from superheroics to have a normal life, it's another if she gets horribly killed off as a way of illustrating the dark nature of the world and brushing that whole Onslaught/Heroes Reborn craziness under the rug. Way too often cleaning house in a franchise involves getting rid of young female derivative characters in really shitty ways.

But that's a really awesome picture, so I intend to be optimistic.

Every once in a while, Sims shows evidence of a working brain.

Like on IM today...

Chris Sims: So.
Chris Sims: To review.
Chris Sims: Post-Nextwave, Machine Man gets to be a surly, drunken, shape-changing leading man in MARVEL ZOMBIES 3, where he takes on an entire planet of the undead and wins.
Chris Sims: Post-Nextwave, Monica Rambeau gets to be in MARVEL DIVAS, which is described as "Sex in the City in the Marvel Universe."
Chris Sims: No wonder you women are so mad all the time.

The comparison hadn't occurred to me until then. I'd even been willing to write the whole thing off as EiC Foot-in-the-Mouth syndrome, but now I'm all mad Marvel again.

Marvelous thoughts

Courtesy of Brainfreeze:



If this is timed for July 4th, I might be able to keep my ice cream money.

And if we're reading this promotional stuff right, I hope Bucky goes back to being Winter Soldier rather than some silly new identity. Winter Soldier is actually a pretty good codename, considering the alternatives, and I absolutely adore that character design. Honestly, I wish he'd wear his Winter Soldier outfit and just use the shield more often.

~~~~~

A conversation on Twitter about X-Men merchandise led to the realization that Wolverine is the Lancelot of the X-Men. This probably isn't anything original, but those of you who haven't seen it come up should consider these three points:

-- Lancelot was added in the 12th Century to a mythos that dates back to the 5th Century.
-- Wolverine was added in the 70s to a franchise created in the 60s.

-- Lancelot's romantic plotline includes many women (most named Elaine), but revolves around a mutual attraction with Guinevere, who is married to the King.
-- Wolverine's romantic plotline includes many women, but revolves around a mutual attraction with Jean, who is married to the team leader.

-- Lancelot is a Frenchman in an English court.
-- Wolverine is a Canadian on a US team.

-- Lancelot periodically goes off wandering to avoid being tempted by the Queen. At least once he went crazy and lived in the woods like a wild animal.
-- Wolverine periodically goes off wandering into other people's books. At least once he went feral lived in the woods on the schoolyard grounds like a wild animal.

-- Lancelot is now such a central character that a King Arthur movie or book without Lancelot is almost unthinkable.
-- Wolverine is now such a central character that not only is an X-Men team without Wolverine is almost unthinkable, he has to guest-star in every comic Marvel publishes. Hell, they once did a whole month where everyone just fought Wolverine! He was in the fricking Invaders that month!

I'm certain we can find more if we tried.

~~~~~

And finally, I'm more extensively annoyed at Marvel over on Robot 6. Enjoy.

Sir Gawain: Great Knight, or Greatest Knight? Those are your only choices.

Today is the "What's your Scott and Jean?" meme day, where participating comic bloggers declare and explain their "Scott and Jean" or rather their "Greek Sacred Cow"--the one story point that they cling to that makes them completely frothing-at-the-mouth insane, and are unable to discuss reasonably.

I have a lot of those. Kyle Rayner is a better Lantern than anyone else; Wally West should be the Flash; Steve Trevor should be the love interest for Wonder Woman; The Kingpin has only 2% body fat (I once stopped the car over this one) to list a few, but those all fall among those that are negotiable. Things that change after a few years or after seeing the right writer manage it.

Really, in all of Geekdom there is only one matter that I will never negotiate on: Sir Gawain.

My first real interest in the King Arthur legend came with the reading of Sir Gawaine and the Ugly Wife (Not the Howard Pyle version. Do not read the Howard Pyle version.) It was followed by seeing a televised presentation of Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight. Preferring short stories to longform novels even as a child, most of my Arthurian research came from hunting for folklore books in the library/on the internet. Mainly I searched for Gawain stories. He was my favorite character, the rightful heir to the throne (as the oldest son of the oldest sister, he had much more legitimacy than Mordred), the paragon of courtesy and gentleness (when written correctly), and often the only one of those fucking stone-aged Roundtable morons who treated women like human beings. He may be seen as a womanizer because he had a different girl in every story (and most of the more interesting women in Arthurian literature are in Gawain adventures), but can you honestly fault the only man in Logres who would solve a dispute over who gets to marry a woman by ACTUALLY ASKING THE GIRL for getting laid a lot? No, that's only natural.

Bundled into this protectiveness are very specific ideas about his mother. See, I always traced Gawain's progressive attitude towards women to the influence of his mother Morgause, King Arthur's more interesting sister. I always like to describe her as the Blanche Devereaux of Camelot. A mature, vibrant woman with an especially active sex life who may be a bit self-absorbed and blinded by passion at times, but is still a warm, good-hearted mother.

Modern writers love to redeem Morgan Le Fay so they can have a "strong woman" but want to keep the witch, so they like to make Morgause the evil one. I fucking hate that. She has so much potential on her own as a female character. Sure there's stories where she slept with her brother and don't get me wrong, I find that horrifyingly disgusting as we're all meant to. But think about it, wouldn't it suck royally to find out that the hot little prince you slept with to cement a treaty was not just a blood relative, but a freaking sibling? Oh, and that you're going to have his kid. I mean, what's with these writers that they can't empathize with a character who made such a huge freaking mistake and need to demonize the character to keep the plot point. Do we really need to make her the wicked witch of the North to keep that part of the story in?

Hell, just leaving that part out (a lot of writers are squeamish on the incest), do we really need to cut off her head in the end for bedding a hot little knight a third of her age twenty to forty fucking years after her husband kicks it? I mean, what's wrong with someone in the Court having a healthy sex life?

I had been reading pre-Malory legends for years when I finally got off my ass and read Le Morte D'Arthur and The Once and Future King. I discovered right away that I really hate Le Morte D'Arthur because Gawain is such a blockhead, because he's shown up as the idiot, because he has to have a freaking enchantment just to explain why he can stand up to Lancelot AFTER spending much of the story getting his ass saved by Lancelot. And honestly, I fucking hate Lancelot and the whole fucking Lancelot/Guinevere story that moviemakers/comicwriters/novelists/etc are so fucking fascinated by that they'll throw considerably more interesting characters in the fucking trash to make time for it. I hate that so muchfiction after this point was based on Malory's story, running the Lancelot loves the Queen story into the ground when they could have been fleshing out characters like Gawain, Perceval, Yvain, Lynnette, Morgause, Eric, Enid, Kay, Bors and so on. (And for the record Perceval gets screwed in this book too because they give his Grail Quest glory to Lancelot's shitty little cipher of a son Galahad. That's Perceval's fucking story, dammit!)

