So I hadn't seen this before.
Okay, we've been through the whole Flashpoint rant a few times already. I do not like this angle for the Amazons, and I think it undercuts Diana's character. With Amazons Attack, it was stupid but I was open to the "mystically manipulated" idea and figured it wouldn't hurt the franchise.
I guess I was wrong, because it seems someone liked that idea and decided they should try it again in an alternate timeline. And now someone will like the idea and decide they should try it again. Because they don't get Wonder Woman. They don't understand how women can withdraw from men and not spend all of their time thinking about men, holding a grudge against men, and plotting to come out and hurt/maim/kill men. They don't get that women might spend their lives away from men and be perfectly happy and not obsessed with men in some way.
They don't get that the point of Wonder Woman is that sexism in our society was holding women back, and that Diana is what a woman who had never suffered institutionalized sexism can be. Instead, Wonder Woman only makes sense if she's lopping off heads and ranting about how terrible men are. For franchise purity, she has to have the moral high ground in her own book but when it comes to crossovers all bets seem to be off.
I know that this is an alternate universe and it won't really immediately affect how she's portrayed in her own book.
I know that the whole point of this timeline is that everything has gone horribly wrong and the heroes (which, coincidentally, don't seem to include Wonder Woman) will have to set it right.
I know that this cover is just there to get us riled up and they probably have an explanation inside that will make Diana sympathetic.
That doesn't make this crossover and everything released about Wonder Woman in it sound any less stupid.
Here's the thing, the best alternate universe storylines are the ones that show us the true measure of the characters. They're the ones that show us that the characters will remain true to their core characteristics in different circumstances.
There's a quote running around somewhere that Batman wasn't changed much because the audience wouldn't accept it. I can pretty much guarantee that Superman will be the same sort of person he always has been. Same for Hal, because they are building up the Green Lantern franchise around him. And of course, Barry will remain Barry because he's the centerpiece here.
For some reason, Diana is getting remade to be much more violent, though. And that suggests to me that they feel the core characteristics of Wonder Woman are her warrior characteristics, and that her kinder nature is only due to circumstances.
To me, that's bullshit. The very first act that this character performed in publication history is an act of mercy. The very first thing that Diana does in All-Star Comics #8 is to save someone from a plane crash. It is an action repeated in every retcon of her origin up until this idiotic JMS reboot. She has a friend with her usually, but it's always Diana's idea to go help the guy. It is an essential part of her origin and the first character trait that was established in her very first appearance. She is merciful.
And not only that, that someone is a man. She's heard nothing about men except that they were violent, enslaved her people, and that they retreated to the island to live in peace from them. She's raised to think that this person will try to hurt her even after she helps him, but she still does. Her instinct to be heroic and merciful is overwhelming. If she does not have that, if that is not a prominent trait, then that is not Wonder Woman.
Really, every depiction at odds with that as her true nature muddies the waters of a character that a lot of people don't seem to know/understand to begin with. People complain that WW is a cipher, a physical presence, a cardboard character and that's because anytime she's outside her own book the writers seem to ignore that she has very specific character traits that were laid out in her appearance. They ignore that her warrior aspects are tempered by mercy and reason. They do this because it's kewler to have her collecting heads than demonstrating a clear head.
A few minutes before I saw this I had been answering a comment on the other day's Steve Trevor post. I was explaining how Steve was more important to the mythos than Batman's first love interest, and this whole Flashpoint thing came to mind. Because with Steve around, we have a reminder that Diana's first act was an act of mercy. We have the basis for her opinion on men standing right by her. We have a guy around that is there because not only did she save him, she actually nursed him back to health and hid him from the rest of her people so he'd be safe.
Steve Trevor is a walking talking example of how good a person Wonder Woman is at heart. And that, more than a desire to see romantic stories around Wonder Woman, more than an affection of the character, is why I feel it's so important they bring him back.
Because this may be another big fakeout, but they are slowly moving towards it crossover by crossover. They are losing Wonder Woman in this, as each event they make her just a little more like the Punisher.
Showing posts with label dc stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dc stupidity. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard
So, someone spoiled Green Lantern Corps #60 for me. I don't really mind, because what they spoiled turned out to be the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard.
It's the sort of idea you'd think I'd get angry about, but I didn't. I was simply too baffled at the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard. Of course, I probably wasn't angry because the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard isn't racist, sexist or really offensive on any of those levels. It takes a certain amount of logic to come up with an offensive idea. You have to be adhering to certain stereotypes and actually attempting to craft a half-assed story. It takes a special cluelessness about humanity or malice to offend. It takes a small amount of intelligence.
It takes no intelligence to come up with the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard. It is in no way offensive to me as a person, or even as a fan. It is just something so pointless and wasteful that I feel sorry for the person who came up with it. The person who came up with it works in the entertainment industry. That person is paid to come up with ideas to entertain us. That person needs ideas in order to pay for food and rent.
