[QUESTIONS] About the current Wonder Woman comic...
Kwong Wong
I haven't read Wonder Woman comics since late 1992 and was startled by
the appearance of Diana Prince (or is it someone else?) when I browsed
through the current issue... Her costume changed!!
What happened to her other costume, the red-white-blue version that I
clearly remember (Ever seen the TV series with Lynda Carter?).
I was wondering if any regular Wonder Woman readers can fill me in on
what happened to her in the past two years...
E-mail is preferred.
-Kwong
kww...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
JohnAdcox
100? Will he writing and drawing? Will he stay longer than, say, five
issues? Inquiring minds want to know.
michael franklin sutton
Where did you hear this? Is he really going to be doing Wonder Woman?
I'd start buying it again if that's true.
"Saint" Michael
Sa...@ucs.indiana.edu
Brian H. Bailie
john...@aol.com (JohnAdcox) writes:
---------
It's true. He starts writing and drawing on #101. How long is anyone's
guess.
BHB
Johanna Draper
Kwong Wong <kww...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>I haven't read Wonder Woman comics since late 1992 and was startled by
>the appearance of Diana Prince (or is it someone else?) when I browsed
>through the current issue... Her costume changed!!
It's someone else as Wonder Woman. Artemis, an Amazon from somewhere
other than Paradise Island, won a contest to take over the title. She's
got the original costume, the star-spangled bathing suit. Diana, the
original WW, switched to a bra top and biker shorts.
>I was wondering if any regular Wonder Woman readers can fill me in on
>what happened to her in the past two years...
Oh, geez, nothing good. Let's see, she was in space for a while,
overthrowing a slave-taking galactic empire, then when she came back, she
worked at a fast-food taco joint while Paradise Island, her mother, and all
the other Amazons just disappeared. Then they came back because it was all
a plot of Circe's. Then they had this other contest.
It hasn't been very good. I'd recommend that if you want to get back into
this series, wait for 101 when John Byrne starts. Hopefully, most of the
mess will be cleaned up by then.
Johanna
Brian H. Bailie
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> Oh, geez, nothing good. Let's see, she was in space for a while,
> overthrowing a slave-taking galactic empire, then when she came back, she
> worked at a fast-food taco joint while Paradise Island, her mother, and all
> the other Amazons just disappeared. Then they came back because it was all
> a plot of Circe's. Then they had this other contest.
>
> Johanna
It HAS been a tad convoluted, hasn't it! :)
BHB
The Fabulous Johnny D
Pardon me for being out of the loop here, but who did you hear this from?
Not that I would mind Byrne taking over Wonder Woman, but I have gotten to
enjoy Bill Loebs and Mike Deodato's interpretation of WW. I thought that
JB was going to take some time off to do the Galactus/Darkseid crossover as
well as write another novel. This can't be true (as much as I would like it).
Byrne has too time and energy invested in JBNM to take over WW on a monthly
basis. If this is true, then DC must be giving him full creative control over
the character, which he got for his revamp of Superman. No offense, but unless
I see this in print other than here in racm, then I will dismiss this as
nothing but a rumor. Like I said, though, if it is true, then WW's readership
will take a big upturn after JB takes over. Anyone else out there know what
the story is behind this?
John Danknich
j...@ksu.ksu.edu
Johanna Draper
michael franklin sutton <sa...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>JohnAdcox <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know when John Byrne is coming to Wonder Woman? Is it issue
>>100? Will he writing and drawing? Will he stay longer than, say, five
>>issues? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>Where did you hear this? Is he really going to be doing Wonder Woman?
I heard this on CompuServe from several reputable sources (including a WW
creative team member). From what I understood, he'll be writing and
drawing, starting with issue 101.
Johanna
michael kelly
in February when the "Legend" creators swap titles for one month to boost
sales.
At least that's what I heard.... ;)
--
+ Mike Kelly, Notre Dame Department of Physics mke...@ovid.helios.nd.edu +
+ +
+ Oh, and never mind the words, just hum along and keep on going. +
+ - Ian Anderson +
Johanna Draper
<jdmar...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> wrote:
>But think about it then, [Artemis is] a little-known Darkseid character...
>She shows up on Earth, and takes over Wonder Woman's job...
Don't read Wonder Woman, do you? The Artemis in WW is one of the Libyan
Amazons (don't ask) and has nothing to do with Darkseid. As someone else
pointed out, there's also a villainous Artemis (daughter of Huntress [I]
and Sportsmaster), so you can see that DC has a history of various
characters with this name.
Me, I hope that the "bad" Artemis takes after her mother and comes gunning
for the WW Artemis for stealing her name. :)
Johanna
Johanna Draper
New Najar <newn...@aol.com> wrote:
>The Loebs and Deodato run took a sales upswing coinciding with Zero Hour,
The interesting thing, I think, is that this is in spite of previous
readers of WW dropping the book. Instead of adding readers, they swapped
the group, turning the book into the flavor of the month.
>but the eternal prejudice against Wonder Woman
>by the mass public will keep the book from growing much more.
Hunh? Why are people prejudiced against WW? The public liked her enough
once to support a TV show.
The real issue, I think, is that teenage male comic buyers are prejudiced
against a powerful female hero. That's different from the mass public,
though, and hopefully Mr. Byrne will turn WW into a book I can recommend to
my friends who are turned off by the stereotypical busty babe.
>If Byrne does Wonder Woman, it will be because he wants to tell a story or
>two, then he'll move on. That's his history and that's his right.
Even if that happened, it would be an oasis in the desert that is currently
the book.
Johanna
jdmar...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
>> "Dead Again" series. I think I remember seeing her in the Mr. Miracle
>> series, when Scott dropped in on Apokolips. I guess that's not saying it
>> isn't her, just that they are not doing the Valiant thing, with having
>> cameos of characters-to-be in other books, which seemed to be what you're
>> implying.
>
> Not to mention the Artemis from Injustice, Unlimited, who's the daughter
> of the original Huntress and Sportsmaster.
>
> --
> Jim Comics?
> sm...@kaiwan.com Of course I read comics.
Of course you read comics, to know that fact-o you would have to have read a
WHOLE LOTTA them, unlike me... ;)
Never knew about the other Artemis'
-Cheese (It's like Amazing Man and 'Mazing MAn...)
pho...@worf.infonet.net
NE>>will take a big upturn after JB takes over.
[...]
NE>by the mass public will keep the book from growing much more. George
NE>Perez, at the peak of his popularity, wasn't able to raise Wonder Woman's
NE>popularity to anything above an average-selling DC title (which was well
At the peak of his popularity? I don't think so. George peaked way back
when The New Teen Titans was DCs best selling comic, and that was *years*
ago. If he had worked on WW back then, I think she would have gotten more
attention.
NE>If Byrne does Wonder Woman, it will be because he wants to tell a story or
NE>two, then he'll move on. That's his history and that's his right.
Probably, but you have to know that he has a huge fan-following, and no
doubt sales on WW will jump *way* past normal for WW sales.
Brian
JohnAdcox
after issue 100 by the colorist on the book while she was in the DC Online
area of America Online. It was confirmed by the DC staffer who was
moderating, but no other details were offered.
John
James Henderson
: Does anyone know when John Byrne is coming to Wonder Woman? Is it issue
: 100? Will he writing and drawing? Will he stay longer than, say, five
: issues? Inquiring minds want to know.
I really hope this is just a rumor. I have enjoyed Bill Loebs run on the
title (~35 issuses) and am not at all looking forward to the prospect of
Byrne revamping/going back to the basics/retconing the hell out whatever
he doesn't like on the book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson "The quality of a company's management is inversely
ca...@unicomp.net proportional to the number of 'Dilberts' posted on
cubicle walls."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain Neil Macnair
>SPOILER!
>I THINK I KNOW WHO ARTEMIS IS!!!!!!!!
>In a recent Superman (During the "Dead Again" series, Superman visits Apokolips
>to see if Darkseid is the one who put his body in the grave... He is attacked
>by one of Darkseid's minions, a large woman with a bow who shot at him and
>called herself Artemis!!! At the time I thought it strange because "hey" why
>is some lackey on Apokolips called "Artemis" because she can shoot a bow?
>HA!!! She's DDarkey's answer to a Wonder Woman replacement! He wasn't
>satisfied with the LEgends thing!!!
>-Cheese (HOWS THAT?)
Nice try, but I doubt it. The character of Artemis was around before the
"Dead Again" series. I think I remember seeing her in the Mr. Miracle
series, when Scott dropped in on Apokolips. I guess that's not saying it
isn't her, just that they are not doing the Valiant thing, with having
cameos of characters-to-be in other books, which seemed to be what you're
implying.
Iain Keeper of the Young All-Stars flame.
--
Iain MacNair "Truth is the one thing/
umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca To live, love, and die for"
Winnipeg, Manitoba -Tom Cochrane 'Brave and Crazy'
Marc Singer
>
>I really hope this is just a rumor. I have enjoyed Bill Loebs run on the
>title (~35 issuses) and am not at all looking forward to the prospect of
>Byrne revamping/going back to the basics/retconing the hell out whatever
>he doesn't like on the book.
THANK YOU!
Although I never read Loebs' run, I have exactly the same fear about Byrne
taking over: he's just egotistical enough to retcon anything that he doesn't
like out of the history, when better writers (read Moore, Daredevil Miller,
etc.) are able to ignore or undo what's gone before without screwing around
with continuity. While Byrne's tactic can work with a major overhaul at an
opportune time (like Superman), it can also swing the other way.
Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they deserve. Not
that he's a bad writer, but Wonder Woman just isn't his kind of title. I
have no desire to see She-Hulk or Babe wrapped up in an American flag bikini.
Marc
jdmar...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> In <1995Jan10.185609.36775@miavx1> jdmar...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>
>
>
>>SPOILER!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I THINK I KNOW WHO ARTEMIS IS!!!!!!!!
>>In a recent Superman (During the "Dead Again" series, Superman visits Apokolips
>>to see if Darkseid is the one who put his body in the grave... He is attacked
>>by one of Darkseid's minions, a large woman with a bow who shot at him and
>>called herself Artemis!!! At the time I thought it strange because "hey" why
>>is some lackey on Apokolips called "Artemis" because she can shoot a bow?
>>HA!!! She's DDarkey's answer to a Wonder Woman replacement! He wasn't
>>satisfied with the LEgends thing!!!
>>-Cheese (HOWS THAT?)