And I will never forgive T.H. White for giving the Green Knight adventure to that little asskisser Gareth and for making "Morgause is the evil witch" (though I concede that The Queen of Air and Darkness is a kickass title) into a motif that everyone who wants to show Morgan as sympathetic likes to use. (Yeah, fuck you too Mists of Avalon!)

My Gawain is not the jerk of the Howard Pyle stories, or the dick of the Tristan cycle, or the blockhead written by Thomas Malory and TH White. My Gawain is the respectful, quiet, handsome man from the Green Knight and the Ugly Wife/Loathly Lady stories, and if your Arthurian story features any other Gawain, I will most likely hate it and call you mean names no matter how skillful and innovative the story may be.

I'm about to lose some money, aren't I?

So Kalinara and I have a standing bet on Captain America. We're both completely convinced that Steve Rogers will be back very soon. Kalinara figured on a milestone issue. She said they'll either bring him back with issue 50 or they'll renumber Captain America like they did Fantastic Four and Thor on the next big centissual (I know that can't be the right word but I'm using it anyway) and mark the event with resurrection of Steve Rogers. I said that it would coincide with a date or an event rather than an issue number. I expected Steve Rogers to be resurrected on the month of his 70th Anniversary issue, in a special 4th of July or Sept 11th issue, or just before the movie comes out.

CAPTAIN AMERICA #600
Written by ED BRUBAKER with MARK WAID, ROGER STERN & OTHERS
Pencils by BUTCH GUICE, LUKE ROSS, DALE EAGLESHAM & OTHERS
Cover by STEVE EPTING
50/50 Cover by ALEX ROSS
Where were you when Captain America died? It's the anniversary of the day Steve Rogers was killed, a day of reflection and mourning in the Marvel U...a time to look back on the things Steve did and what he stood for... or is this issue actually the beginning of the most wicked plot twist since issue 25? Yeah, actually it's both. Plus, contributions from Cap creators past and present, including a very special essay by Joe Simon, a classic story from Cap's Golden Age, a full gallery of 600 Cap covers, and more anniversary shenanigans than you can shake a shield at!
104 PGS./New and Reprints/Rated T+ ...$4.99

MARVEL SPOTLIGHT: CAPTAIN AMERICA
Written by JOHN RHETT THOMAS
Cover by LUKE ROSS
A milestone 600th issue is worthy of a special issue of SPOTLIGHT no matter what the title. But when it's CAPTAIN AMERICA? We're gonna rock and roll with a SPOTLIGHT that's full of as much red, white and blue shield-slingin' surprises as we can! First up is an exclusive interview with the creative team ushering in this august occasion: Ed Brubaker, Butch Guice and Luke Ross -- three luminaries who have been letting their Cap flags fly! On top of that, we'll have coverage of some of the great Cap artists of all time, including 600th-issue cover artists Steve Epting and Alex Ross. We promise you'll be just as thrilled to read this as we will be to put it together! Remember: Cap's history is America's history! So join the SPOTLIGHT team as we take a look back and to the future with America's most patriotic hero!
32 PGS./Rated T+ ...$2.99

CBR News: Marvel Solicitations, June 2009

Yeah, they might as well have just put "The Return of Steve Rogers" in that solicit. There's a chance I can keep my ice cream money in June (maybe if someone from Marvel sees this blogpost and goes "oh shit, the fans are on to us!") but it's so slim it's under five on the BMI scale. This solicit is so obviously for a resurrection event that I'd bet the Steve is back reveal happens in the first few pages and that the end of the book has a completely different cliffhanger (You know, like in issue #25) if Kalinara didn't also figure on Brubaker pulling that again.

I took the long bet mainly because I wanted to watch Bucky squirm in Steve's place for a few extra months but I think I'll get over it. See, I'm starting to love the idea of Steve coming back in the middle of Dark Reign. How else can you can top "Wait.. you guilted/extorted/bribed my traumatized (semi-adopted) baby brother to risk his life doing my job..." but with "Tony... HOW did the Green Goblin end up holding the list of superhero names and addresses, along with all of that tech specifically designed to take out the people NOT on the list..."?

Blogged with the Flock Browser

New WFA Crew.

ETA: WFA Lives!!

For Sale: One Feminist Linkblog, Slightly Neglected

When Fangirls Attack: Announcement

Those of you who still follow this linkblog may have noticed a sharp decline in the quality and quantity of posting here on WFA. Anna's always great manga posts are the notable exception, but sadly, she can't carry the weight for all of us.

The truth is that real life got in the way and got in the way hard, and we've come to some unpleasant truths. There's no way we can keep this linkblog going.

We're sentimental types though, and we like to think that WFA serves a purpose in the fan community. We'd like to see it continue and regain some of the relevance it had previously.

That's why I'm posting. We're looking for someone/some people who are interested in taking over WFA.

--Kalinara

Just as Kalinara's school gets really intense, I get transferred from working on aircraft to working on air traffic control systems -- a considerably more demanding job -- in a completely different country.  Something had to give, and really it was internet time.  I haven't really checked my bloglines since January (I haven't written anything substantial since last year), and I keep up to date through a couple mailing lists and through what I see on Twitter.  This is no recipe for keeping track of discourse of any type.  So Melissa and I sat down and decided it was time to let the brainbaby go to someone else.  We decided to leave ourselves because we knew we'd get picky and bossy as subordinates on any team.

Email me at ragnellthefoul[AT]hotmail[DOT]com if you're up for keeping track of the blogosphere and posting a regular linkdump.

Oh, and don't do it alone.  Bring friends, for sanity's sake as well as to spread the work out.

Another reason I shouldn't let this blog go dormant.

Everytime I let it see too long, the spam bots think I've abandoned and they can just drop tons of links in my comments. Bastards.

I'm not gone for good, dammit. I'm just resting.

And another thing...

Apologizes for all the slice of life crap lately.  You guys have no idea how much it annoys me when all I can come up with to write about is a diary of the day's events.  But I need to get back on the damned horse.

If I'm not careful I might end up someone who never blogs.

I'm trying to keep from falling into month-long periods without writing a word, but life gets in the way.  I have fun ideas for blog posts and stories that keep getting put off.  This job is much meatier than my last, or I'm just listless right now.  My week's been interesting to live through at least.