That person is so clearly out of ideas, the bread and butter of their chosen business, that I can't help but feel sorry for them.
Indeed, I fear this is worse than simply being out of ideas. The Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard can not have come from a simple lack of creativity. This can only have come from a complex lack of creativity. A lack of creativity so intense that it has collapsed in on itself and pulls ambient creativity into it. A lack of creativity that has grown into a Void That Swallows Creativity.
And as Creativity is sucked into this Black Hole of Banality, another substance is emanating from the Void That Swallows Creativity. It is the opposite of Creativity. It is the opposite of Light. It is Anti-Creativity, and whenever it touches Creativity it renders all present incapable of detecting Story Potential as it rends the fabric of the universe.
If that's too melodramatic for you, perhaps the following story will illustrate what I think of this latest plot twist and the direction the Green Lantern franchise in general has taken since the middle of Blackest Night:
I was walking along one day when I saw a water truck parked on the side of the road. In the cab sat a man with a canteen. His skin was cracked and dry and his lips were parched. He was moaning quietly about his thirst.
I asked the man if his truck was out of water and he told me no, it was full.
So I asked the man if the water was undrinkable and he told me no, it had been tested and was perfectly potable.
So I told him to drink.
He shrugged, bent over, and lifted the back of his pants. Then he poured the water underneath the fabric. It ran out of his pants-leg and collected in a puddle at his feet.
Then he looked at the canteen and sighed, and sat on his wet behind. He'd been drinking like that all day, but he was still thirsty.
I'm worried about the Green Lantern creative team. They could die of thirst despite having an abundance of water, because they insist the proper way to drink it is through the ass.
Someone can still set them straight, though. Unlike the Wonder Woman creative team, who insist that the perfectly potable water is poisoned and that it doesn't matter because no one's known how to get water from the truck since World War II.
It's the sort of idea you'd think I'd get angry about, but I didn't. I was simply too baffled at the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard. Of course, I probably wasn't angry because the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard isn't racist, sexist or really offensive on any of those levels. It takes a certain amount of logic to come up with an offensive idea. You have to be adhering to certain stereotypes and actually attempting to craft a half-assed story. It takes a special cluelessness about humanity or malice to offend. It takes a small amount of intelligence.
It takes no intelligence to come up with the Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard. It is in no way offensive to me as a person, or even as a fan. It is just something so pointless and wasteful that I feel sorry for the person who came up with it. The person who came up with it works in the entertainment industry. That person is paid to come up with ideas to entertain us. That person needs ideas in order to pay for food and rent.
That person is so clearly out of ideas, the bread and butter of their chosen business, that I can't help but feel sorry for them.
Indeed, I fear this is worse than simply being out of ideas. The Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard can not have come from a simple lack of creativity. This can only have come from a complex lack of creativity. A lack of creativity so intense that it has collapsed in on itself and pulls ambient creativity into it. A lack of creativity that has grown into a Void That Swallows Creativity.
And as Creativity is sucked into this Black Hole of Banality, another substance is emanating from the Void That Swallows Creativity. It is the opposite of Creativity. It is the opposite of Light. It is Anti-Creativity, and whenever it touches Creativity it renders all present incapable of detecting Story Potential as it rends the fabric of the universe.
If that's too melodramatic for you, perhaps the following story will illustrate what I think of this latest plot twist and the direction the Green Lantern franchise in general has taken since the middle of Blackest Night:
I was walking along one day when I saw a water truck parked on the side of the road. In the cab sat a man with a canteen. His skin was cracked and dry and his lips were parched. He was moaning quietly about his thirst.
I asked the man if his truck was out of water and he told me no, it was full.
So I asked the man if the water was undrinkable and he told me no, it had been tested and was perfectly potable.
So I told him to drink.
He shrugged, bent over, and lifted the back of his pants. Then he poured the water underneath the fabric. It ran out of his pants-leg and collected in a puddle at his feet.
Then he looked at the canteen and sighed, and sat on his wet behind. He'd been drinking like that all day, but he was still thirsty.
I'm worried about the Green Lantern creative team. They could die of thirst despite having an abundance of water, because they insist the proper way to drink it is through the ass.
Someone can still set them straight, though. Unlike the Wonder Woman creative team, who insist that the perfectly potable water is poisoned and that it doesn't matter because no one's known how to get water from the truck since World War II.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
This is not an effective way to recapture the Golden Age appeal of Wonder Woman
Dustin Nguyen's Generation Lost #22 variant:
I'm not particularly angered by this. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, but I'm long past outrage in this category. There's a long tradition of covers where Diana or another character is tied up with the lasso, that's just the nature of a story where the main character uses a lasso as a weapon.
And, of course, there's the infamous "bondage theme".