>
> Nice try, but I doubt it. The character of Artemis was around before the
> "Dead Again" series. I think I remember seeing her in the Mr. Miracle
> series, when Scott dropped in on Apokolips. I guess that's not saying it
> isn't her, just that they are not doing the Valiant thing, with having
> cameos of characters-to-be in other books, which seemed to be what you're
> implying.
>
She shows up on Earth, and takes over Wonder Woman's job...
rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu
>
> Be there for Legend X-Month!
>
> Mignola on Sin City! Frank has a coronary!
No, no, no. It's *Allred* on Sin City!
"Look out Joe! Here comes the ninja hooker!"
Robert Fernandez rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stick Figures | Two Worlds Publishing |
| comic books and stuff | 3837 Northdale Blvd. #225 |
| looking forward to raca... | Tampa, FL 33624 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Chris Blaise
: RIP, Next Men.
I really don't think so. Byrne said he was "burnt out" on JBNM,
not creating comics in general. If Wonder Woman is what it takes him to
come back to JBNM, I'm all for it (and it will be nice to have another
comic book to buy every month).
I'll wait up to a year for Byrne to return to JBNM before I become
peeved.
TTYL
Chris
Johanna Draper
Doug Shaw <dos...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Five will get you ten that after he takes over, Wonder Woman will develop
>unrealistic, large, almost sentient eyebrows.
At least emphasizing a different part of her anatomy would be a switch. :)
Johanna
Johanna Draper
JohnAdcox <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, I don't honestly think the "bias" against Wonder Woman has
>anything to do with a rampant "discomfort" with a power woman hero.
Not in every case, but there are enough cases where this is true to make me
very uncomfortable.
>Likely for the first time ever,
>we're going to see Wonder Woman become one of DC's true "big three."
I hope so. Last time I was in the Warner store, everything was Supes, Bats,
and Flash. Now this is understandable (based on the Flash TV show), but
sad.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Sorry, it's not.
>I have enjoyed Bill Loebs run on the title (~35 issuses) and am not at
>all looking forward to the prospect of Byrne revamping/going back to
>the basics/retconing the hell out whatever he doesn't like on the
>book.
You mean like the way Loebs ignored the previous supporting cast? got rid
of the Amazons with no explanation? rewrote the origin in a contradictory,
confusing way? has thrown in plot devices with no explanation? put in
numerous retcons of his own? ignored even his own dangling plot threads?
Getting the current team off the book is one of the best pieces of news
I've heard.
Johanna
anthony edward davis
> And anyway, John Byrne is the Fastest Worker in Comicdom.
I belive Fabian Nicieza has that distinction, at least in the recent past. I
mean, wasn't he writing X-Force, X-Men, New Warriors, Nomad, the Night Thrasher
Limited series, and some other stuff that I can't remember, all during the same
month?
-Tony!
Keeper of the Great Lakes Avengers flame
Rick Jones
> NE>by the mass public will keep the book from growing much more. George
> NE>Perez, at the peak of his popularity, wasn't able to raise Wonder Woman's
> NE>popularity to anything above an average-selling DC title (which was well
> At the peak of his popularity? I don't think so. George peaked way back
> when The New Teen Titans was DCs best selling comic, and that was *years*
> ago. If he had worked on WW back then, I think she would have gotten more
> attention.
Exsqueeze me? Perez had come off of Titans, which was where he perfected
his style [check the difference in the art from #1 to #50, that's where he
got _sharp_] and right off Crisis, where he drew every single member of
the DC Universe, and managed to carry off a somewhat thin plot and make
in an epic. Perez was at his writing and drawing peak then.
Unfortunately, once he stopped doing the art [and vanished off the face
of the Earth], his writing skills deteriorated. [I wonder if Perez's
problem was that he is an artist first, and he needs the art to tell a
good story.] And it couldn't have helped that Chris Marrinan is (IMHO) a
substandard artist.
> Probably, but you have to know that he has a huge fan-following, and no
> doubt sales on WW will jump *way* past normal for WW sales.
Heck, I'll give it a try. It'll be nice to see an ish of Wonder Woman I
can stand to read.
--
Rick Jones "Tom?...I don't get you."
ri...@blkbox.com "Nobody does. I'm the wind, baby."
Mey...@aol.com -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Get Down Make Glenn
>No no no. John Byrne will be taking over Paul Chadwick's _Concrete_
>in February when the "Legend" creators swap titles for one month to boost
>sales.
>
>At least that's what I heard.... ;)
Such a prophet, Mike. But what *I* heard was that Miller was showing
up in Madman, bringing Darrow and the Big Guy(tm) with him. Well
actually I didn't hear it, I read it in AC. :-) "*Miller* stole the
cookie from the cookie jar..." >B^) I dunno though, I think it could
be more interesting if Mignola or Miller did Concrete. Too bad
McKeever isn't a Legend, he could do Sin City. We might not recognize
it anymore, but he could do it. :-)
Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"My thoughts go wild. My lettering goes italic.
They say Byrne's death was an accident, but I'm not buying it."
--- Shulkie
"Written on the back of these words I've found"
--- the Replacements
g-car...@uchicago.edu, if you must know
<A HREF="http://www.digimark.net/wraith/">Phone Homey the Page!</A>
......................................................................
Kenton L. Campbell
>
> Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
> elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they deserve. Not
> that he's a bad writer, but Wonder Woman just isn't his kind of title. I
> have no desire to see She-Hulk or Babe wrapped up in an American flag bikini.
How about the Invisible Woman? Heather Hudson in ALPHA FLIGHT?
Tony Murcheson in NEXT MEN? Byrne can definitely write strong,
independent, *heroic* women when he wants to, without resorting to
the typical babe/airhead/bitch/dyke/slut stereotypes that most other
fictional women exhibit.
He handled all the mythological/mystical aspects of Snowbird, Shaman,
and Talisman just fine in ALPHA FLIGHT. Given the cultural significance
of Greek mythology in general and the Wonder Woman mythos in particular,
I have complete faith in Byrne's ability to do them justice.
--
--
-- Kenton L. Campbell ---------------------- 01klca...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu --
-- Ball State University, Muncie IN ----------- 01klca...@BSUVAX1.BITNET --
Darren Jason Toews
>John
Cool! I have been a WW fan since Perez, and I hate what Loebs has done
to her. Not that the stories have been bad mind you, but he went and
screwed with her origin and with the mythology. (Plus he changed
Hippolyte to Hippolyta which really pissed me off.) Come to think of it
he screwed with the Hippolyte/Antiope thing too, that also pissed me
off. On second thought get rid of him ASAP. As far as Deodato goes, his
art is a helluva lot better than some of the stuff WW fans have been
subjected to (eg: Chris Marinan (sp?), and Whatsername), but gimme Perez
anyday.
Anxiously awaiting John Byrne, (is anyone else pissed that Supes and
Wondy didn't even get to have a short romance? I was really looking
forward to it and felt cheated the way it was resolved).
Anyways -- let's hope JB does WW justice.
Johanna Draper
Dexter Peterson <pete...@river.it.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>maybe playing her off on Luthor, who can't really be dead!
He's not. There's an episode scheduled for later this season where he comes
back.
Although I don't think we'll ever see Linda Lee. Helen Slater would
probably be considered too old now anyway.
Johanna
thad a doria
So.
Byrne is taking over Wonder Woman, eh?
I give him 1 (one) issue.
One issue for him to regain my faith in him. One issue
to prove to me he's not the hack he's been since 1987.
Yes, I *have* read Next Men. And to me it's the same
soulless "aren't I clever" drivel that OMAC, WCA, Namor,
and She-Hulk were. There is not one bit of genuine emotion
(IMO) in any of Byrne's recent work. I'm convinced he hasn't
truly *cared* about his work since Fantastic Four. Despite
a few good stories and some excellent groundwork, Byrne's
Superman issues lapsed into dreary fomulaic punch-ups, further
brought down by Byrne's inability (at the time) to come up
with memorable original characters. Skyhook? Sleez? Host?
Mmm, what Legends they were. Right up there with Spinerette,
Deadly Ernest or the many "homage" villains of Alpha Flight.^1
I enjoyed Perez's run on WW. I doubt anyone could have done
better. Loebs's run, while inconsistent, had many fine moments.
(he once told me at a con about a planned plotline involving
WW's pregnancy, but I guess it won't happen now.) As I write this,
I'm actually dreading Byrne's arrival. Never thought I'd say that.
I fear he'll try to "reinvent the wheel", pull an "everything you
know is wrong", "create" new characters, bring in Darkseid (dear
god no), show us "a new deadly Egg Foo for the 90's", and who
knows what else. Actually, I'd take any of those from Robinson,
Ellis, PAD, etc., but not the way Byrne does it.
Then again, it might not be so bad. He might quit. He left Hulk
in 6, She-Hulk in 7(?), DU in 4 (and he owned that one), WCA
in 12,...
I give him 1 issue. It better be good.
Dissentingly,
t.
Footnote 1: Omega Flight was a swipe at the original Doom Patrol,
if you also count Mento (Smart Alec) and Beast Boy (Wild Child).
The Master was a mix of Jules Verne's "Master of the World" and
the Doctor Who villain (Byrne seems to have modeled the face on
Roger Delgado's portrayal).
Ray J Cornwall
last issue of Next Men. People scoffed. "Byrne would NEVER leave the
project! It's his baby! Blah blah blah..."
And I KNOW he can do two books at once. But still, this WW hype is starting
to leave me with a bit of a sick stomach...
RIP, Next Men.
Ray Cornwall
corn...@brahms.udel.edu
Marc Singer
Kenton L. Campbell <01klca...@bsuvc.bsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3f13la$c...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc
>Singer) writes:
>>
>> Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
>> elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they deserve. Not
>> that he's a bad writer, but Wonder Woman just isn't his kind of title. I
>> have no desire to see She-Hulk or Babe wrapped up in an American flag bikini.
>
>How about the Invisible Woman? Heather Hudson in ALPHA FLIGHT?
>Tony Murcheson in NEXT MEN? Byrne can definitely write strong,
>independent, *heroic* women when he wants to, without resorting to
>the typical babe/airhead/bitch/dyke/slut stereotypes that most other
>fictional women exhibit.
Never cared to read Next Men. (Ooh, my second racm heresy in a month's time,
right after not liking A Resident Writer's lame arc!) Heather Hudson was
okay, for the brief time Byrne was on Alpha Flight (and how I wish he'd
stayed) after Heather donned the suit. As for Invisible Woman... when I
first read the Byrne FFs, I would've agreed, but I bought a whole bunch this
past summer, and looking back on them... a) they aren't as good as I
remembered and as everyone memorializes them, b) I really don't like the way
he handled Susan Richards. He did increase her power, which was admirable,
but I don't think she was all that independent. Byrne *told* us how
independent he was making her, and used her as a mouthpiece to decry anyone
who said she should actually *be* independent, but when push came to shove,
Sue was always crying for Reed. Who was usually wrongly presumed dead, but
that's another story.