This morning I woke up and noticed missed messages on my phone.  I'd been waiting on a coworker to call and tell me he didn't need me to drive out of my way to pick him up, so I figured that was the message.  My conscience wouldn't let me leave his travel to chance, so I called back the number to doublecheck.

A deep voice answered with the name of the Maintenance Chief. I rolled my eyes and told my coworker that was very funny.  After the third insistence I realized this was indeed the chief of maintenance who'd tried to call me the other night.  He'd wanted me to let him into the building, since I was the building manager.  When I hung up and hurried because I actually had to pick up the coworker now, I comforted myself that I wasn't as bad off as that Congresswoman who hung up twice on the President.  And I avoided a very embarrassing conversation, because on Sunday I'd closed the car door on my dropped set of keys, bending the master key to the building (and my house key, and my apartment key--which led to waiting in the snow for the landlord to drive up with a new set on a day all of the locksmiths are closed--GOOD TIMES!) and I hadn't gotten around to replacing/bending it back.

In the afternoon I drove two hours and got lost in a hospital only to find that the doctor who referred me to this new office hadn't actually written out any diagnosis notes for the lady I needed to see.  My real first session was postponed so that she could track down my doctor, and in the interim I can try yawning.

Prior to that I found myself being sharply reminded by the flight chief that my job title is "technician" and not "file clerk" even though I am responsible for all of the files in the office.  I swore I'd never be that woman in the office who does all the clerical work, and here I am doing all the clerical work.  Why am I doing all the clerical work?  Because the boss needed someone to organize the papers and those idiots I work with wouldn't know organized if they tripped over a sorted and labeled pile of it in the lovecraftian pit of disrepair that we laughingly call a workshop.  (To be fair it may indeed be a workshop, but I've yet to see the tables cleared so I have my doubts.)  Also, I was the "New Guy" at the time the additional duty involving filing opened up.

This is all a typical day for me right now.

So I've been a bit too tired to write substantially.  Instead I've been amusing myself with Twitter.  Last night I suggested to Canton that Black Widow--who is in her 70s but still looks to be in her 20s due to funky Russian supersoldier experiments--isn't using epic birth control, but rather is post-menopausal.  From there we pounded out a premise for what is either the most awful or most awesome miniseries on the Internet--BLACK WIDOW: HOT FLASH.

We're bad people, yes.

(The title was Canton's idea.)

Tales from the Office...

All blog jokes aside, I don't consider myself a confrontational person.  Certainly not in real life, at least.  I've always considered myself meek to a fault, and especially shy in person.  I've even kicked myself for being far too much of a pushover.  A wallflower, meek and mild.  I worry I suck up too much to the boss and I let too many things slide from my coworkers.  I've always considered myself in person to be very much the opposite of my online persona.

Last week at work, though, I got a surprise.

I understand completely why I have a reputation for tactlessness at work.  I've seen the memos these guys write.  Full of extra wording and platitudes around the point and--to quote my coworker who told me my memos were tactless--"buttering up" the other party to get what we want even after the matter has been agreed to over the telephone and the memorandum is merely a formality.  "Sir/Ma'am, Due to events entirely beyond our control we no longer have running water in the bathrooms.  According to regulations, we need to be able to wash our hands before we eat in order to prevent dying from some horrible disease.  If you could find it in your heart to send a plumber, we would be greatful.  Help us, Civil Engineering, you're our only hope."

I find that to be an utter waste of time.  I also think something like "Please repair the bathroom plumbling at your earliest convenience" is far more polite than necessary and should be sufficient for asking someone to do their fucking job anyway.  It also saves ink.

So it was no surprise to me that--after I asked Blunt Boss to brief the office on how to fill out a certain form and had been told by him to brief them myself because they'll listen to me because "women are scary" (I'd responded that my coworkers aren't afraid of me, they just assume I'll burst into tears if they push me too far and he'd insisted that was good enough so there was no getting out of it)--I was gently chided by Diplomatic Boss because "you get more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."

Now anyone who knows how much I fucking hate that turn of phrase will appreciate how nice I was when I disagreed with him.  I said I had been nice but promised not to use any profanity next time.  He told me i shouldn't start a lesson with "You've been doing it wrong" which made no sense to me, because the whole point of the briefing was they'd all been doing it wrong.

This conversation took place at the end of shift in the middle of the office and led to my statement that I wasn't confrontational.  This statement was greeted with laughter.

Naturally, there was a bit more arguing and Diplomatic Boss declared no progress would be made on either side once I'd narrowed my eyes and repeated "...female logic..." in response to a description ("Here is male logic, here is female logic, and WAY over here--") by a coworker.  This coworker was the next person to talk to Diplomatic Boss about effective communication.

And for the record, earlier that day that coworker--who had indeed read comics in his life--had been insisting that neither Steve Rogers nor Bruce Wayne would return from the dead so his opinion is suspect.

I did get Diplomatic Boss to concede that I was a pushover about "some things."

All in all, I ended up thrown into a minor identity crisis by the entire incident before the weekend was even underway.  I understand that humans have these internal views of ourselves, and its naturally disconcerting to find out just how different others see us than we see ourselves.  But that wasn't it entirely.  See, I've been keeping this blog for some time as an outlet and I suspect its led to a personality change.  But exactly what sort of change, I'm not sure.  I chose the nickname Ragnell the Foul on a whim, after a funny description I'd read of Gawain's wife in some Arthurian encyclopedia or another.  I wanted to indulge my monstrous side a bit, I wanted to have a chance to be the sort of person who doesn't let shit get flung on her and the name seemed to exemplify that.

And there's an idea in the Wiccan community--a small shadow of an idea that doesn't always surface but its definitely something to be kept in mind when chosing a name (Wiccans often take a "Craft Name" for their religious life)--that we conform to our names.  That if you pick the name of a story character you end up living out that story.  (Think twice about naming yourself for that tragic hero who lacked self-awareness.)  That if you take a description, you end up living up to it.  (Be wary of using modifiers such as "sometimes" or "not exactly" in front of virtuous descriptors.)  I've noticed it borne out enough online, some people just fit their handles.  I've wondered at times if this is putting the cart before the horse--if we just unconsciously choose a good description of ourselves when we choose a name--or if human beings really are such pattern-seeking monsters that we unconsciously mold ourselves to fit the front we put forth.  And that little incident at work, and the realization of how much I've changed over the last decade as well as the realization of how differently I see myself compared to how I act has me mulling it over.  Did I become Ragnell the Foul somehow, or is it just the real me leaking into my professional life?