Honestly, I hate to address the "bondage theme" because the Internet and the Comics Industry have the same weakness here. A lot of people out there don't understand nuance and complexity. A lot of people out there don't understand that sexuality was simply an element of the Golden Age Wonder Woman, and that her appeal and her effect went far beyond crackshit pop Freudian analysis. A lot of people don't understand that yes, this character was intended for little girls, and that the bondage play elements had symbolism beyond the puerile ideal that everything that with a wink or a nod indicates that sex is the foundation.
So I'm going in here today, and possibly in the next few posts, and I'm going to say flat out that acknowledging a sexual element does not mean the same as reducing everything to sex, that acknowledging sexuality in a female character does not mean that the character is intended solely for the male gaze, and that if you respond to any of my posts with anything along the lines of "hruh, hruh, bondage means she's there to get tied up" couched in pseudointellectualism I'm going to save myself the time and right now call you a shallow, posturing idiot and unworthy of my time. That will be why you don't get a response from me.
Now that that's out of the way, yes there was tying up of people and all sorts of giggly subtext in Wonder Woman. Yes, there was a sexual element--her freaking patroness is Aphrodite--and it was part of the fun. And yes, I think it is absolutely absurd that a follower of Aphrodite who started out with such a bright and playful subtext back in the 40s is consigned to Eternal Virginity in the modern era.
Here's the thing, much as we see Diana in perilous situations where she gets tied up, if you wait a couple panels she always ALWAYS breaks free. It was a not-so-subtle commentary on women in society, how they allow themselves to be restrained and restricted by men. Wonder Woman breaking free of her enemies was symbolic of women finding their strength and breaking free of patriarchal rule. Every misstep, every capture, every humiliating and titillating position was to reinforce that, which is why it always ended with her breaking free before she or her friends got hurt.
And every time I see some moron argue that bondage covers are a tradition and were just there as a sneaky-sexy to sell a female character, I want to scream at everyone: THE BONDAGE IS A GIANT METAPHOR FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, YOU GAPING SIMPLISTIC MORONS. IT IS NOT JUST THERE FOR YOU TO WANK OFF ON.
That is, of course, not to say that you can't wank off on it... That's your business and yes, there is an element of sexuality to be found in many stories (about everything, not just Wonder Woman and not just superheroes). I'm saying if you do, keep it to yourself and don't insist that we all see that as the end-all-be-all to it, or that greater themes should be sacrificed in the service of sexualization. Fetish material is not the foundation, the point, or all there is to Wonder Woman.
In the DCWKA thread, someone said that cover looked like something Marston would've submitted, and while I initially agreed I'm going have to take that back. It looks considerably more humiliating and mean-spirited than anything from the Golden Age. Danger and restraint in a Marston story served to set up the triumph at the end and there was a hint of that optimism in the Peters art.
Of course, I may just look unkindly upon it because there are other elements to the stories and covers of the Golden Age that we'd be guaranteed if we saw Wonder Woman tied up with her own lasso. Elements that would drive home the true theme. We'd have Diana breaking free of the trap, through her own wits and strength. We'd have a group of women who are oppressed by the villain, and we would know that Diana would inspire them to join forces and overtake the villain. And we'd have the main male character in the story trapped and humiliated right along with her, to show that men are oppressed by the same worldview that constrains women. (Key point here: He doesn't free her, she frees him.)
As Generation Lost is a Judd Winick story, I expect to see none of that in this book. And there's no power and joy in this image of Diana here.
Really, that's one thing that seems to have been cut from Wonder Woman covers and appearances all around. Power and joy. She's supposed to be a woman in charge of her life who loves the universe and everyone in it. Even bound up with her own weapon, she's supposed to carry that effect. Seems everyone remembers they can tie her up, but few remember that in the end she's supposed to take control. She's supposed to win in the end. (Also, she's supposed to be the Dom.) Thing is, lately in the writing she often doesn't win in the end. This has gotten so pervasive that nowadays we don't really trust a Wonder Woman story to be uplifting, and we certainly don't trust the covers to carry any message other than "this is hot".
I'm not particularly angered by this. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, but I'm long past outrage in this category. There's a long tradition of covers where Diana or another character is tied up with the lasso, that's just the nature of a story where the main character uses a lasso as a weapon.
And, of course, there's the infamous "bondage theme".
Honestly, I hate to address the "bondage theme" because the Internet and the Comics Industry have the same weakness here. A lot of people out there don't understand nuance and complexity. A lot of people out there don't understand that sexuality was simply an element of the Golden Age Wonder Woman, and that her appeal and her effect went far beyond crackshit pop Freudian analysis. A lot of people don't understand that yes, this character was intended for little girls, and that the bondage play elements had symbolism beyond the puerile ideal that everything that with a wink or a nod indicates that sex is the foundation.