>He handled all the mythological/mystical aspects of Snowbird, Shaman,
>and Talisman just fine in ALPHA FLIGHT. Given the cultural significance
>of Greek mythology in general and the Wonder Woman mythos in particular,
>I have complete faith in Byrne's ability to do them justice.
Those elements were handled well. I guess memories of Byrne's Action Comics
meeting between Superman and Wonder Woman -- a colossal letdown -- in which
he placed Darkseid et al as the real gods and Zeus etc. as the fakes just
left a bad impression.
As I said before, Byrne could do a great job and I hope my worries are
unfounded. But frankly, he's not the be-all end-all, especially for Wonder
Woman.
Marc
Alan Sepinwall
Chris Blaise <cbl...@mole.uvm.edu> wrote:
> I'll wait up to a year for Byrne to return to JBNM before I become
>peeved.
I'm not sure I want to see a return to JBNM - at least, not if he's going
to radically revamp (and retitle) the series like he said he would in his
last lettercol. That black and white preview of the next issue on the
back inside cover (of Nathan, Jazz, and Danny running from a dinosaur)
doesn't give me a lot of hope. I read JBNM for the storylines, because
the characters were all fairly unsympathetic (other than Thomas
Kirkland); if Byrne's going to keep the characters but jettison the
intricate storylines that made the book interesting, I may bail.
-Alan Sepinwall
-sepi...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
RANDOM QUOTE:
"You be my guest, and I be your host. What be your pleasure, Jim?"
"I don't know... play chess... screw...."
"Let's play chess!"
-Cleavon Little & Gene Wilder, "Blazing Saddles"
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: In article <3f0stb$3...@ns1.unicomp.net>, James Henderson <carl@utic> wrote:
: >I really hope this is just a rumor. I have enjoyed Bill Loebs run on the
: >title (~35 issuses) and am not at all looking forward to the prospect of
: >Byrne revamping/going back to the basics/retconing the hell out whatever
: >he doesn't like on the book.
: THANK YOU!
: Although I never read Loebs' run, I have exactly the same fear about Byrne
: taking over...
: Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
: elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they
: deserve...
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Granted, I gave up on Loebs somewhere
around the Prison Babes In Space plotline - has he reintroduced any of
the wonderful mythology that Perez so expertly wove into this title?
My gut feeling is that WHOEVER is writing WW, orders will come from above
re: editorial direction - and, most likely, that direction isn't going to
be one I'll want to read (i.e., it won't be up to the standards I'd come
to expect from Perez when he was on the book).
- Elayne
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Soon to be seen in "Previews":
: WONDER WOMAN #101. W/P: Byrne. A new era begins as Artemis is thrown
: into a shark tank by the other Amazons...
Kewl! Do the sharks gnaw her hand off so she has to get a harpoon?
No, wait, I'm getting confused...
- Elayne
Get Down Make Glenn
>, then when she came back, she
>worked at a fast-food taco joint while Paradise Island, her mother, and all
>the other Amazons just disappeared. Then they came back because it was all
>a plot of Circe's. Then they had this other contest.
Hey I think they did this before. When the Amazons took off, Princess
Di took to wearing white polyester, right? Well maybe not, it was a
boutique instead of a taco stand, and Mars instead of Circe when I
read it. Sounds like DC brought that water cooler back in, though.
Pax ex machina,
Glenn
......................................................................
"Things are gonna change, I can feel it"
--- George Bush '92
"As I told you before, Steve Trevor, I can't marry you until my services
are no longer needed to battle crime and injustice"
--- Princess Di
Kenton L. Campbell
> You know, a couple of months ago, I posted that we've probably seen the
> last issue of Next Men. People scoffed. "Byrne would NEVER leave the
> project! It's his baby! Blah blah blah..."
>
> And I KNOW he can do two books at once. But still, this WW hype is starting
> to leave me with a bit of a sick stomach...
>
> RIP, Next Men.
Oh, come on. In JBNM #30 Byrne said he was taking a 4-5 month sabbatical
to (1) recharge himself and (2) to remind the comic-buying population
that he's still alive. Doing WW (as well as the Darkseid/Galactus
crossover) should do just that. Sheesh, he included the cover of the
next issue of JBNM (or whatever new name he might settle upon) in #30.
I have complete faith that my JBNM fix will start up once again.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> In article <3f1gb0$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> JohnAdcox <john...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Actually, I don't honestly think the "bias" against Wonder Woman has
> >anything to do with a rampant "discomfort" with a power woman hero.
>
> Not in every case, but there are enough cases where this is true to make me
> very uncomfortable.
Please give examples (even one would suffice, actually) of comics
staring powerful female heroines in the last 15 odd years which have
failed primarily because of this "rampant discomfort". Be sure to
demonstrate that the failure was not because of either
a) lame writing or
b) esoteric, somewhat limited interest writing
c) general reluctance of kids to pick up comics with female stars (as
opposed to "powerful" female stars)
Explain how this correlates to the fact that the most succesful title
with a female star back in the early 80s was Dazzler (gak), a comic
which starred a character with no limit to her powers. Also explain how
this observation can be reconciled with the fact that the longest
running Marvel title with a female superheroine star (excluding Patsy
Walker, since she wasn't a superheroine when a star) was the She Hulk,
a title which stars one of the strongest characters in the Marvel
Universe. Also, explain why adolescents don't seem to have any "rampant
discomfort" with characters like Lady Death or Vampy, who are both
extremely powerful (and sexy).
Abhijit
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>Byrne is taking over Wonder Woman, eh?
>
>I give him 1 (one) issue.
>
>One issue for him to regain my faith in him. One issue
>to prove to me he's not the hack he's been since 1987.
[harsh criticism of Byrne's work deleted]
If you despise everything Byrne's done recently, why are you
even going to buy one issue? Save your money.
(I haven't read enough Byrne to have much of an opinion on the
subject. I'm buying WW#101 because A) the artist who drove me
away when I tried WW#0 is leaving, to be replaced by someone far
better, and B) the writer doing the current story (which wasn't
much better than the art) is leaving, and I =want= to give WW
a chance.)
Cheers, Todd
"Yin and Yang. Chaos and Order. Smooth and Crunchy."
iba...@ac.dal.ca
Jamie Lauchlan
_ ___
/ `-' ( III
|( II ||||||||||||||[***] 1979 MusicMan Stingray
\_.-.__( l Thanks Leo (R.I.P.)
"BASS IS SOME SERIOUS SHIT" - Bill Laswell
iba...@ac.dal.ca
>>
>> THANK YOU!
>>
>> Although I never read Loebs' run, I have exactly the same fear about Byrne
>> taking over: he's just egotistical enough to retcon anything that he doesn't
>> like out of the history, when better writers (read Moore, Daredevil Miller,
>> etc.) are able to ignore or undo what's gone before without screwing around
>> with continuity. While Byrne's tactic can work with a major overhaul at an
>> opportune time (like Superman), it can also swing the other way.
>>
>> Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
>> elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they deserve. Not
>> that he's a bad writer, but Wonder Woman just isn't his kind of title. I
>> have no desire to see She-Hulk or Babe wrapped up in an American flag bikini.
>>
>> Marc
Although I can understand yours fears (i.e. the whole Vision fiasco Byrne
created in West Coast Avengers), I don't think it will happen here. I certainly
don't see a She Hulk/Babe type change i nstore for WW. I have high hopes
for his run, since I feel his run on Fantastic Four is the definitive
version of the group. Whatever retcons may have occurred there certainly didn't
seem senseless and they proved to be perfect. Especially Sue Richrads finally
getting a personality :)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: I do, BTW, think Bill Loebs is an excellent writer. I adored his run on
: Dr. Fate. I just don't think he really has a handle on the kind of WW
: stories he wants to tell. He does write (most of) the characters well.
I agree entirely, John. Loebs usually writes female characters quite
well. Which makes it even more probable, to me, that the current crap
that's passing for WW is dictated from above, and out of Bill's hands.
- Elayne
Rick Hodge
>a show that blatantly adopts many of his ideas and approaches to the myth
>of Superman? They even used his original character, Cat whashername, in
I thought that Cat Grant was created by Marv Wolfman, not Byrne.
regards,
Rick Hodge
"See the dizzy spell. I would like a dizzy spell, too."
--Paul Merton, "Whose Line is It, Anyway?"
Marc Singer
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>
>Explain how this correlates to the fact that the most succesful title
>with a female star back in the early 80s was Dazzler (gak), a comic
>which starred a character with no limit to her powers.
I think the "limitless" nature of Dazzler's powers was due to poor writing
(what? poor writing on Dazzler?), and not inherent power. Looking at the
X-Men issues featuring her, or the OHOTMU for that matter, I don't think
Dazzler is actually all that powerful.
Also explain how
>this observation can be reconciled with the fact that the longest
>running Marvel title with a female superheroine star (excluding Patsy
>Walker, since she wasn't a superheroine when a star) was the She Hulk,
>a title which stars one of the strongest characters in the Marvel
>Universe.
While She-Hulk is indeed one of the strongest heroines in the Marvel Universe
(certainly not one of the strongest characters period -- her cousin, Ben
Grimm, etc. all the way up to Galactus et al obviously outclass her), her
series wasn't about strength or power, it was about comedy. Her power level
was irrelevant and really unimportant.
Also, explain why adolescents don't seem to have any "rampant
>discomfort" with characters like Lady Death or Vampy, who are both
>extremely powerful (and sexy).
Now, Abhijit, do you think adolescents buy these books because they are
powerful, or because they are sexy?
I don't think there's any special reader bias against powerful women heroes.
(I do think there's a writer's bias, since the females are always suffering
"Power Girl Syndrome" of being weaker than their male counterparts/getting
depowered if they're not weaker already. I also think there's a readers
bias against female heroes in general, as shown by sales. But I don't
think the readers particularly shun powerful women.) But none of your
"counter-examples" are really women who got read _because_ of their power...
in some cases, particularly the last, it might be _in spite_ of it...
Marc
Mitchell Gil Maltenfort
note, the woman has never really been given a personality in any
incarnation. Why not a wry viewpoint, in her case based on two cultures
and a few centuries? Please no absurd villains - Egg Fu and Angle Man
deserve obscurity - but just a "lord, what fools these mortals be" sense
of whimsy.