And why are the guys I work with so damned sensitive?

From the 4th Letter..

"You know what sucks about character death?"

One of those posts where I found myself nodding my head after every sentence.

Oh wow.

Chris is buying Tarot again, and I couldn't be happier.  Check it out:  The Stark, Existential Horror of Tarot #53

And since I'm linking, my first post at Robot6 is up:  Just Past the Horizon: Heroic appeal

YES!!!!!

Next DC Animated Film Confirmed: Green Lantern

According to the back-cover art of the upcoming Wonder Woman disc, the next DTV animated film to come from DC Comics and Warner Home Video will be Green Lantern. No details are available as yet, including the identity of the lead character in the green tights. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the animated film will be looking to tie-in to or promote the upcoming live-action film currently in development at Warner. We'll let you know as soon as we hear more.

Wonder Woman hits shelves this March 3rd.

(Hat/tip)

This pisses me off like you wouldn't believe.

See what this guy just did

Lemme give you a hint.  See, one of the big historical complaints about letting women in the military is that they would distract the male soldiers and basically serve as company whores.  It's been used as a barrier for quite some time.

So this guy takes a survey that notes that hey, a lot of Marines have STDs (How shocking that people would have spontaneous sex when they have a job that might result in being blown up!) and a number of them had them before being recruited.  That in itself is a good an useful survey, the sort of survey that lets Public Health know where to focus and lets medical staff know what to ask about and educate on dsuring annual physicals and lets the post exchange know what to stock up on discreetly.

But hey, look how he starts the article:

Thanks to desperate recruiting methods required to staff those wars, the U.S. Marines may be turning military service into a male sexual fantasy land, where recruits are paid actual money to cohabitate with drunk, stoned, horny teenage girls.

And ends the article:

This is great news for randy young men weighing a career in the Marines -- as long as they're fastidious about wearing rubbers.

This blogger frames a potentially life-saving public health survey as the Marine Corps recruiting sexually adventurous young women to sleep with all the horny young men they recruit.  He basically outright says that USMC women are sluts and that the military is a huge co-ed orgy.   To his credit, he stops short of suggesting that the other girls are just trying to snag a pilot for marriage but he's still driving home the same shit that was said about nurses, that was said about the WACs and the WAVEs, and that's whispered about military women right now.  That they're immoral sluts who are there to sleep with the guys in the unit.

That they don't belong there and are there for the sexual gratification of the male troops.  Which--I don't care if you're pro-war or pro-peace or selective about what war and what peace--is just plain misogyny, and fuck him and everyone else who pulls that kind of shit.

That's disappointing.

So today I got into an argument on the internet. I laid out precisely what was wrong with the post that bothered me, as cleanly and neatly as possible. I was perhaps a bit sharp. The original poster certainly thought so. She answered me fiercely, and her post included a link to her personal blog. Worried I'd gone too far too soon based on the tone of her response--but unwilling to cede any ground based on the content her response--I took a step back, a deep breath and restated my position in a slightly more easy to understand way.

Then I glanced at the personal blog. Like most of us, she had a twitter widget. A multi-tweet widget, and the most recent tweet expressed happiness that someone got "really angry" (which was untrue, I'd been angry but not enough to break out any of the dark metaphors I'm so fond of in my rants) over something she wrote, and giddy expectation of the hit increase over the fight.

And suddenly all the fight was deflated from me.

Anyone who reads me knows I love an argument. I love when two people who really stand behind what they believe get into it. I love the intellectual part of the discussion, the careful sifting of your opponent's opinion for weak spots and the distillation of your own point of view into its basic essence. I love strengthening my arguments and sharpening my mind. I love trying to come up with the most clever word to leave on. I love getting angry and arguing with someone who's just as passionate as me about what she believes.

Despite what it may seem, I really don't like getting angry for anger and attention's sake and I especially don't like dealing with those who do. I love getting angry for channeling it into something productive. I love anger as a purifier, as inspiration for cutting phrases and complex metaphors.

I want to interact with people with guts and honesty or least some creativity and energy no matter what side they're on. I want to fight someone who knows the rules of the duel, who even if they aren't invested beyond playing Devil's Advocate puts a little heart into the fight. It gives me energy and between the two sides we can make something really worth reading if we're both in top shape.

But here I've encountered someone who was anticipating the attention of a fight, just as she was saying in the comments that she didn't want a Blogwar. Knowing about that disconnect... it takes the fun out of a fight. If the other guy isn't really as angry as you are, and isn't primarily concerned with getting as clear and pure a point across as possible... It's just not worth fighting over anymore.

And all that lovely rage turns to sadness in the face of insincerity, and I'm listless where I should be inspired.

It's a little like finding out a friend was only pretending to like you.

Better that I would have lost on the mental battleground, because then I would have either a new friend gained by an apology or the seed of vengeance planted in my heart and all the fire that grew from it. Instead I've got a dull feeling at the bottom of my stomach.

I miss my trolls.

Addendum: What we learn from the House

Despite all the problems I detailed last post about Derleth's continuation, I'm glad the House fragment was published because we get some substantial information on the Conrad and Kirowan characters from it.

We learn that Conrad is a fan of a crazed poet named Justin Geoffrey, to the extent that he's investigating the man's family history and trying to find out just why he was able to write such darkly beautiful poems. It further drives home the impression that Conrad was a goth as a teenager. Not with the attitude that everyone hates him or the eternally depressed outlook some goth kids seem to have, but the sort of goth kid who only reads the work of writers who committed suicide and tries to break into the funeral parlor at 3 AM so he can see what a real dead body looks like. The really creepy kind of goth kid.

We learn that Conrad'll write to public officials in other towns requesting information about supernatural occurances, and that he knows how to phrase those questions so that those officials to answer him. He's a skilled researcher, and despite his really odd interests no one ever dismisses Conrad as a crank. Judging by the info he's gotten in The House he probably comes off as a journalist or a biographer when you meet him in person. His occupation might be somewhere along those lines.

We learn that its understood that Kirowan will accompany Conrad on any stupid venture he decides to undertake, at least as much because of his own interest as because of friendship with Conrad. One of the few lines Derleth cut from Howard's fragment was Conrad's statment about Kirowan: "I don't even bother to ask him to accompany me on my weird explorations any more -- I know he's as eager as I."

And we learn that Kirowan is five feet and ten inches tall. From there we can infer that O'Donnel and Vrolock are both at least a few inches shorter because Kirowan was described as tall in Haunter of the Ring. That really doesn't help with solving the mystery of who's narrating the other stories, but I'm a nerd and I can't help but notice little details that help me get the staging right in my head.