So I'm going in here today, and possibly in the next few posts, and I'm going to say flat out that acknowledging a sexual element does not mean the same as reducing everything to sex, that acknowledging sexuality in a female character does not mean that the character is intended solely for the male gaze, and that if you respond to any of my posts with anything along the lines of "hruh, hruh, bondage means she's there to get tied up" couched in pseudointellectualism I'm going to save myself the time and right now call you a shallow, posturing idiot and unworthy of my time. That will be why you don't get a response from me.
Now that that's out of the way, yes there was tying up of people and all sorts of giggly subtext in Wonder Woman. Yes, there was a sexual element--her freaking patroness is Aphrodite--and it was part of the fun. And yes, I think it is absolutely absurd that a follower of Aphrodite who started out with such a bright and playful subtext back in the 40s is consigned to Eternal Virginity in the modern era.
Here's the thing, much as we see Diana in perilous situations where she gets tied up, if you wait a couple panels she always ALWAYS breaks free. It was a not-so-subtle commentary on women in society, how they allow themselves to be restrained and restricted by men. Wonder Woman breaking free of her enemies was symbolic of women finding their strength and breaking free of patriarchal rule. Every misstep, every capture, every humiliating and titillating position was to reinforce that, which is why it always ended with her breaking free before she or her friends got hurt.
And every time I see some moron argue that bondage covers are a tradition and were just there as a sneaky-sexy to sell a female character, I want to scream at everyone: THE BONDAGE IS A GIANT METAPHOR FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS, YOU GAPING SIMPLISTIC MORONS. IT IS NOT JUST THERE FOR YOU TO WANK OFF ON.
That is, of course, not to say that you can't wank off on it... That's your business and yes, there is an element of sexuality to be found in many stories (about everything, not just Wonder Woman and not just superheroes). I'm saying if you do, keep it to yourself and don't insist that we all see that as the end-all-be-all to it, or that greater themes should be sacrificed in the service of sexualization. Fetish material is not the foundation, the point, or all there is to Wonder Woman.
In the DCWKA thread, someone said that cover looked like something Marston would've submitted, and while I initially agreed I'm going have to take that back. It looks considerably more humiliating and mean-spirited than anything from the Golden Age. Danger and restraint in a Marston story served to set up the triumph at the end and there was a hint of that optimism in the Peters art.
Of course, I may just look unkindly upon it because there are other elements to the stories and covers of the Golden Age that we'd be guaranteed if we saw Wonder Woman tied up with her own lasso. Elements that would drive home the true theme. We'd have Diana breaking free of the trap, through her own wits and strength. We'd have a group of women who are oppressed by the villain, and we would know that Diana would inspire them to join forces and overtake the villain. And we'd have the main male character in the story trapped and humiliated right along with her, to show that men are oppressed by the same worldview that constrains women. (Key point here: He doesn't free her, she frees him.)
As Generation Lost is a Judd Winick story, I expect to see none of that in this book. And there's no power and joy in this image of Diana here.
Really, that's one thing that seems to have been cut from Wonder Woman covers and appearances all around. Power and joy. She's supposed to be a woman in charge of her life who loves the universe and everyone in it. Even bound up with her own weapon, she's supposed to carry that effect. Seems everyone remembers they can tie her up, but few remember that in the end she's supposed to take control. She's supposed to win in the end. (Also, she's supposed to be the Dom.) Thing is, lately in the writing she often doesn't win in the end. This has gotten so pervasive that nowadays we don't really trust a Wonder Woman story to be uplifting, and we certainly don't trust the covers to carry any message other than "this is hot".
Friday, February 04, 2011
Place your bets, folks
By way of Let's Be Friends Again comes this bit of Brightest Day:
Well, Roy Harper is back on drugs, Wonder Woman's mother died in flames, Aquaman is short a hand and according to Chris Haley, they're planning to do Eclipso vs the DCU again. (And don't get smug, Marvel, what with offing a member of the Fantastic Four and taking us to a dystopian timeline where the X-men never existed.) So now's the time to speculate on what's next in the Brightest Day Event. Is it...
1) Wonder Woman loses her friend in a very special issue.
2) A Big Time Demon calls the crummiest villains in the universe together to offer them new power.
3) The Justice League finds that having wiped the memory of an enemy was a bad idea.
4) Hal Jordan hosts Parallax and/or the Spectre again.
5) The Flash is put on trial for murder. (ETA: Oops, they just did this one.)
6) Dark Seid versus the Legion of Super-Heroes.
7) Guy Gardner goes into a coma, and comes out with the mentality of a 14-year-old boy.
8) Supergirl sprouts wings of flame.
9) The skies turn red and a mysterious white nothingness advances menacingly on our heroes.
10) This issue: Superman DIES.