--
Mitchell Maltenfort Northwestern University m...@nwu.edu
Mathematicians write symphonies. Scientists create instruments. Engineers build music boxes.
Paul O'Brien
>I belive Fabian Nicieza has that distinction, at least in the recent past. I
>mean, wasn't he writing X-Force, X-Men, New Warriors, Nomad, the Night Thrasher
>Limited series, and some other stuff that I can't remember, all during the same
>month?
Yes, but he couldn't handle it. (Quite understandably.) He's
down to two books a month now, which seems much more reasonable.
Paul O'Brien
pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk, elf...@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk
You're such an inbetweener...
pho...@worf.infonet.net
[about Perez]
RI>> At the peak of his popularity? I don't think so. George peaked way back
RI>> when The New Teen Titans was DCs best selling comic, and that was *years*
RI>> ago. If he had worked on WW back then, I think she would have gotten more
RI>> attention.
RI>Exsqueeze me? Perez had come off of Titans, which was where he perfected
RI>his style [check the difference in the art from #1 to #50, that's where he
RI>got _sharp_] and right off Crisis, where he drew every single member of
RI>the DC Universe, and managed to carry off a somewhat thin plot and make
RI>in an epic. Perez was at his writing and drawing peak then.
I was thinking that he did his WW work quite a while after Crisis and the
Titans work. If I was wrong, my mistake and apologies. In that case, I
would have to assume that not enough interest exists in WW for even Perez
to make her popular, which is what I doubted... I can't help but think that
Byrne (bigger name than Perez, even) will make some real difference in her
readership, with the most obvious result being more males reading the title.
RI>> Probably, but you have to know that he has a huge fan-following, and no
RI>> doubt sales on WW will jump *way* past normal for WW sales.
RI>Heck, I'll give it a try. It'll be nice to see an ish of Wonder Woman I
RI>can stand to read.
Yeah. I haven't bought a WW issue in... oh, about 14 years. It'll be
interesting to see what she's like now, and how Byrne... changes it. ;)
Brian
pho...@worf.infonet.net
MG>note, the woman has never really been given a personality in any
Oh, Gawd, that would really suck. I hated that She-Hulk Byrne humor, and
imo, it would kill the Wonder Woman title. I don't really see her as a stand
up comedian.
Of course, I didn't see She-Hulk that way, either.
Brian
pho...@worf.infonet.net
DO>soulless "aren't I clever" drivel that OMAC, WCA, Namor,
DO>and She-Hulk were. There is not one bit of genuine emotion
DO>(IMO) in any of Byrne's recent work. I'm convinced he hasn't
I rather enjoyed the OMAC mini, and Namor 30-32 was *really* well-written,
imo. Much better than most of the other Namor issues. I don't know that
he doesn't care anymore, but maybe he just thinks a bit differently about
what he writes/draws. I also consider his old stuff better, though.
Brian
Tom Johnston
I find his Next Men stories very compelling. I'm not sure how anyone
could read them and think that JB isn't trying or doesn't care. The
big difference between his FF work and his JBNM work, IMO, is the
way the books make me feel. The FF work was very uplifting. Byrne
was working on characters who were legends, and he treated them with
a great deal of respect. The stories were generally very upbeat, with
things working out well for the characters in the end. In JBNM,
the characters are at a disadvantage. They are on the run, have been
manipulated by the government, have been deserted by one of their
members, and have seen the damage that is caused if one of them sleeps
with an outsider. It seems to me that JB is putting a lot of effort
into the book, and is writing some very good stories. But because
things don't generally go well for the protagonists, reading the book
is slightly depressing. Still, I continue to read because the stories
are interesting. I want to see what happens next.
Cruelmo de Ville
> While She-Hulk is indeed one of the strongest heroines in the Marvel
That's Abhijit's point.
> Now, Abhijit, do you think adolescents buy these books because they are
> powerful, or because they are sexy?
That's Abhijit's point.
> I don't think there's any special reader bias against powerful women heroes.
That's Abhijit's point.
In case you're still not getting it, he was rebutting Johanna's blind
assertion that women superhero books fail because there is a bias
against powerful women. He was offering data to show that among the
most successful women superhero books have been the most powerful women
superheros.
--
"If one is good, ten must be better: the Law Of Flogging A Dead Horse."
--Scott McMahan
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Johanna Draper
>I can't help but think that
>Byrne (bigger name than Perez, even) will make some real difference in her
>readership, with the most obvious result being more males reading the title.
Actually, the males are currently reading the title. Hopefully when Byrne
takes over, females will be able to read it again.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I really don't like the way
>he handled Susan Richards. He did increase her power, which was admirable,
>but I don't think she was all that independent. Byrne *told* us how
>independent he was making her, and used her as a mouthpiece to decry anyone
>who said she should actually *be* independent, but when push came to shove,
>Sue was always crying for Reed.
Interesting. That's the standard Harlequin romance cop-out, as well. Say
she's independent, but have all her actions say that she's not.
>As I said before, Byrne could do a great job and I hope my worries are
>unfounded. But frankly, he's not the be-all end-all, especially for Wonder
>Woman.
Oh, granted. I wouldn't be glad he was showing up, given his style of
drawing women, if it weren't for his being so much better than the current
creative team.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Mitchell Gil Maltenfort <m...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>the woman has never really been given a personality in any
>incarnation. Why not a wry viewpoint, in her case based on two cultures
>and a few centuries?
Did you not see this in the Perez issues? One of the reasons I enjoyed them
was their portrayal of WW as a capable neophyte, new to our culture. And
with a sense of humor and wonder.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Besides, I just can't see John Byrne treating the Amazons, the mythological
>: elements, and even Wonder Woman herself with the respect they
>: deserve...
>
>I'm sorry, did I miss something? Granted, I gave up on Loebs somewhere
>around the Prison Babes In Space plotline - has he reintroduced any of
>the wonderful mythology that Perez so expertly wove into this title?
Well, he tried to, but I think that mask thingy was original with him. I
certainly wouldn't use the word "respect" to describe the current portrayal
of the Amazons.
>My gut feeling is that WHOEVER is writing WW, orders will come from above
>re: editorial direction
This is a good point. I've been slamming on Loebs, since he's named as the
writer, but I don't know that any of this is his (as opposed to the
editor's) fault. On the other hand, he's pulled the supporting character
switch, at least, on the Flash and Dr. Fate as well.
Johanna
Marc Singer
Cruelmo de Ville <mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>That's Abhijit's point.
>
>That's Abhijit's point.
>
>That's Abhijit's point.
Now that's the Elmo I know. :-)
>In case you're still not getting it, he was rebutting Johanna's blind
>assertion that women superhero books fail because there is a bias
>against powerful women. He was offering data to show that among the
>most successful women superhero books have been the most powerful women
>superheros.
And you evidently *aren't* getting it, Elmo. Every one of the "counter-
examples" of a popular (or at least good-selling), powerful heroine was
somebody who either wasn't that powerful or was popular for reasons other
than power (She-Hulk's comedy, Lady Death's erotic appeal). I agree that
there isn't a bias against *powerful* women as such, but the three examples
given don't show that power is especially popular, either.
>"If one is good, ten must be better: the Law Of Flogging A Dead Horse."
Like I said, that's the Elmo I know.
Marc
Johanna Draper
>> In article <3f1gb0$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>> JohnAdcox <john...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Actually, I don't honestly think the "bias" against Wonder Woman has
>> >anything to do with a rampant "discomfort" with a power woman hero.
>>
>> Not in every case, but there are enough cases where this is true to make me
>> very uncomfortable.
>
>Please give examples (even one would suffice, actually) of comics
>staring powerful female heroines in the last 15 odd years which have
>failed primarily because of this "rampant discomfort".
I didn't suggest that comics failed for this reason. I was responding to
someone who seemed to be saying that readers weren't biased against Wonder
Woman just because she was female. I've seen a number of comments along the
lines of "Jesse can't be the new Flash because she's a girl" (for example)
that suggest that some male comic readers are in fact biased against female
heroes solely because of their sex.
Also, a more relevant test would be simply listing the titles starring
powerful female superheroes in comparison to the number starring males.
If you're trying to suggest that the comic industry is not sexist, I
suggest you talk to the large number of female writers and artists who have
been told to their faces that "women can't do superheroes".
>Be sure to demonstrate that the failure was not because of either
>a) lame writing or
>b) esoteric, somewhat limited interest writing
>c) general reluctance of kids to pick up comics with female stars (as
>opposed to "powerful" female stars)
But these factors are all linked to the denigration of female heroes.
They don't get the hot writers, or the backing of a marketing push, unless
they're out-and-out cheesecake. (Your factor c, by the way, is exactly my
point. I presume you meant to say "boys" instead of "kids", since the women
& girls I know who read comics want to see female stars.)
Even using those criteria, Wonder Woman under Perez is a good example. Hot
artist, good writing (although I suppose you could say that writing about a
woman is of somewhat limited interest by your (c) above), and kids didn't
buy it. Why? What other factor is there besides uncomfortability or
disinterest in a powerful female.
>Explain how this correlates to the fact that the most succesful title
>with a female star back in the early 80s was Dazzler (gak), a comic
>which starred a character with no limit to her powers.
What other titles with females were out then? What were the hot titles
overall? How did Dazzler compare to them? I don't know enough about the
market then to comment.
>Also explain how
>this observation can be reconciled with the fact that the longest
>running Marvel title with a female superheroine star (excluding Patsy
>Walker, since she wasn't a superheroine when a star) was the She Hulk,
>a title which stars one of the strongest characters in the Marvel
>Universe.
John Byrne, humor, and SheHulk not using her powers. (In the issues, I read
anyway. She always seemed to be doing something to get her clothes torn,
though.)
>Also, explain why adolescents don't seem to have any "rampant
>discomfort" with characters like Lady Death or Vampy, who are both
>extremely powerful (and sexy).
Because of the sexual components. Those stroke books present a woman who's
offering herself to them in terms of costuming and poses, so ignoring the
powers becomes very easy. (Having never read one of them, it may also be a
case of "tell the audience she's powerful, and show them otherwise", but I
couldn't say.)
Johanna
Marc Singer
Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>
>Interesting. That's the standard Harlequin romance cop-out, as well. Say
>she's independent, but have all her actions say that she's not.
Yup.
>Oh, granted. I wouldn't be glad he was showing up, given his style of
>drawing women, if it weren't for his being so much better than the current
>creative team.
On this I can agree; and I'll certainly be there to buy Wonder Woman #101
along with everyone else. I'll just be keeping a careful eye out for
Byrne's usual tricks, and I'll drop it if they get to odious for me...