The Story That Should Not Be.

August Derleth is a writer both revered and reviled by mythos fans. While this man did the public service of founding Arkham House and keeping Lovecraftian horror alive, he also took it upon himself to take fragments that had been tossed aside by better writers and continue those stories after the writer's death as "collaborations." The back of my Horror Stories of Robert E. Howard collection includes an unfinished Conrad and Kirowan fragment entitled The House. My Nameless Cults collection includes a copy of The House in the Oaks, Derleth's completion of that fragment. This stroke of luck gives me the dubious honor of being able to compare both forms of the story and conclude that its for the best if writers leave unfinished works alone.

See, it wasn't actually Derleth's parts but Howard's that bogged the story down. This isn't a knock on Howard's skill, because the fragment is an unfinished unedited story. But what Derleth does for the first half of House in the Oaks is reprint all of Howard's fragment The House with only elaboration and no discernable pruning. By the time Howard stopped writing he had introduced Conrad, Kirowan, the mystery about the poet Justin Geoffrey, and the House. All necessary elements Derleth continued with when writing his story. Howard also introduced the artist Skuyler and the mayor of Dutchtown. Derleth kept both of these characters. They serve as exposition that could easily have been given by Conrad and disappear during the second act. And by that I don't mean disappear as characters are meant to disappear in a horror story, but they go off in their own directions and don't have any actual bearing on the plot.

Here's the thing:  Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft? These guys aren't normally found in English books as masters of the art form of the short story but they damned sure knew what the hell they were doing with it. These old pulp mag writers either became experts at polishing and pruning and editing their works or they didn't get published. Even paid by the word they didn't waste a single one getting the point across. Every sentance drove the point of the story home by adding to the plot or by adding to the atmosphere. So when the legendary Robert E. Howard makes a story start with four characters introduced not all at once (as a group in an argument, as he did in Children of the Night) but one by one in their own separate elements, either he's going to fucking use four characters or he's going chuck a couple of them to tighten up the story later in the drafting process.

Derleth came up with a good story, I think. But it was a two person story. There was no reason for all four of them to go to the house as the story unfolded, or even for the other two characters to have appeared in person. The exposition from the conversations with the artist and the mayor could easily have been worked into things said by either Conrad or Kirowan. Conrad was already noted as having corresponded with the mayor, any exposition or permission the character gave in person could have been from a letter. Even Skuyler's big important moment when he tries to break into the house but was stopped by Conrad could easily have been transferred to Kirowan. (I've read nothing of the character to suggest he was above property damage under the circumstances). There was no reason to have those characters there other than because Howard introduced them. Derleth should have either made use of them or cut the last two pages from Howard's prose and started his own part earlier.

No doubt Howard fans would have cried out in horror at the butchering of his words, but when has that ever stopped a writer?

Personally, I'd have preferred if he just wrote his own story because while House in the Oaks actually turns out to be a good tale its hardly a satisfying end for a character like Conrad. In it, James Conrad finds himself preoccupied by the House and spends a night there. He is tormented by dreams and ends up dying after attempting to burn it down. He only explains the matter in a letter to his good friend Kirowan.

Now, an occultist who ends up becoming obsessed with a gateway to the next world is a very satisfying story provided that occultist has not already encountered other worlds on two--possibly three--distinct occasions and been close to other people who have also encountered those worlds. I could see this happening to a brand new character, but not freaking Conrad. There is, I supposed, the slightest basis for an argument that he's a different character because he's called James in this story and John in another. But 1) character names change in drafts and 2) he's best friends with a sensible narrator named Kirowan, a guy who is understood to accompany him on any stupid errand than he embarks on.

Anyone who can read knows this isn't a fitting end for Kirowan, so Derleth's story wouldn't have worked with the roles reversed either.

I'd even go so far as to say it wouldn't have worked with O'Donnel, because while O'Donnel would've burnt down the house I can't see him following it up with suicide. I can see him following it up by digging up the oak trees by hand and then hunting down the Geoffrey family to make sure the weird genes didn't get passed on. (Because when that sort of character loses his sanity, he takes a whole bunch of people with him.)

This story would've worked with any new character, or any unfleshed out names from Howard's series like Taverel or Clemants. It doesn't seem right to off Conrad that way, though.

Remember the old Blog@Newsarama crew?

Well... We're back, baby!

Just thought I'd point this out.

Snell decided it was only fair to point out some of Gil Kane's placements in old Green Lantern after complaining about Ed Benes in JLA.

Take a look, and notice that Kane managed to do an awful lot of ass-shots without sacrificing the integrity of the story for it.

December 31st, 2008

On this the very last day of 2008 I would like to take a moment to say something to the entire blogosphere: I'm disgusted with all of you.

Yes, all of you. Even those of you in the corner that don't realize I read your blogs. Yes, I'm disgusted with you.

Why? Well, I keep a very large bloglines file that I read through regularly when collecting WFA links. And in the past couple months I've taken to collecting and posting WFA on a regular basis.

Last week, Heidi MacDonald posted this (in response to a post of Caleb's on Blog@Newsarama) addressing the lack of female writers at the Big Two. She was answered by email and in a few scant places across the blogosphere. Strange, because Heidi and Caleb posted on two of the most widely read blogs in the community.

I had to search for these answers, because in my community we were discussing something else, also coincidentally brought on by a post of Caleb's on Blog@Newsarama. The thin veneer of the conversation was about legal standards for obscene material involving fictional children, the potential harm of these legal standards and appropriate punishment.

The actual conversation was about Val D'Orazio's feelings and whatever crazy thing she said this week.

I ended up with a few links to Heidi's post, a good response from Cheryl Lynn and several posts worth of links to Val. I also got one post that said that WFA was addicted to drama, which got me ranting on twitter (twanting?) about how if no one posts about anything but Val all I'll have to link are posts about Val!

The truly galling part of this--pointed out to me on Twitter by Cheryl Lynn--is that Val is the elected head of the venerable comics charity Friends of Lulu.

From the organization's website:

Friends of Lulu is a national nonprofit organization whose purpose is to promote and encourage female readership and participation in the comic book industry.

This is a worthwhile and noteworthy goal.

The conversation started on Heidi's blog--the one for which she is currently being hammered by the indie community attempting to derail the conversation from the specific topic of writers at the Big Two by calling her too negative, by bringing up artists, by bringing up how many women are in the independent comics community which all detracts from the main complaints which is that the two largest and best known comic publishers in the country--DC and Marvel--who control some of the best loved characters in our culture are neglecting to involve women in shaping their universes (Credit to this list of grievances also goes Cheryl Lynn)--falls directly under FoL's sphere of interest.