Well, Roy Harper is back on drugs, Wonder Woman's mother died in flames, Aquaman is short a hand and according to Chris Haley, they're planning to do Eclipso vs the DCU again. (And don't get smug, Marvel, what with offing a member of the Fantastic Four and taking us to a dystopian timeline where the X-men never existed.) So now's the time to speculate on what's next in the Brightest Day Event. Is it...
1) Wonder Woman loses her friend in a very special issue.
2) A Big Time Demon calls the crummiest villains in the universe together to offer them new power.
3) The Justice League finds that having wiped the memory of an enemy was a bad idea.
4) Hal Jordan hosts Parallax and/or the Spectre again.
6) Dark Seid versus the Legion of Super-Heroes.
7) Guy Gardner goes into a coma, and comes out with the mentality of a 14-year-old boy.
8) Supergirl sprouts wings of flame.
9) The skies turn red and a mysterious white nothingness advances menacingly on our heroes.
10) This issue: Superman DIES.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Airing of the Grievances
I was doing a meme of Caroline's called "My Year in Fannish Favorites" when I came across a question so big it deserved a post on its own: Your biggest fandom disappointment of the year? There were so many fuck-ups to choose from just involving Marvel and DC, and as it is Dec 23rd and I have been watching Seinfeld all day I thought I'd go ahead and give this one it's own post.
So this year Marvel and DC have disappointed me in the following ways:
First, there's Blackest Night. The 2009 lead-up to Blackest Night was fucking gold. Rage of the Red Lanterns, Sins of the Star Sapphire and the BRILLIANT Agent Orange storyline are still some of the best Green Lantern stuff I've ever read. I even like that fucking FCBD story with Barry and Hal at Bruce's grave. The crossover itself sucked shit. I stopped reading when I realized that the White Lanterns weren't going to be recognizably as horrible as the Black Lanterns, and Johns lost the potential moral of the story, but not after being horribly dismayed by:
Hal's prominence over Kyle in Blackest Night. After two crossovers that centered on Hal and Kyle, suddenly it's Hal and Sinestro. It's like a crossover trilogy bait-and-switch trick (and Marvel pulled this shit too).
Katma Tui wasn't actually coming back to life, she'd just be a Black Lantern for a couple issues.
Soranik bringing Kyle back to life by way of Miri's ability to manipulate love energy rather than her impressive medical skill.
The massive WHAT THE FUCK of Wonder Woman being the Star Sapphire while the Atom is an Indigo Lantern. No, Greg Rucka could not save that.
Then when we get to Brightest Day they kill off the better Atom, and bury him in a matchbox. So cheerful.
Beyond that, they put Judd Winick on Power Girl, which used to be one of my favorite reads.
Stephanie Brown is still Batgirl (yeah, I said it), Cassandra Cain is still not back.
I was horribly let down by the entire Flash series, which I am still picking up for Manapul's art.
And of course, Wonder Woman's relaunch which has been an incredible miss for far too many reasons to list here.
Over at Marvel, they lost one of Magneto's kids.
A lot of people have asked Tom Brevoort on Formspring about Lorna being Magneto's daughter, and he pretty consistently said he thought it was forced and unnatural. He also, early on, stated there were no plans to bring her into Children's Crusade but I can't find that link. It makes me a little sad that they're ignoring this rich mine of soap opera drama, and it makes me a little worried that someone's going to retcon it away again and Lorna will become the Power Girl of the Marvel Universe.
They squandered numerous opportunities to bring Jean Grey back to life.
Second Coming and Hope Summers didn't really do it for me.
They let Greg Land do the covers to their Women of Marvel issues.
They continue to hire Greg Land.
The Massive Fucking Lie told by Quicksilver wasn't resolved by the finale of the series he told it in, and instead they decided to carry it over to another series. All of this, of course, is giving me the impression that there is no plan to exonerate Quicksilver for Son of M in Children's Crusade, because I find it so hard to believe they're dragging such a thing out when someone has a clean mind control explanation up their sleeves.
The topper, though, was that Scarlet Witch wasn't the big reveal in Seige. Instead, for the final of a trilogy of company crossovers (and Marvel did admit that Disassembled and House of M led to Seige) where Wanda was the centerpiece in the first two they decide to give SENTRY the sendoff. And this is not just "Fuck the Sentry" (But seriously, fuck the Sentry).
They dropped a lot of hints about a big surprise world-threatening villain, and a heroic redemption and such so we were down to Wanda or Bob. I was really hoping that Marvel would use that crossover to fix the mess Bendis made of Wanda Maximoff but no, the actual cleaning up for this character is to occur in a maxiseries rather than a company crossover like they fucked her over in. Yes, Heinberg is going to write a much better story, but he's going to take 9 issues bimonthly to do it and it is a side-story that other books won't tie into. That is how Wanda will be returned to sanity.