"racmiscically correct" or not. ;-)
Marc
Johanna Draper
>In case you're still not getting it, he was rebutting Johanna's blind
>assertion that women superhero books fail because there is a bias
>against powerful women.
Oh, is that what he was doing? I didn't recognize his distinction until you
pointed it out.
In that case, let me qualify. It seems to me that the female characters
in superhero comics are usually restrained in some way (now, now, no
Wonder Woman jokes) from exercising their abilities to the fullest, leading
me to conclude that readers (or perhaps it's just the writers and editors)
are more comfortable with less powerful women. This is backed up by some of
the comments I've heard from male readers.
>He was offering data to show that among the
>most successful women superhero books have been the most powerful women
>superheros.
In all the cases he cited, there was another, more prominent reason for
their success: humor or sex, for example. I think the success doesn't show
acceptance of powerful women, but success in spite of the power.
Johanna
Cruelmo de Ville
> Cruelmo de Ville <mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>>In case you're still not getting it, he was rebutting Johanna's blind
>>assertion that women superhero books fail because there is a bias
>>against powerful women.
>
> examples" of a popular (or at least good-selling), powerful heroine was
> somebody who either wasn't that powerful or was popular for reasons other
> than power (She-Hulk's comedy, Lady Death's erotic appeal). I agree that
> there isn't a bias against *powerful* women as such, but the three examples
> given don't show that power is especially popular, either.
Power doesn't have to be especially popular in order for it not to be
unpopular. Johanna's thesis was (paraphrase) that comic readers (who
are predominantly male) pick up She-Hulk or the Huntress and go "Ooh,
a powerful female figure. How threatening to my fragile masculinity.
Yuck. I won't buy this." All that is needed to refute this is evidence
that *particularly* powerful female figures (as measured on the superhero
yardstick) are not *particularly* bad sellers. Under Johanna's thesis,
there are no mitigating factors which allow any powerful female figure
to sell well. Ergo, it's irrelevant that She-Hulk sold because of JB's
faithful fifty and comedy; it's only relevant that She-Hulk is powerful
(and particularly powerful by male criteria: she's physically big and strong)
and that her book sold.
> Like I said, that's the Elmo I know.
I've been feeling particularly antagonistic this entire week. Just
prepping myself for the racm reorg war about to erupt in news.groups, I
guess. [Look for the RFD to hit the group this weekend; Glenn is mailing
it today.]
--
"Life is like an overlong drama through which we sit being nagged by the vague
memories of having read the reviews."--John Updike
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Jim Perreault
>In article <3f428j$j...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>Marc Singer <ma...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>>I really don't like the way
>>he handled Susan Richards. He did increase her power, which was admirable,
>>but I don't think she was all that independent. Byrne *told* us how
>>independent he was making her, and used her as a mouthpiece to decry anyone
>>who said she should actually *be* independent, but when push came to shove,
>>Sue was always crying for Reed.
>Interesting. That's the standard Harlequin romance cop-out, as well. Say
>she's independent, but have all her actions say that she's not.
It also doesn't tell the whole story, where Byrne's FF is concerned.
Sure, Sue was always crying for Reed: usually when he was in trouble and
she was saving his butt ! While I agree that in the strict sense this is
not an independent female, but that is because she is a member of a team.
None of the members are independent of each other.
In Byrne's FF, Sue was very powerful, very skillful in using
her powers, and had plenty of solo action to display this. She showed
inventiveness in using her powers in new ways. She did not
wait for Reed to tell her to do things, but did things on her own.
Sometimes she would override Reed's decisions. Sue also led the team on
her own in several occassions.
In short, I disagree with Marc's assessment.
Jim
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> But that's the point. Popular powerful women all have some other reason for
> being popular. No one's shown that powerful women sell, just that powerful
> {sexual or humorous or whatever} women sell.
Funnily enough, the exact same applies to male characters as well (in
the last 20 years anyway). If readers bought comics on the basis of the
power level of the characters involved, then the Spectre would have
been DC's most popular character, instead of being depowered time and
again.
Similarly, the pre-Crisis Superman would have been extremely popular if
power was the criterion used to buy a comic : instead his popularity
was shrinking and he was depowered as well.
DC's most popular male character is probably the Batman, Marvel's
probably Spider Man. Both are handy fighters, but are not extremely
powerful characters. Batman is not demonstrably a better fighter than
DC's most popular superfemale, Catwoman.
The idea that male readers are intimidated by powerful heroines is just
bizarre : I've yet to meet anyone, kid or no, who feels that way.
Abhijit
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
> <Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
> >
> >Explain how this correlates to the fact that the most succesful title
> >with a female star back in the early 80s was Dazzler (gak), a comic
> >which starred a character with no limit to her powers.
>
> I think the "limitless" nature of Dazzler's powers was due to poor
>writing (what? poor writing on Dazzler?), and not inherent power.
Probably, but her power level was emphasized continually in the comic.
She went up against all sorts of heavyweights, from the Enchantress to
Klaw to Terrax to Galactus (gak). That didn't seem to turn off readers,
it was really lame writing that eventually sank the title.
> Also explain how
> >this observation can be reconciled with the fact that the longest
> >running Marvel title with a female superheroine star (excluding Patsy
> >Walker, since she wasn't a superheroine when a star) was the She Hulk,
>
> While She-Hulk is indeed one of the strongest heroines in the Marvel
>Universe (certainly not one of the strongest characters period -- her
>cousin, Ben Grimm, etc. all the way up to Galactus et al obviously
>outclass her), her series wasn't about strength or power, it was
>about comedy. Her power level was irrelevant and really unimportant.
Again, while Jen's power level may not have been directly related to
the title, she used her power several times in the comic. It wasn't
something that was kept under a bushel.
But, by and large, her power level was irrelevant to the success of the
comic. That's my key point : power levels are generally irrelevant to
the success of a comic (unless too high or too low).
> Also, explain why adolescents don't seem to have any "rampant
> >discomfort" with characters like Lady Death or Vampy, who are both
> >extremely powerful (and sexy).
>
> Now, Abhijit, do you think adolescents buy these books because they are
> powerful, or because they are sexy?
Adolescents buy these books for the mixture of sex and action
and because some of these are actually pretty good (Shi, for instance,
is Shado done right). The power level of the characters involved is
not really an issue. I'll point out though, that as a character picks
up a fan base, their power level becomes an issue. Or to put it another
way, I wouldn't be surprised to hear fans commenting how they expect to
see Shi kick Wolverine's butt :-).
> depowered if they're not weaker already. I also think there's a readers
> bias against female heroes in general, as shown by sales. But I don't
> think the readers particularly shun powerful women.) But none of your
> "counter-examples" are really women who got read _because_ of their power...
Yes, but I'm not claiming that "women got read because of their power".
I think that's a rather asinine idea. But male characters rarely get
read because they're powerful either (cf. Spectre and Superman). I'm
disproving the claim advanced by Johanna that adolescent male readers
are turned off by powerful female characters. Quite frankly, I find
that to be a really bizarre claim, unsupported by any facts.
[ I don't dispute that adolescents are turned off by female characters,
in general.]
> in some cases, particularly the last, it might be _in spite_ of it...
That I dispute rather strongly. Certainly the sex is a major factor,
but without the violence and action, I don't think any of the bad girl
comics would have been really popular.
Christopher Smith
>> I can't help but wonder just exactly what you find so offensive about the
>>artwork in Wonder Woman. Is it the big breasts? the tiny waists and
*---------
>Um, because I find it ugly and grotesque?
*---------
Johanna, Christa.. I'm with you on this one.. I too find it grotesque and
visually displeasing (and I'm a thoroughly hetero male).
cheers
chris
--
auditions in January for _We Bombed In New Haven_ by Joseph "Catch-22" Heller
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Tiggeriffic Productions (617) 499-6980 Plays that make you go "What?!"
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, Abhiji...@transarc.com () says:
>sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
>
>The idea that male readers are intimidated by powerful heroines is just
>bizarre : I've yet to meet anyone, kid or no, who feels that way.
"Bizarre" is strong. I can see *why* the idea might crop up. I just don't
think it's true.
--
Congratulations to Michael Jack Schmidt, the Greatest Third Baseman ever to
stand at the hot corner. Cooperstown, class of 1995. Phils 1972-1989.
In memoriam, Peter Cook, Beyond the Fringe, "I like you Stanley, I don't
want to see you swatted." - Peter Cook, Bedazzled, 1937-1995
David Goldfarb
)I was thinking that [Perez] did his WW work quite a while after Crisis and the
)Titans work.
_Crisis_ post-dated Perez's last _Titans_ work by about a year.
_Wonder Woman_ came about a year after _Crisis_; the pre-Crisis WW was
killed in _Crisis_ #12, the post-Crisis Perez version made her mainstream
continuity debut in _Legends_ #6.
David Goldfarb <*>|"You realize you're insane, don't you?"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "*hahahaha*. Don't change the subject."
gold...@UCBOCF.BITNET |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- _Zot!_ #3
Michael A. Chary
This leads to some wonderful images. I can pictures females picking up WW
and being hit with an illiteracy ray, and no longer being able to read
Wonder Woman (which is apparently a blessing.) Has Wonder Woman ever sold
well? I mean if John Byrne can't get it selling, then I have to wonder if
there's something worng with the concept.
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) says:
>In article <1995Jan13...@fnalv.fnal.gov>,
>Cruelmo de Ville <mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>>
>>That's Abhijit's point.
>>
>>That's Abhijit's point.
>>
>>That's Abhijit's point.
>
>Now that's the Elmo I know. :-)
Careful, Marc, you're supposed to pick on me, not elmo. :)
>>In case you're still not getting it, he was rebutting Johanna's blind
>>assertion that women superhero books fail because there is a bias
>>against powerful women. He was offering data to show that among the
>>most successful women superhero books have been the most powerful women
>>superheros.
>
>And you evidently *aren't* getting it, Elmo. Every one of the "counter-
>examples" of a popular (or at least good-selling), powerful heroine was
>somebody who either wasn't that powerful or was popular for reasons other
>than power (She-Hulk's comedy, Lady Death's erotic appeal).
Well, okay, but then what would you accept as evidence?
Rogue is powerful and popular, Storm is too. Death was pretty powerful and
popular. Should we wait and see if Jesse takes over as Flash?
Most characters ( and God forgive me for saying this) are arguably
attractive for some reason or another, male or female.
You can't just disenfrachise all the most popular powerful women for one
reason or another and then say, "well, powerful women don't sell."