And here we are bitching (yes I said bitching with full knowledge of the misogynistic background to the term and its effect) back and forth about her feelings and how appropriate it is for the head of a feminist organization to taking her particular stance while totally ignoring the issue that is the point of that conversation.

I don't blame Val. I don't like Val, but I don't blame her for this. That would be like blaming root beer for not tasting like birch beer. Val is what she is no matter what position she holds. Instead, I blame all of us for talking about her instead of the issues we're pretending to be talking about. (Initially I just blamed all of you because I've been blogging about Robert E. Howard the whole fucking time but now you've got me blogging about Val and I feel disgusted with myself.) We should be better than this.

Happy Fucking New Year, Comics Blogosphere. You've rekindled my deep loathing of humanity.

A Thought

We were goofing around on Twitter and a thought occurred to me. The Spirit was a good property to begin with, and the Frank Miller treatment--Frankification, as it were--has reportedly drained all of the originality and beauty out of the source material. But there are properties out there--popular properties--which the exact same treatment would improve.

Just imagine...
Frank Miller's Twilight.

I think I might be able to fly with that thought.

So it's come to this... blogging about writing.

For the sake of believable narration I've spent the past four days fiddling with wording in a story. I've got the normal problems, how to reveal the setting and the setup without seeming forced. On top of that, I've settled on first-person narration as the ideal point-of-view and the main character is a fourteen-year-old girl.

And to be perfectly honest, even back when I was a fourteen-year-old girl I had a great deal of trouble getting the impression of a fourteen-year-old girl across in my writing. It's my reading history. I started out with the antiquated children's fairy tales we all did, Alice in Wonderland, the Chronicles of Narnia but rather than make my way into more modern and realistic fair I cherished the dreamy atmosphere brought about by a slightly old-fashioned narrator. When I floundered around for older reading material I found myself hunting down Sherlock Holmes stories. I went the way of the goth otherwise, devouring Edgar Allen Poe and other Victorianized literature. Kept to the same fairy tales, though the interpretations I read continued to grow up. I burrowed into the depths of the nonfiction section of the library to consume acres and acres of classical mythology and world folklore, almost all of which is recorded in the antiquated style. When finally I broke free of that library to explore the deeper realms of horror I gravitated towards HP Lovecraft rather than Stephen King.

And somewhere through all of this I developed that sort of voice. That antiquated, slightly dusty voice to my writing (and yes, even my speaking at points) that is just tough to shake.

I know that old and creepy are all acceptably mainstream geekeries, and I'm not saying for one second that I'm the only one suffering from this affliction. (There's certainly enough of us to make it a geek stereotype.) It's just disconcerting to realize that this style of writing and speaking comes so naturally that it's your natural voice, particularly when placed against the voices you hear every day at work, the normal rythm and cadence of human conversation that suits the modern mainstream era and that capturing that is what's necessary to capture the character you're trying to write. It just feeds this paradox where if you write what comes naturally to you it sounds off when you read it back, but you can't seem to naturally write what sounds right when you read it back and I needed to stop and vent a bit about that.

This is ultimately why nonfiction comes more easily. The voice sounds somewhat academic and authoritative and sounds very natural when analyzing art and literature. As part of a work of fiction? Well, this voice was developed in the reading realms of fantasy and horror from narratives specifically aimed towards creating an atmosphere of fantasy and horror. It is not a character voice, at least not for fourteen-year-old girls who aren't already little goths.

Sticking to nonfiction won't do me any good if I want to be anything more than a one-story wonder, though...

Maybe I should go with third-person limited in the future. The normal, natural voice is easier to get across in small snippets of dialogue.

Professor John Kirowan, Badassery 101

I think I've figured out just why Haunter of the Ring makes me so deliriously happy every time I read it.

Here's the Project Gutenberg text. The story is short and fun. Take a read and see if you can recognize just what in that story structure fills my heart with light and joy.

Need a hint? My first fandom--and by this I meant not only the first property that had me hunting down books in the library and searching for information on the internet but to this day the only property for which I will regularly read the fanfiction which are called pastiches in this fandom and the only property for which I will use the term "canon" when referring to the original published works--was Sherlock Holmes. I am so utterly attached to this property that not only do I have fond memories of the stories, I have fond memories of my experiences reading the stories. I still remember clearly stealing my brother's copy of Boy's Life magazine and happening upon the Classics Illustrated adaptation of "The Speckled Band." I remember absorbing takes on Hound of the Baskervilles in cartoon form on Saturday mornings with an interest that I didn't realize would soon be channelled into no less than twenty-four readings of the novel itself over the next sixteen years. I remember late nights at the Carbondale Library after Girl Scout meetings, waiting for my ride and sitting between the fiction shelves, reading and rereading the gigantic four-volume collection of the original fifty-six stories and four novels. I remember my English teacher being disgusted at my preoccupation with "junk literature" when he caught me skimming the course material for a Doyle-written story (in fairness, we'd studied "The Speckled Band" in an earlier year, so it wasn't a completely absurd expectation). I remember hunting down every pastiche in every bookstore in San Antonio just to get my hands on more stories of Holmes and Watson together (don't offer me the Laurie King stories, it must be Watson as the partner and no other). I remember my fascinated revulsion at The Last Sherlock Holmes Story and realizing that my being unable to put that book down in disgust, and my mentally assigning it to an alternate universe is what marked my interest as a full-blown fannish obsession.

Ultimately I can say that Baker Street has possibly been the only fandom that has brought me nothing but joy in all its forms.

In addition to that, in the last few years a different set of classic short stories has captured my imagination. A boyfriend who will forever occupy a favored place in the Hall of Exes introduced me to a series not notable for its characters like Doyle's gift to the world was, but for setting and atmosphere. I'm speaking, of course, of the infamous Cthulu Mythos and Lovecraftian Horror/Weird Fiction setup which has had immeasurable influence on our modern science fiction, fantasy, superhero, and horror genres.

And without even going back to look at my collection, I can't help but recognize that Haunter of the Ring follows the Sherlock Holmes short story structure, but in a Lovecraftian horror setting. That's a recipe for joy for me.

(Needless to say, I do own the Shadows Over Baker Street collection and if anyone manages to write a comic book that combines Holmes and Watson with Green Lantern and King Arthur in a Lovecraftian horror setting I want to be buried with a copy.  Get on it, Internet)

Take a look at it, readers. In the first act the narrator joins his best friend--the story's hero--to find that his friend has a distraught guest. The act is devoted to exposition as the guest reveals his problem--complete with homebrewed explanation that isn't even entertained by the hero--and hopes that the hero can make some sense of this insanity. The hero asks a couple of seemingly frivolous and distracting questions and agrees to look into the matter.