The thing is, it took THE ENTIRE MARVEL LINE to turn her into a villain and code her as baby-crazy. Every book was hijacked by House of M, and every fan reading and every writer writing got Crazy Wanda into their brains, but a single writer and a book that ties into nothing is supposed to undo that? Fucking Marvel. All those fans who read those crossovers but aren't fans enough of Wanda to read Children's Crusade, how many of Marvel's next crop of writers will be coming from that group? How long before someone decides that Womb Crazy is the real characterization, because that's the characterization she had when THEY started reading? What the fuck, seriously? That's like writing obscene lies about someone in a phone booth right where someone's eyes are looking during a call, and then instead of blacking it out you write "Not really, she's a nice person" on the inside of the handset. It's not hidden, but you certainly expended more effort making sure someone would look at the lies.
So this year Marvel and DC have disappointed me in the following ways:
First, there's Blackest Night. The 2009 lead-up to Blackest Night was fucking gold. Rage of the Red Lanterns, Sins of the Star Sapphire and the BRILLIANT Agent Orange storyline are still some of the best Green Lantern stuff I've ever read. I even like that fucking FCBD story with Barry and Hal at Bruce's grave. The crossover itself sucked shit. I stopped reading when I realized that the White Lanterns weren't going to be recognizably as horrible as the Black Lanterns, and Johns lost the potential moral of the story, but not after being horribly dismayed by:
Hal's prominence over Kyle in Blackest Night. After two crossovers that centered on Hal and Kyle, suddenly it's Hal and Sinestro. It's like a crossover trilogy bait-and-switch trick (and Marvel pulled this shit too).
Katma Tui wasn't actually coming back to life, she'd just be a Black Lantern for a couple issues.
Soranik bringing Kyle back to life by way of Miri's ability to manipulate love energy rather than her impressive medical skill.
The massive WHAT THE FUCK of Wonder Woman being the Star Sapphire while the Atom is an Indigo Lantern. No, Greg Rucka could not save that.
Then when we get to Brightest Day they kill off the better Atom, and bury him in a matchbox. So cheerful.
Beyond that, they put Judd Winick on Power Girl, which used to be one of my favorite reads.
Stephanie Brown is still Batgirl (yeah, I said it), Cassandra Cain is still not back.
I was horribly let down by the entire Flash series, which I am still picking up for Manapul's art.
And of course, Wonder Woman's relaunch which has been an incredible miss for far too many reasons to list here.
Over at Marvel, they lost one of Magneto's kids.
A lot of people have asked Tom Brevoort on Formspring about Lorna being Magneto's daughter, and he pretty consistently said he thought it was forced and unnatural. He also, early on, stated there were no plans to bring her into Children's Crusade but I can't find that link. It makes me a little sad that they're ignoring this rich mine of soap opera drama, and it makes me a little worried that someone's going to retcon it away again and Lorna will become the Power Girl of the Marvel Universe.
They squandered numerous opportunities to bring Jean Grey back to life.
Second Coming and Hope Summers didn't really do it for me.
They let Greg Land do the covers to their Women of Marvel issues.
They continue to hire Greg Land.
The Massive Fucking Lie told by Quicksilver wasn't resolved by the finale of the series he told it in, and instead they decided to carry it over to another series. All of this, of course, is giving me the impression that there is no plan to exonerate Quicksilver for Son of M in Children's Crusade, because I find it so hard to believe they're dragging such a thing out when someone has a clean mind control explanation up their sleeves.
The topper, though, was that Scarlet Witch wasn't the big reveal in Seige. Instead, for the final of a trilogy of company crossovers (and Marvel did admit that Disassembled and House of M led to Seige) where Wanda was the centerpiece in the first two they decide to give SENTRY the sendoff. And this is not just "Fuck the Sentry" (But seriously, fuck the Sentry).
They dropped a lot of hints about a big surprise world-threatening villain, and a heroic redemption and such so we were down to Wanda or Bob. I was really hoping that Marvel would use that crossover to fix the mess Bendis made of Wanda Maximoff but no, the actual cleaning up for this character is to occur in a maxiseries rather than a company crossover like they fucked her over in. Yes, Heinberg is going to write a much better story, but he's going to take 9 issues bimonthly to do it and it is a side-story that other books won't tie into. That is how Wanda will be returned to sanity.
The thing is, it took THE ENTIRE MARVEL LINE to turn her into a villain and code her as baby-crazy. Every book was hijacked by House of M, and every fan reading and every writer writing got Crazy Wanda into their brains, but a single writer and a book that ties into nothing is supposed to undo that? Fucking Marvel. All those fans who read those crossovers but aren't fans enough of Wanda to read Children's Crusade, how many of Marvel's next crop of writers will be coming from that group? How long before someone decides that Womb Crazy is the real characterization, because that's the characterization she had when THEY started reading? What the fuck, seriously? That's like writing obscene lies about someone in a phone booth right where someone's eyes are looking during a call, and then instead of blacking it out you write "Not really, she's a nice person" on the inside of the handset. It's not hidden, but you certainly expended more effort making sure someone would look at the lies.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Why I'm Pissed Off at Paul Levitz
I and others have seen a number of comments suggesting that the anger Paul Levitz's statement engendered was based solely on a misreading of his statement, and that by drawing attention to a couple of qualifiers any reasonable person will cease to be upset at the sentiment. On the contrary, I believe that these commenters are the ones who lack understanding in this case, but that may be because none of use have chosen to spell it out directly enough for them.