It's like this undergrad I knew who said there were no good American movie
directors. I said "What about Scorsese?" and She said "Well, he doesn't
because...." "What about Copola?" Well, he doesn't because..."Spike Lee?"
Well, he doesn't count because...
It's limitless, if you go at it like that.
> I agree that
>there isn't a bias against *powerful* women as such, but the three examples
>given don't show that power is especially popular, either.
Well, I don't think he was trying to do that. I just thought he was trying
to disprove the bias.
>>"If one is good, ten must be better: the Law Of Flogging A Dead Horse."
>
>Like I said, that's the Elmo I know.
Jesus, you'd think this was a LSH thread. Marc, Elmo, "All I am say-ing,
is give peace a chance." You seem to pretty much agree here guys. Don't
invent reasons to engage in persoal invective :)
Johanna Draper
Michael A. Chary <ma...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>Has Wonder Woman ever sold well? I mean if John Byrne can't get it
selling, then I have to wonder if there's something worng with the
concept.
Good question. Sales figures under Perez were apparently not as good as
expected. Other than that, I don't know. Anyone?
I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept - perhaps a mismatch
of comics and audience.
Johanna
Alan Sepinwall
Johanna Draper <sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>Even using those criteria, Wonder Woman under Perez is a good example. Hot
>artist, good writing (although I suppose you could say that writing about a
>woman is of somewhat limited interest by your (c) above), and kids didn't
>buy it. Why? What other factor is there besides uncomfortability or
>disinterest in a powerful female.
Well, I bought every issue of the Perez-drawn WW, but I quit as soon as
he started only doing the writing. While I feel that Perez's run on the
book was always interesting and unique, it was definitely not
"mainstream." He made use of the WW mythology more than any writer before
or since; his stories were very labyrinthian (particularly in the first
few issues); and there wasn't an abundance of slugfests in each issue. It
was good stuff, but to the average fanboy looking for something to read
when he finishes that week's collection of XBooks, Perez's WW was not the
most obvious purchase choice.
-Alan Sepinwall
-sepi...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
RANDOM QUOTE:
"I stopped drinking because I got sick of waking up nude on the hood of my
car with the keys in my ass."
-Robin Williams
Johanna Draper
Evidence that powerful women are popular? Well, since my position is that
if they are, it's in spite of their power, aren't I supposed to shoot down
contrary examples if I see problems with them?
>Death was pretty powerful and popular.
I'm restricting this to superheroes, and I don't think Death qualifies.
Does she really appeal to the 8-15 year old boys?
>You can't just disenfrachise all the most popular powerful women for
>one reason or another and then say, "well, powerful women don't sell."
But that's the point. Popular powerful women all have some other reason for
being popular. No one's shown that powerful women sell, just that powerful
{sexual or humorous or whatever} women sell.
Johanna
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> <Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
> >Be sure to demonstrate that the failure was not because of either
> >a) lame writing or
> >b) esoteric, somewhat limited interest writing
> >c) general reluctance of kids to pick up comics with female stars (as
> >opposed to "powerful" female stars)
>
> But these factors are all linked to the denigration of female heroes.
> They don't get the hot writers, or the backing of a marketing push, unless
> they're out-and-out cheesecake. (Your factor c, by the way, is exactly my
> point. I presume you meant to say "boys" instead of "kids", since the women
> & girls I know who read comics want to see female stars.)
No, my factor c) is not your point. I've never disputed that comics
with female stars are less popular among boys. I dispute that their
power level has anything to do with it.
> Even using those criteria, Wonder Woman under Perez is a good example. Hot
> artist, good writing (although I suppose you could say that writing about a
> woman is of somewhat limited interest by your (c) above), and kids didn't
> buy it. Why?
Wonder Woman under Perez actually fell into b). The mythological basis
and the lack of superhero action made it somewhat esoteric. Definitely
c) paid a role as well.
>What other factor is there besides uncomfortability or > disinterest
>in a powerful female.
This is what I object to : the assertion that boys are somehow
uncomfortable with a powerful female. I don't dispute that boys are
disinterested in comics with female characters.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> In that case, let me qualify. It seems to me that the female characters
> in superhero comics are usually restrained in some way (now, now, no
> Wonder Woman jokes) from exercising their abilities to the fullest,
It seems to me that several male characters are continually depowered
as well : Spectre, Superman, Dr. Fate, even the Flash. In fact, the
only relatively permanent depowerments at DC have been that of
Superman and the Spectre.
> In all the cases he cited, there was another, more prominent reason for
> their success: humor or sex, for example.
EXACTLY. Power by itself doesn't guarantee success to a character at
all. The Hulk, for instance, wasn't popular at all in the early 80s
despite being a very powerful character. It took PAD and McFarlane to
make him popular.
There is not one case I can think of in the past twenty years of a male
character being successful only because of power. It took something
else. It took Frank Miller to make the Batman popular. It took the
Death of Superman to make his popularity higher. It took Mike Zeck and
Steven Grant to make the Punisher popular. It took McFarlane to make
Spawn popular. And so on ..
>I think the success doesn't show
> acceptance of powerful women, but success in spite of the power.
And that argument, of course, could be used to dismiss any
counterexample, whether its Martha Washington or the She Hulk.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
j...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Jim Perreault) writes:
> Sure, Sue was always crying for Reed: usually when he was in trouble and
> she was saving his butt !
The other point to note is that Sue has been married to Reed for
umpteen years, loves him dearly (and vice versa) and he is the father
of her child (and at one point, the father of her second unborn child).
It would be unrealistic for Suzy not to be distressed if Reed were dead
or presumed to be dead. I recollect that she handled his apparent
death(s) quite well, non hysterically.
> In Byrne's FF, Sue was very powerful, very skillful in using
> her powers, and had plenty of solo action to display this. She showed
> inventiveness in using her powers in new ways.
Absolutely. Byrne had her use her force fields for travel, to tear
robots apart, and even had her use her invisibility in strange ways.
>While I agree that in the strict sense this is
> not an independent female, but that is because she is a member of a
>team. None of the members are independent of each other.
Couldn't have put it better myself. In fact, Byrne had Sue strongly
refute the idea that she should strike out on her own to prove her
independence. The FF is not just a team, the core members are a family.
Byrne wrote Sue better than she's ever been written before or since.
[ Matter of fact, I could hardly stand her before Byrne started to write
her, and my opinion changed after Byrne worked on her for a while.]
Johanna Draper
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>The idea that male readers are intimidated by powerful heroines is just
>bizarre : I've yet to meet anyone, kid or no, who feels that way.
"There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy."
I thought the idea was a little strange myself, but I've heard people
express it. Guess you're just lucky in who you talk to.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>I'm disproving the claim advanced by Johanna that adolescent male
>readers are turned off by powerful female characters. Quite
>frankly, I find that to be a really bizarre claim, unsupported by any
>facts.
Sorry I don't have the tape recordings. I wasn't claiming anything, only
reporting what I'd heard readers express.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Cruelmo de Ville <mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>Under Johanna's thesis,
>there are no mitigating factors which allow any powerful female figure
>to sell well.
Actually, under my thesis (oooh! I've had something named after me! Does
this mean I'm on my way to net.immortality?), all powerful female figurs
who sell well do so *because* of mitigating factors.
Johanna
Cruelmo de Ville
> What other factor is there besides uncomfortability or
> disinterest in a powerful female.
If you'll just drop the "powerful", I'll agree with you. By insisting
on the inclusion of power, you're taking this out of the realm of sexism.
(Maxwell Lord in the JL books, for example, is a powerful man in the
sense you mean, and yet it's that very power which made him generally
unpopular. Superman, on the other hand, has tremendous personal power,
but uses that power in "female" (community-supporting, other-directed)
ways.) I think that there is more than enough room to ascribe the
prejudice to pure ick-a-girl-ness without any need to bring in the
fragility of men's egos.
--
"February 1995: Respect for the writing of Stan Lee increases greatly when
it is revealed that his typewriter has had the ! and . keys switched for
the past 30 years."--The Mystic Mongoose
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Cruelmo de Ville
> I think the success doesn't show
> acceptance of powerful women, but success in spite of the power.
Sure. (Again, I think that's the *point*.) I would phrase it even more
strongly: success in the *irrelevance* of power. I'll wager that a reason
not related to the personal power of the female lead can be found for
*every* success or failure of a female title. [Let's define "failure"
as a title lasting less than a year; "success" as more than two years;
and "mediocrity" as one to two years.] E.g., the Daring New Adventures of
Supergirl failed because Carmine Infantino did poor artwork and Paul
"Atlantis" Kupperburg did poor stories. She-Hulk succeeded because of
John Byrne's faithful fifty and his relatively innovative comic approach.
The Huntress was mediocre because the title got no push from Batman (as
the character's getting now) and because Joe Staton's art was hard to
appreciate.
--
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism
while wolves remain of a different opinion."
--William Ralph Inge D.D.
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Todd VerBeek, GWM
as I can tell, this didn't get posted.
[Johanna's comments about the "cheesecake" art in WW deleted]
cvo...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (christa lynn voliva) writes:
> I can't help but wonder just exactly what you find so offensive about the
>artwork in Wonder Woman. Is it the big breasts? the tiny waists and
>somewhat unrealistic proportions? Why does this have to be such a problem?
Um, because I find it ugly and grotesque? And I don't like to see women
portrayed that way.
> When I look at the characters in the book, I see well-developed muscle
>tone, healthy, full hair, smooth complexions, and, yes, very slim
>bodies. To me, these are signs of health and physical fitness, not
>"cheesecake."
Those "very slim bodies" do not say "health and physical fitness" to =me=.
Someone with a physique like that is UNhealthy and likely to die if she
contracts a minor illness. I read comics for escapism, not to see poster
children (or pin-up girls) for anorexia. <wry grin>
>True, the way the women's bodies are drawn is not entirely
>realistic, but so what? If I want to see an imperfect, realistic body,
>I'll look in the mirror. In my opinion, Deodato's characters are simply
>beautiful, and I have no problem enjoying their beauty and dismissing the
>unrealistic aspects. After all, if you want total realism, why are you
>reading a "superhero" comic anyway?
I'm not looking for "total realism" (nor do I recall Johanna calling for
that). I like a variety of art forms, including cartoony, impressionistic,
and surreal deviations from realism. But Deodata's art is none of these.
It deviates from realism for the sole purpose of pushing the hormonal
buttons of adolescent hetero males.(*) I'm not one. And I find it ugly.