O'Donnel is narrating here, and I have to pause on noting the parallels so that I can say WHAT THE FUCK ROBERT E. HOWARD?!! HE'S AN EXPERT ON ANCIENT WEAPONS--ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?! And those paragraphs on looking at the ruin of a good mind? That's just.. That's just so eerie. I'm utterly convinced--despite Evelyn's use of the name "Michael" rather than "John" in the next act--that this guy is the same guy who narrated Children of the Night (and Dwellers Under the Tomb) and that we have been tragically deprived of a kickass story where Kirowan and Conrad have to prevent crazed but badass weapons expert O'Donnel from murdering a bunch of innocent people. And even if Howard was not building towards such an epic tale of friendship and madness he fucking well should have been. The world must have this story, even if the author is beyond the veil. Someone with a ouija board needs to get on this right away.

Anyway, O'Donnel plays the role of "normal guy impressed by his friend" right away. He's pitying poor Gordon and commenting on Kirowan's impressive calmness and the traits that mark Kirowan as interested despite that calm. His narration is a little flowery at times in the way Watson's is. He plays the disbelieving voice when Gordon tells the story, draws out exposition from Gordon with his own comments and supplies vital social information.

Kirowan seems very Holmesian here. He's calm and soothing in a way that impresses the narrator. There's something in the description of how he poses his questions during this act that suggests Watson describing Holmes. It's how he cuts through the emotional parts with an even measured calm that O'Donnel seems to find incredibly relieving. The way his questions are set up show that he's focused on the problem itself and not the personal relationship between the Gordons. He only speaks up when he needs to get Gordon to give him the facts, he doesn't offer any explanations or any real comfort. O'Donnel describes Kirowan as calm until he gets a significant piece of information, then "Kirowan had suddenly come to life; it was as if something hard and steely had been sounded in him." This is comparable to Watson's usual description of Holmes as lazy and languid until his brain starts working, then he's like sharpened steel.

The second act introduces the other players in the problem, Kirowan asks more seemingly insignificant questions that the reader knows have a huge bearing on the case, and O'Donnel continues to be baffled and concerned for Gordon's mental health. Most importantly we meet Gordon's wife Evelyn and hear her side of the story. She's smartly brought two friends to back her up during this confrontation--one of which is a learned medical professional and the other of which just adds to the irrationality of the situation by threatening violence. The actual violence that speeds the plot comes from Evelyn, of course. The structure keeps to when the Holmes stories bring action into the mix, with a violent event at the end of the second act that spurs the heroes into action and the explanation offered in the third act. Standard mystery story stuff, of course, but bear in mind that Doyle pretty much made the model for the standard mystery story with his detective.

As Howardian female characters go (and I say this having not read the Red Sonya stuff), I have to say I'm impressed with Evelyn. She handles all of this really, really well. She knows she's in some sort of trouble and something weird's going on. It's incredibly upsetting and it's set her husband against her. So she grabs some allies of her own and tries to hash it all out reasonably. When she breaks down, it tends to be at points where its understandable to break down--right after she blacks out and finds her husband injured by her own hands when she comes to. Dr. Donnelly--who should know her better--displays some sexism towards her in his handling of the situation. And the other characters seem inclined to the sexist assumption that "Hey, women are just nuts, huh?" but they all stick to their knowledge of Evelyn as a woman who is most definitely not insane. Evelyn's sanity is driven home and even held up against the prevailing sexist attitudes at every opportunity. Her sensibility sounds like her defining character trait, which is really odd for a female character in this genre during this period. I have to commend Howard on this one.

But for all her strengths Evelyn DOES end up seriously hurting her husband. Well, perhaps because of her strengths as it turns out she's a pretty good shot. Fortunately, there is a doctor conveniently present and the duo are free to rush towards the villain's house for the final act and the explanation of the mystery.

And this is where John Kirowan breaks the tried-and-true Holmesian Detective story rules. He has a personal history with the villain. He figures out the crime not based solely on logic and evidence but on his memory of what happened to him. And the explanation is supernatural, a big no-no by Doyle's pattern.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course, because the third act proves Kirowan's verymuch not a Holmes clone. He's just a horror genre character who fits nicely into the story structure. Really the Mythos setting and anything similar is not a safe place to put a Holmes clone character, because that sort of detective lives, eats and breathes reason and order and there is no room for reason and order in a world with the Elder Gods.

Thing is, John Kirowan also breaks the rules of Lovecraftian Horror heroes by actually standing in the room as the vaguely described Thing Which Should Not Be appears to eat people. By standing I don't mean he stands frozen in terror and panic but that he stays there in full sight of the damned thing without screaming and fleeing or being utterly unable to scream and flee like he wants to. Hell, not only does he not scream and flee at the mere shadow of the Haunter, he actually manipulates circumstances so that the creature manifests in the very room he's standing in! He anticipates the Haunter's arrival without playing the role of evil crazed necromancer and getting killed by it. That's not just nonstandard in a Mythos story, that's certifiably badass.

That's not to say Kirowan doesn't go crazy in the last act. On the contrary, you can pinpoint the exact moment he botches his sanity check. I put it around the point he goes from just plain telling Vrolock how much he hates him to actively ranting like a James Bond villain. That only makes it all the more impressive to me because even when he loses his composure (and note here, he doesn't lose his composure to fear but to outrage) he still manages to lie and manipulate Vrolock into bringing about his own ruin.

Now there is quite a bit we can learn about John Kirowan from this story. He bears some outward similarities to the Great Detective even though he is not the same sort of character. He's a reasonable individual, but one with a definite interest in the supernatural and some serious ultraterrestrial experiences at his back. He has a very clear moral line that he won't cross but that he doesn't seem to worry about dancing on in the hopes of getting a shot at someone who has crossed it.

In Haunter, Kirowan comes out as a passionate and romantic character with a looming fridge in his past. It matches neatly with his emotionally charged narration in Dig Me No Grave. But in Dig and Children he covered that with an outward denial of the supernatural and just plain snapping at his friends. Here he covers it with the sort of self-control that extends to the other people in the room. That control is probably what makes him the person that someone like Gordon will run to when he's in trouble and doesn't know what else to do. O'Donnel seems to hang on this characteristic at several points in the narrative, and he presents it as a normal character trait of Kirowan's and not something unusual. This trait could explain just why in Dig it was Kirowan Conrad ran to in the middle of the night. Comparing the two stories I'd say at least part of this self-control is an unconcious, natural aspect of personality. Kirowan's own narration suggests that he's more likely to push out irritability than composure when he's agitated.