So, Levit'z statement:
For emphasis, let me repeat the part that has pissed people off:
Now, as many of you have noticed the words "no" and "never" do not appear in conjunction with "girls" or "appeal". I have noticed that too. That is because yes, I and most everyone else I've spoken to understands that he didn't say "Superheroes will never appeal to girls, and there are no girls who read superheroes." He merely implied that we were insignificant.
Either way, the words "no" or "never" are not the irritating parts of this quote. Nor is historically, though it is actually quite infuriating because there've been arguments that historically the genre had a lot of cross-appeal that has been squandered away in the past few decades. But that's not it either.
Allow me to present the rage-inducing part of this quote to you in bold:
We can argue back on forth on what precisely constitutes the fundamental dynamic of a superhero story, but the specifics such as costumes, secret identities, heroes, superpowers, villains, individualism and so on don't matter in this discussion. Only one aspect matters to this argument, and that is this: sexism.
There's a terrible strain of sexism coded into superhero fandom and industry culture: it's evident in the way women are drawn in comparison to how men are, how women are posed in comparison to how men are, the way women are dressed in comparison to how men are, the stories women get versus the ones men get, the prominence of female characters (well, lack thereof), how female characters are marketed, how male characters that appeal significantly more to women than to men are not valued either, how homosexuality and gender issues are (not) handled, how female characters are treated for the sake of male character's stories, how powerful female characters are cut down, how female characters are reduced to their sexual relationships and sex appeal to the straight male reader, how women are dismissed as a marketable demographic, how complaints of sexism are dismissed down to what artists are chosen to go with what characters.
And there's a philosophy in the female-dominated areas of fandom that states that this sexism is there, but is not in any way fundamental to the genre. It's excess fat that can be trimmed off without any loss of substance, that in fact trimming this unhealthy fat sexism will improve the quality of the product.
When someone like Paul Levitz suggests there's something fundamental in superhero stories that women find distasteful, he pisses a great deal of us off. Because what women find distasteful is the rampant sexism so obvious from the first moment a dramatic angle is sacrificed in order to highlight a superheroine's butt or bust, and that is in no way part of the fundamental dynamic of a superhero story.
I can only speak directly for myself, of course, but I can attest that a lot of the women who are annoyed about this also subscribe to the two part theory that "sexism is rampant in superhero comics, but sexism is unnecessary to superhero comics." Maybe, yes, there's a couple who didn't see the qualifiers and are backing off, but I'm pretty sure a few more have pointed out that they're pissed off at "fundamental" in there. There's probably even some who haven't quite realized exactly what bothers them about the statement, but know that they find it spectacularly offensive. Whatever it is exactly, I'll bet they're as unlikely to be pacified by an adverb as I am.
So, Levit'z statement:
I’m not sure that young women are as interested in reading about superheroes. The fundamental dynamic of the superhero story has historically been more appealing to boys than to girls.
For emphasis, let me repeat the part that has pissed people off:
The fundamental dynamic of the superhero story has historically been more appealing to boys than to girls.
Now, as many of you have noticed the words "no" and "never" do not appear in conjunction with "girls" or "appeal". I have noticed that too. That is because yes, I and most everyone else I've spoken to understands that he didn't say "Superheroes will never appeal to girls, and there are no girls who read superheroes." He merely implied that we were insignificant.
Either way, the words "no" or "never" are not the irritating parts of this quote. Nor is historically, though it is actually quite infuriating because there've been arguments that historically the genre had a lot of cross-appeal that has been squandered away in the past few decades. But that's not it either.
Allow me to present the rage-inducing part of this quote to you in bold:
The fundamental dynamic of the superhero story has historically been more appealing to boys than to girls.
We can argue back on forth on what precisely constitutes the fundamental dynamic of a superhero story, but the specifics such as costumes, secret identities, heroes, superpowers, villains, individualism and so on don't matter in this discussion. Only one aspect matters to this argument, and that is this: sexism.
There's a terrible strain of sexism coded into superhero fandom and industry culture: it's evident in the way women are drawn in comparison to how men are, how women are posed in comparison to how men are, the way women are dressed in comparison to how men are, the stories women get versus the ones men get, the prominence of female characters (well, lack thereof), how female characters are marketed, how male characters that appeal significantly more to women than to men are not valued either, how homosexuality and gender issues are (not) handled, how female characters are treated for the sake of male character's stories, how powerful female characters are cut down, how female characters are reduced to their sexual relationships and sex appeal to the straight male reader, how women are dismissed as a marketable demographic, how complaints of sexism are dismissed down to what artists are chosen to go with what characters.