(*) Most of the praise I've read/heard for Deodata's WW art has contained
references to the characters' appeal as sex objects. And I cannot fathom
another basis for his style that doesn't rely on more suspension of
disbelief than I can muster... and I'm a Trek fan. <smile>
Cheers, Todd
"Yin and Yang. Chaos and Order. Smooth and Crunchy."
Abhiji...@transarc.com
sg94...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Johanna Draper) writes:
> I'm talking about restraint every time they try to do something. The most
> obvious example would be the one where Batgirl's going to catch the crooks
> but has to stop to check her makeup. (Didn't someone write about
>this?)
Did this happen in the last 15 years ? If not, its completely
irrelevant.
> Usually the writer finds a way to keep the heroine from fully exercising
> her ability.
Examples, please. Also indicate that this isn't just done to prevent
the story from being finished immediatedly. Example, Superman or
Green Lantern rarely allow their heroes to use their full powers
because if they did, in most instances, the fight would be over in a
second. [ If Rogue, for instance, were to absorb the power of very foe
of the X-men, it would be as boring as if Superman were to finish up
every JL story all by himself.]
Todd VerBeek, GWM
>Has Wonder Woman ever sold
>well? I mean if John Byrne can't get it selling, then I have to wonder if
>there's something worng with the concept.
There is. It's a marketing problem: Comics starring powerful women don't
sell well to adolescent boys (the largest single segment of the market)
unless there's something else (usually an overtone of "but she'll f--- you")
that appeals to them.
Todd Grotenhuis
>I'm really hoping
>that they bring Linda Lee on the show as an occasional visitor (the
>*real* Kara, not that "clone" thingie that was the one bad move Byrne made
>in the entire series), maybe playing her off on Luthor, who can't really be
>dead!
I'm just hoping they bring back Luthor sometime soon. How long are the
writers going to mess around with all the two-bit villains and has-been
TV stars before resolving last year's season finale?
Waiting and waiting and waiting....
HAMMURABI!!!
Russ Allbery
>
>Amazing. Why is it that "statistical invaliditude" is always the first
>smokescreen thrown up in the face of evidence?
Counter-argument: Why do so many attempt to use statistically invalid
"surveys" to support their position?
>There was a contention that no men/boys feel threatened by powerful women.
>Evidence appears that some are. Oh, they must have been the *only*
>frightened men!
Uhh...no. There is nothing in those statements that indicate that anyone
was at all threatened. They just thought a woman as leader is a stupid
idea, presumably since they don't think women can lead. Still a sexist
attitude, obviously, but not a person feeling threatened.
>Too bad. Even if they are, the fact is, these quotes show that some
>"males" are indeed threatened by or hostile to powerful female figures.
>You would have a better chance of refuting that if you claimed that for all
>we know, those quotes were written by women as part of a secret plot to
>discredit men.
Jeez, Marc, cut down on the flame content a notch or two, would you? Snide
comments at people who disagree with you aren't going to win any arguments.
I think you're going to have an extremely hard time proving that adolescent
males are threatened by powerful females, since most adolescent males are
never going to admit feeling threatened by anything.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Brian L. Rust
few issues, after a contest was held on Paradise Island and a
red-haired, over-confident woman got the `title'. This sounds
like a complete `re-telling', if you take out new plot threads
like the Libyans.
Michael Vickers
> In article <zombie-1501...@192.0.2.1>,
> zombie <zom...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <3fa4dm$p...@mother.usf.edu>, rfer...@chuma.cas.usf.edu wrote:
>>> To veer only slightly off topic, but with some relevance, I was reading
>>> the article on Star Trek: Voyager in new Entertainment Weekly today, and
>>> it quoted some comments on the show from America Online posters:
>>>
>>> "Why oh why would the producers put a woman in charge of Voyager?"
>>>
>>> "Do they want it to sink? What they need is a Kirk-type: strong,
>>> ambitious and full of testosterone."
>>>
>>> "The show will suck because of the woman."
>>
>>Really though. Taking sound bites proves nothing. To get any meaningful
>>data, we would need to see all comments, not just 3 of (what, 3? 3k?
>>300k?).
>
> Amazing. Why is it that "statistical invaliditude" is always the first
> smokescreen thrown up in the face of evidence?
>
> Evidence appears that some are. Oh, they must have been the *only*
> frightened men!
>
> are indeed threatened by or hostile to powerful female figures. You would
> have a better chance of refuting that if you claimed that for all we know,
> those quotes were written by women as part of a secret plot to discredit
> men.
>
>
Look, if you need a "Star Trek" example of how young men are often
frightened/put off by powerful, competent women, you need look no further
than Tasha Yar. Whatever you may think of Denise Crosby's acting (and she
certainly wasn't any worse than Jonathan Frakes, f'rexample), it was very
clear that the _writers_ had no idea what to do with a strong female
character. Even though her departure/death was her own idea, she has said
repeatedly that it was because the writers never gave her anything to do.
The female characters that did get stuff to do, of course, were the
nurturers, a doctor and a 'counselor'.
Of course, when Yar came back as a *villain*, she was suddenly
immensely popular - because then the fanboys & writers didn't have to like
her, they could just fear/desire her.
P.S. Sorry for all the "/", I hate that style too but I'm pressed
for time.
--
Matthew F. Johnson
ac...@Freenet.carleton.ca
Oghwan Lives!
Eivind Gladheim streng
> Then again, it might not be so bad. He might quit. He left Hulk
> in 6, She-Hulk in 7(?), DU in 4 (and he owned that one), WCA
> in 12,...
Try 28 issues on She-Hulk.
And if you think Byrne is so bad, why give him even the one
issue. You seem already to have made up your mind.
--
- the WaRPed One, keeper of the Captain Ultra flame, boldly
going where many have gone before.
Vote YES for rec.arts.comics.elfquest
*********************************************************************
"Shit, it's på norsk!" - Gynther in _The Julekalender_
*********************************************************************
Eivind Gladheim streng
> In article <D27u3...@cunews.carleton.ca> cb...@chat.carleton.ca (Christopher Bird) writes:
> > And anyway, John Byrne is the Fastest Worker in Comicdom.
> I belive Fabian Nicieza has that distinction, at least in the recent past. I
> mean, wasn't he writing X-Force, X-Men, New Warriors, Nomad, the Night Thrasher
> Limited series, and some other stuff that I can't remember, all during the same
> month?
Yeah, but Nicieza does not draw.
Eivind Gladheim streng
> Never cared to read Next Men. (Ooh, my second racm heresy in a month's time,
> right after not liking A Resident Writer's lame arc!) Heather Hudson was
> okay, for the brief time Byrne was on Alpha Flight (and how I wish he'd
> stayed) after Heather donned the suit.
Donning the suit? The guardian suit? Sorry but Heather never donned
the suit while Byrne was on the title (and had he stayed on, she never
would have).
> As for Invisible Woman... when I
> first read the Byrne FFs, I would've agreed, but I bought a whole bunch this
> past summer, and looking back on them... a) they aren't as good as I
> remembered and as everyone memorializes them, b) I really don't like the way
> he handled Susan Richards. He did increase her power, which was admirable,
> but I don't think she was all that independent. Byrne *told* us how
> independent he was making her, and used her as a mouthpiece to decry anyone
> who said she should actually *be* independent, but when push came to shove,
> Sue was always crying for Reed. Who was usually wrongly presumed dead, but
> that's another story.
So, Sue loved her husband, is that a crime? It is possible to
love someone while still being "independent". Take a look at
Sue before Byrne started working on her and compare that to
the way she was towards the end on Byrne's run. You will notice the
difference.
David Whiteley
That way, whether or not it's any good, there'll be a concrete reason
regarding its quality...
Dave Whiteley
Marc Singer
Eivind Gladheim \streng <eivi...@oslonett.no> wrote:
>Marc Singer (ma...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
>> Never cared to read Next Men. (Ooh, my second racm heresy in a month's time,
>> right after not liking A Resident Writer's lame arc!) Heather Hudson was
>> okay, for the brief time Byrne was on Alpha Flight (and how I wish he'd
>> stayed) after Heather donned the suit.
>
>Donning the suit? The guardian suit? Sorry but Heather never donned
>the suit while Byrne was on the title (and had he stayed on, she never
>would have).
Now that I think about it, the thing that confused me was the cover of
ALPHA FLIGHT #18, right after Heather started leading the team, which showed
her holding up Mac's suit in front of a mirror.
>So, Sue loved her husband, is that a crime? It is possible to
>love someone while still being "independent". Take a look at
>Sue before Byrne started working on her and compare that to
>the way she was towards the end on Byrne's run. You will notice the
>difference.
I've answered this before, but again, she was made a lot more dependent on
Reed (and the team), whereas everyone else was still far more independent.
Of course the fact that Reed was presumed dead or kidnapped or whatever
multiple times didn't help...
I do agree that Byrne's Sue was better than prior incarnations. (Just as
Byrne's run itself was.)
Marc
Elmo Lincoln
> A woman's power level by itself isn't enough to kill her popularity. But
> neither is it enough to =make= her popular (as it seems to be for =male=
> characters.)
Wrong. Or at least give examples. Batman and Wolverine outsell the
Spectre and Thor. Again, exactly like women character, men characters'
success hinges on factors other than personal power.
> As Abhijit has
> stated (back before he took up the task of attacking every post that
> Johanna makes on the subject of women and comics)
Cheap shot, Todd. Abhijit is disagreeing with Johanna's conclusions,
certainly, and to some extent with her data, but he isn't attacking for the
sake of attacking, as I infer you're implying. Abhijit has consistently
shown himself to be one of the most grounded debaters on the field.
--
"We're going to assume a few things about reality. One, it exists. That's not
a necessary assumption, but I find it comforting."--Prof. Ralph Noble
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Mike Suzio
[Some comments slamming ST:Voyager 'cause the ship is led by dopey-ol
*girl* deleted]
>>Really though. Taking sound bites proves nothing. To get any meaningful
>>data, we would need to see all comments, not just 3 of (what, 3? 3k?
>>300k?).
>Amazing. Why is it that "statistical invaliditude" is always the first
>smokescreen thrown up in the face of evidence?
Because it's true. 3 comments possibly taken out of context is a very poor
substitute for evidence, no matter what thesis you are advancing. How can
you expect us to agree that a given opinion is viable if there is not due
weight of evidence? A proposal was made that seems *not* to intersect with
the experiences of some of the posters, in order to convince us we need
some greater proof than this.
>There was a contention that no men/boys feel threatened by powerful women.
>Evidence appears that some are. Oh, they must have been the *only*
>frightened men!