Today's Unscheduled Unedited TV Rant

One of my favorite television series is Newsradio--it makes me happy and I can watch the entire series repeatedly--but I swear if one more character refer to Matthew as a "sweet guy" I'm going to chuck one of my prized DVDs out the window. Matthew, the resident Weird Guy in the office, the low man on the totem pole so to speak is NOT a sweet guy. He's a fucking hyena.

In several episodes, Matthew momentarily gets the upper hand and starts to act like a complete asshole. Like when he punches Bill and suddenly gets Alpha Male Syndrome, or when Max shows up and Matthew enters a power struggle with him, or when Matthew suddenly becomes smart and condescending as hell, or any of the numerous moments when the punchline is Matthew suddenly saying something cutthroat or mean. And whenever this happens one of the other characters gets concerned that sweet but annoying Matthew is acting so unlike himself and tries to talk him down.

And the thing is, I've seen this behavior in real life. I've seen it at school, I've seen it in the military, I've seen it on the internet. For example, we had a guy in my last office office who got picked on. At first I would tell the guys to lay off him, and defend him when I thought things were overboard. Then came the day someone on shift let someone embarrassing slip and garnered the mockery of the entire office. And GUESS WHO was the one who went too far trying to cement himself as Not The Lowest Ranking In The Room. He failed because the other guy's embarrassment was fleeting, but we all got an ugly glimpse into his true nature. The process seemed to repeat itself whenever someone new became the butt of the day's joke. And almost always, due to his overdoing it, he would be the butt of the day's jokes again before the shift was over. In trying to leave the shitty social role he kept digging his way into it, because everyone quickly realized that if they didn't assert themselves over him they'd be in for ruthless teasing rather than the normal maintenance-world joking.

And the thing I started to perceive about this guy, and other guys who display the same behavior pattern is that they look at the social order like a wolf pack. The Matthews of the world figure there's a bottom and they are it, but there's a chance they can seize on someone else and not be the most put upon person in the room. And so he is very nice and deferential and self-effacing around the other members of the office because he knows they can and will kick his ass. But the second he sees the slightest bit of weakness he tries to exploit it.

And this is the sort of person that Matthew in Newsradio is patterned after. And the thing about this character type is that everyone assumes that--because they act sweet when trying to ingratiate themselves to the rest of the group--they are sweet kind people who can't cut a break. But the real nature shows through NOT when the social order offers you the least power, but when the social order offers you enough power to act out what you really want.

So characters like Matthew, created to be sweet sympathetic people? They aren't. It would be one thing, I suppose, if the guy acted sweet and deferential once he got the upper hand but Matthew (and the guy in my old office, and the guy from my old school and a thousand other "sweet guys" scattered across the internet) does not. He's an asshole just waiting for the opportunity to be an asshole. That's the punchline of at least a third of his jokes. That's why we enjoy watching the other characters push him around.

And why does seeing that the characters are fooled by Matthews sweet facade piss me off so much? Because of all the real-life Matthews who've managed to sell themselves as sweet guys, and all the fiction dedicated to selling this personality type as a sweet guy and because I just plain don't like people who put up a false front and succeed at it. Bastards.

RIP Eartha

Eartha Kitt has passed away.

Merry Christmas

And to prove to my inquisitive mother that yes, I do have a tree (a Yule tree) this year, I am enclosing a picture.



Okay, so maybe decorating isn't really my thing. But I can be proud for finding a use for all those pins they give out at conventions.

(And I much prefer my Green Lantern fighting a snake splash to your standard nativity scene.)

Interlude: End of Year Resolutions

Today when the conversation at work turned to New Year's resolutions, I realized that over the past few years I had made and kept very few New Year's resolutions, but for some reason during December I frequently found myself making and keeping End of Year Resolutions.

By End of Year Resolutions I mean when you see the calender running out and you resolve to accomplish certain tasks before the end of the year. I've found I'm actually quite successful at these (and more inclined to actually make them), so rather than post a list of New Year's Resolutions on January First I've decided to take December Twenty-second--the day after Yule, the day the year officially winds down in my mind--to list some things I intend to accomplish before December Thirty-First slips through my fingertips like so much spilled wine (and believe me, on December Thirty-First I intend to be stumbling and spilling wine):

1) Finish the Conrad and Kirowan story series on this blog, possibly the first post series I will have finished on this blog in a long period of time. This is important to me not just because it's finally getting back to analyzing character trends in serial fiction but it's me getting back to writing and thinking for my own enjoyment rather than just passing along information or refuting idiocy on the internet. I have 4 stories left to blog. The very next Kirowan post will be on this story, if you're interested in joining me. It leans more on the adventure and suspense side than horror, so I don't feel a need to issue a warning.

2) Find my copy of Dreams of Terror and Death-- which appears to have been lost in the move--or make arrangements to have a replacement sent.

3) Go through my books and my LibraryThing Account and make sure they all made it through the move.

4) Finish unpacking from my move to Germany.

5) Clean out the refrigerator, which is beginning to smell rank.

6) Actually get my trash out to the curb in time for pickup (I seriously have 4 months worth crammed into that little bin). I have one last shot at this, and I think I've managed to figure out the schedule the landlord gave me.

7) Watch that copy of Tristan and Isolde (yes, it is the recent and very bad one, but I am curious.) that a coworker loaned me. This will probably be the easiest, I can put it on while I clean out the fridge and do the dishes. I will probably complain about it extensively to whoever is available on AIM.

8) Write, edit and submit at least one more short story to a paying market before the year slips away. This will be the hardest, I haven't made a serious stab at actually writing fiction for much of this year. I want to get my feet wet again.

9) Start the new year with no dishes in the sink, no laundry in the hamper, and my apartment actually tidy. This is a tradition for me, actually. I always try to start off on a decent foot when it comes to housecleaning.

As you can see, End of Year Resolutions are modest, but they need to be because you make them with only a month or two weeks or ten days to go. Personally, though, I prefer them to New Year's Resolutions because I would much rather start the year with a feeling of satisfaction about the old year and nothing but possibilities open for the new year, as opposed to feeling pressured about some vast, unrealistic goal that I couldn't attain last year. I'd like to advise the rest of the blogosphere to give this a shot in the last week of 2008.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled overthinking of weird fiction.