And there's a philosophy in the female-dominated areas of fandom that states that this sexism is there, but is not in any way fundamental to the genre. It's excess fat that can be trimmed off without any loss of substance, that in fact trimming this unhealthy fat sexism will improve the quality of the product.
When someone like Paul Levitz suggests there's something fundamental in superhero stories that women find distasteful, he pisses a great deal of us off. Because what women find distasteful is the rampant sexism so obvious from the first moment a dramatic angle is sacrificed in order to highlight a superheroine's butt or bust, and that is in no way part of the fundamental dynamic of a superhero story.
I can only speak directly for myself, of course, but I can attest that a lot of the women who are annoyed about this also subscribe to the two part theory that "sexism is rampant in superhero comics, but sexism is unnecessary to superhero comics." Maybe, yes, there's a couple who didn't see the qualifiers and are backing off, but I'm pretty sure a few more have pointed out that they're pissed off at "fundamental" in there. There's probably even some who haven't quite realized exactly what bothers them about the statement, but know that they find it spectacularly offensive. Whatever it is exactly, I'll bet they're as unlikely to be pacified by an adverb as I am.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Letter to the Editor
Bob Harras
c/o DC Comics
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Forwarding Service Requested
I dashed this off tonight after reading DC Women Kicking Ass and Ladies Making Comics quote Paul Levitz:
Strangely, though, the hardest thing to do was find the physical address. DC's website only offers e-mail contact. I know that there's been an reorg over there, and that people are being relocated and old addresses may not be good. The 1700 Broadway address is in the fine print at the bottom of the DC Nation column in my most recent DC book, so I'm going with that. I'm actually a little suspicious about how hard this was to find.
ETA: Addendum
c/o DC Comics
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Forwarding Service Requested
Dear Mr. Harras,
I recently read an interview with the former publisher of DC Comics that said he felt that women were not interested in superheroes. This sounded strange to me, as I have been reading Justice League, Flash, Green Lantern and Wonder Woman comics since I was 14, and your competitor's X-men comics since I was 12. During his tenure there were a number of complaints by female fans that seemed to be either ignored or answered in a way that seemed strange (Supergirl is brought back but aimed for male readers, Batman supporting character Stephanie Brown is returned after female fans complain only to replace another popular female character as Batgirl) and a number of opportunities to position franchises as female-friendly were missed (Wonder Woman has no kid-friendly book for younger female readers, Green Lantern's female characters are overwhelmingly sexualized and left dead longer than male counterparts) and both problems may be traced back to that idea that marketing to women won't produce worthwhile results.
I am writing to you to say that I hope this philosophy has been discontinued at DC. There are many female readers spending their money right now, and many more who would if they didn't feel unwelcome at the table. Television and book properties that involve superpowered characters have had massive female audiences (For example: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood, the various X-men cartoons and movies, Xena: Warrior Princess, Dr. Who, Supernatural, Fringe, Smallville, Stargate, Harry Potter, or Heroes...)
I've heard it argued that women will not appreciate tightly woven multi-decade continuity or complex fantastical plots, but a mere hour viewing General Hospital should dispel that argument. The genre-loving book and television female audience are only kept from comic books by the industry's reluctance to seek them out.
Please consider that both halves of the population are potential customers and do not act to further alienate the women who do read the books as the previous management has.
Thank you,
Lisa Fortuner
I dashed this off tonight after reading DC Women Kicking Ass and Ladies Making Comics quote Paul Levitz:
I’m not sure that young women are as interested in reading about superheroes. The fundamental dynamic of the superhero story has historically been more appealing to boys than to girls.Levitz isn't the Publisher anymore, but I still felt a need to send a message to DC so I wrote to the EIC. I'm going to send it out with my winter cards tomorrow. I strongly believe that physical letters are the way to go, because too often e-mails are considered to be spam and just more noise from the Internet. Girl-wonder.org ran an extremely successful campaign based on physical letters, postcards, and directly asking the panels at conventions about Spoiler. My own physical letters to DC have always been answered, even if it was with a form. They are concrete items with substance, and can't be ignored like a cyberspace communication. I advise anyone interested in saying something about this to go with a letter with a real stamp rather than an email.
Strangely, though, the hardest thing to do was find the physical address. DC's website only offers e-mail contact. I know that there's been an reorg over there, and that people are being relocated and old addresses may not be good. The 1700 Broadway address is in the fine print at the bottom of the DC Nation column in my most recent DC book, so I'm going with that. I'm actually a little suspicious about how hard this was to find.
ETA: Addendum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)