I don't think anyone would argue that some segment of fans are in some way
threatened by powerful women. The arguement is that it's not a significant
portion, certainly not anything that would be reflected in the macrocosm of
overall sales of a book. Johanna claimed WW doesn't sell well because too
many men are threatened by a powerful woman (powerful in the sense that she
could kick your ass, I *think*. Still not sure if she meant emotionally
powerful, too). I claim this is not true - the portion of men who have
this reaction is not significant, I can't believe that more than maybe a
few percent of non-WW buyers would cite this as a reason if they were
questioned under truth-serum. Without evidence to counter my experiences,
I'll stick to that belief.
As a further note - I think the ST fan reaction has much more to do with
loyalty to the image of the captain as a male than anything else. It's
been rare in the past in ST for women to get as fair a shake as they
should, leading to the belief that they are not fit to serve. Kinda like
the real life military, I guess. (See? I'm a feminist, really! <g>).
>Too bad. Even if they are, the fact is, these quotes show that some "males"
^^^^
Some is the important word. Some males (no idea why you quoted this) also
think Men from Mars are spying on their thoughts. But if I posted three
quotes from alt.crank.ufo-brain-scan, would you be obligated to accept my
assertion that this is why SF tv shows don't do very well?
Statistical assertions require statistical facts. End of arguement.
>are indeed threatened by or hostile to powerful female figures. You would
>have a better chance of refuting that if you claimed that for all we know,
>those quotes were written by women as part of a secret plot to discredit
>men.
Don't move this arguement into the absurd. It started as an opinion from
Johanna; if she wants it to be accepted as anything more than her opinion,
we'd need some hard facts. Most likely, we can't really get those, so
we'll have to shoot some examples back and forth and hash it out. I'd say
the examples that would add credibility to her thesis haven't been shown to
me yet.
Then again, I'm a skeptic.
- Mike
Stephane Savoie
>Never cared to read Next Men. (Ooh, my second racm heresy in a month's time,
>right after not liking A Resident Writer's lame arc!) Heather Hudson was
>okay, for the brief time Byrne was on Alpha Flight (and how I wish he'd
>stayed) after Heather donned the suit. As for Invisible Woman... when I
I'ld just like to point out that Byrne never wrote Heather while
she was wearing the suit. As a matter of fact, she spent an issue
explaining quite nicely why she would never wear the suit. This, in my
eyes, is what made her such a strong character (which was of course later
thrashed by Mantlo (sigh)).
--kid anarky... where's that Alpha Flight flame holding guy, anyhow?
---
kid / * Ste'phane Savoie Acadia U, Nova Scotia, Canada
____/_| * a.k.a. KID ANARKY <<003...@dragon.acadiau.ca>>
/ / | \ * WWW: http://dragon:1667/~003695s/home.html
___|_/_____|__|___ *-----------Tune in - Turn On - Drop Dead----------------
/ | | * "The ceremony of innocence is drowned: the best lack
/ \______|_/ * all conviction while the worst are full of passionate
/ |narky * intensity." --Yeats
Marc Singer
Elmo Lincoln <mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov> wrote:
>ver...@hope.edu (Todd VerBeek, GWM) writes:
>> A woman's power level by itself isn't enough to kill her popularity. But
>> neither is it enough to =make= her popular (as it seems to be for =male=
>> characters.)
>
>Wrong. Or at least give examples. Batman and Wolverine outsell the
>Spectre and Thor. Again, exactly like women character, men characters'
>success hinges on factors other than personal power.
Perhaps by "power" Todd meant that strange variation known as "ass-kicking
power," which may well be the reason why Batman and Wolverine outsell
Spectre and Thor. But ass-kicking aside, I do think power is a relatively
unimportant factor in *any* character's popularity, unless they have far, far
too much or too little.
>> As Abhijit has
>> stated (back before he took up the task of attacking every post that
>> Johanna makes on the subject of women and comics)
>
>Cheap shot, Todd. Abhijit is disagreeing with Johanna's conclusions,
>certainly, and to some extent with her data, but he isn't attacking for the
>sake of attacking, as I infer you're implying. Abhijit has consistently
>shown himself to be one of the most grounded debaters on the field.
...who attacks every post Johanna makes on the subject of women and comics.
:-)
Marc
9852...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
PROFESSOR <petersod@night> writes:
>
>> actually improved upon his version of Lex Luthor (the idea--and
>> possibility--of a triangle never occured to me before). I'm really hoping
>
>If Bryne didn't create him, then did the "new" Lex actually show up anywhere
>before Bryne did him? and the triangle *was* a brilliant twist.
>
Marv Wolfman created the Lexcorp version of Luthor. This Lex first appeared
in an issue of Swamp Thing. It came about at the same time as Byrne's reboot,
though, so it's easy to misattribute Lex's rebirth.
-Hank Wirtz
Rick Jones
> Not quite. Perez was acknowledged as a top artist (indeed, along with
> Byrne, THE top artist in the mainstream industry) well before the
> mid-80s. He had a top notch record on half a dozen Marvel titles as
> early as the late 70s, especially the Avengers and had even done some
I agree (and it might be due to inkers), but on Titans, his art sharpened
even more. He was amazing on Avengers and JLA, but by the time we got to
"Who Is Donna Troy?", he had gotten a _lot_ better.
> I presume you're checking out Ultraforce ? His art is decent, but not
> spectacular.
Part of it was he didn't do full art on #2. I forget whether or not the
offical term is breakdowns or what, but he didn't do full art. He's also
not doing his best work on this. [In recent history, Future Imperfect
was his best work.]
My biggest gripe in Ultraforce is Contrary. Unlike the other female team
members, she dresses in a costume that Emma Frost would think is too
revealing. [But I dunno if Perez designed her costume like he did Pixx and
Topaz.] And she's supposed to be a teacher of young ultras? My female
teacher friends already complain regularly about their students staring at
their chests, and they dress in typical conservative/teacher clothes.
--
Rick Jones You seek meaning? Then listen
ri...@blkbox.com to the music, not the song.
Mey...@aol.com -Kosh, Babylon 5
Dwight Williams
> ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>
>>Never cared to read Next Men. (Ooh, my second racm heresy in a month's time,
>>right after not liking A Resident Writer's lame arc!) Heather Hudson was
>>okay, for the brief time Byrne was on Alpha Flight (and how I wish he'd
>>stayed) after Heather donned the suit. As for Invisible Woman... when I
>
> I'ld just like to point out that Byrne never wrote Heather while
> she was wearing the suit. As a matter of fact, she spent an issue
> explaining quite nicely why she would never wear the suit. This, in my
> eyes, is what made her such a strong character (which was of course later
> thrashed by Mantlo (sigh)).
>
> --kid anarky... where's that Alpha Flight flame holding guy, anyhow?
Oh, Dwayne, you mean? I haven't a clue at the moment. Not since he
commented on the Joker-Larry Gowan musical connection.
But I'll gladly stand as his deputy in the flame-holding department(and
the same goes for Capt. Canuck and Northguard besides)...if a tad
incompetantly.
That aside, Heather "wearing the flag" was one of the few things Bill Mantlo
did that I wouldn't roll back if I had the Flight. Although to be fair,
Furman and Broderick did go Mantlo one better by making it a team uniform.
National solidarity and all that. Would that we had that kind of
solidarity in the real world.
(Don't get me started on Parizeau and his Declaration again, please. Not
unless you're a writer hired for AF, a publisher reviving Capt. Canuck and/or
Northguard or Dan Vado asking questions re: Plastique. Then all bets are
off, and _happily_ made so.)
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca)
1706 Caminiti Cres., Orleans, ON, Canada K4A 1M1
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ri...@blkbox.com (Rick Jones) writes:
> It may be that fan_boys_ are threatened by powerful women. Comics are
> traditionally aimed at kids who are just starting to grow out of the "ick,
> girls have cooties" stage, and just starting to hit puberty. As such,
> they're hormone ridden monsters, but still a little frightened of
>girls [heaven knows I was terrified of girls with I was 13]. So the
>kids want the silicone queens, but they don't want to be threatened
>by them.
So why is it "threatening" characters (Shi or Catwoman) seem to have no
problem finding an audience ? Shi is noticeably more threatening than
Wonder Woman, and has about the same level of pulchritude and is more
popular.
> figures, just guesses. Is there anyone with concrete numbers on
>sales?
Yes. Concrete's last mini sold about 30k copies :-).
> Hellcat, Tigra and Ms Marvel had titles of their own for a time.
Not quite. Patsy Walker had a bunch of her own titles, but those were
all romance comics, not superhero comics. Patsy as Hellcat never had
her own title. Tigra never had her own comic either. Greer Nelson, the
Cat, did (the first comic with a female lead at Marvel). This comic
lasted all of 4 issues and then Greer put on fur and became Tigra.
Ms. Marvel did have her own title for a while, and it actually had a
few decent stories from time to time. However, all of those are over
15 years old.
> Actually, and I don't know what this may deconstruct into, but the most
> popular charcter in the X-men was Kitty Pryde for a long time. She
> certainly wasn't a "babe", and she wasn't mega powerful, but was popular
> enough to get top billing in a mini-series with Wolverine.
Not to mention that she was also a computer genius and a whiz kid. This
didn't seem to threaten anyone or prevent her from being popular,
whereas in general, bratty kids tend to accumulate a lot of hate (cf.
Vibe and Danny Chase).
Incidentally, superhero comics almost never have characters from
mainland China or India (let alone stars). I conclude from this that
most superhero comic buying kids are heavily intimidated by mainland
Chinese or Indian characters :-).
Andy G Ihnatko
>j...@acsu.buffalo.edu (Jim Perreault) writes:
>> In Byrne's FF, Sue was very powerful, very skillful in using
>> her powers, and had plenty of solo action to display this. She showed
>> inventiveness in using her powers in new ways.
>Absolutely. Byrne had her use her force fields for travel, to tear
>robots apart, and even had her use her invisibility in strange ways.
Yeah, but while Byrne really brought the character into the Eighties I
think he REALLY went overkill; he just made Sue Storm WAY too
powerful. A typical issue would have Sue raise a force shield around
the entire bloody planet to repel an oncoming invasion force, and then
have her shove the Earth a bit to the left to avoid impact with an
oncoming comet.
That does seem to be a recurring theme with Byrne. As soon as he
unpacks his bags upon arriving at a new book, he chooses a female
character and boosts her power level, self-confidence, and
invulnerability through the roof, at some expense of plausability,
IMHO.
-- Andy
--
___________________________________________________________________
WINDOWS95: It's like upgrading Andy Ihnatko
from Reagan to Bush. an...@world.std.com