Rags Morales on Wonder Woman and misogyny
Shawn H
their salaries must be at times rationalized in the face of (admittedly
often extreme) fan complaint.
This is from Comic Shop News #923:
"So if anyone thinks the intent of IC was to be misogynistic, that's flat
out wrong .. I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen, so I went with
Wonder Woman."
If he thinks merely drawing Wonder Woman is going to save him from
charges of misogyny, he's naive. That will depend on the stories,
execution and images. And if there was no problem with misogyny in IC,
then why did he choose to take an assignment that, for him, admittedly
addresses that complaint?
I've got nothing against his art (he was the best part of IC by far), and
look forward to his work on WW. But, c'mon, admit it. The story treated
women horribly (or, as he puts it "[Meltzer] writes strong women in his
[other] stories, but in this case, he went a different route in
highlighting certain female characters").
Sounds just like Brevoort apologizing for Avengers DissAsster. 'It's not
half as bad as it could have been. You don't know all the work [I] did to
correct the errors.' Sorry, not good enough. Art is judged by the people
that experience it, not the people that make it, and those judgments
can't just be written off as "wrong."
Call a spade a spade.
Shawn
Dreighton
> "So if anyone thinks the intent of IC was to be misogynistic, that's
flat
> out wrong .. I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen, so I went
with
> Wonder Woman."
So, he's going to draw a woman, from a race/group of women that all
were brutaly murdered by men and then reincarnated by the (their?)
Greek gods. And this is to over come preceptions of misogyny in IC?
That's just silly. However, I love Rag's art. And because of that I
look forward to his run on Wonder Woman. And that's why he's on WW,
cause sales will go up.
And how can he be blamed for any actual or precieved misogyny on IC?
He's just the artist. Isn't it his job to draw what the writer writes?
Dreighton
Dario Delfino
Dreighton <dbda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And how can he be blamed for any actual or precieved misogyny on IC?
>He's just the artist. Isn't it his job to draw what the writer writes?
Exactly. This debate is tired, obnoxious, and will never be resolved.
Some see misogyny, some don't.
Why bring it all up? It's clear regardless of your feelings on that
misbegotten mini-series that the artist wants to move on. Let him.
And bringing up the Amazons' own misogynystic history and linking it to
the work on IC is stupid.
-DD
--
"You don't tug on Superman's cape."
- Jim Croce
George
> Oh the twisted reasoning of comics creators, whose beliefs and need for
> their salaries must be at times rationalized in the face of (admittedly
> often extreme) fan complaint.
> This is from Comic Shop News #923:
> "So if anyone thinks the intent of IC was to be misogynistic, that's
> flat out wrong .. I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen, so I went
> with Wonder Woman."
"Went with" how, exactly?
Wonder Woman shows up seven panels of IC #1, and says two words:
"Goodbye, sister." (Indeed.) Otherwise, she's "featured" in this issue
in Green Arrow's famous non-narration of her eulogy (which he says he
barely hears right after telling us it will be quoted in Bartlett's
years from now). It's not exactly a central, powerful, iconic
role--except perhaps by shorthand. (Here's WW. She's sad. She's serene.
She's eloquent. It's impressive. Trust us.)
Issue 2: nothing. No WW at all. (The two female heroes most prominent
in this issue, Black Canary--who has a heritage in comics nearly as
venerable as WW's--and Zatanna, do little here save follow orders and
act bitchy while proclaiming they can take care of themselves. If
Morales and/or Meltzer/Carlin wanted to innoculate the series against
any concerns they may have had along the lines of its use of women,
this issue and the next two are the key wasted opportunities.)
Issue 3: No WW again, at all.
Issue 4: Based on the cover (see below) this appeared at first to be
the point at which DC's leading female character was going to be
brought center stage into this major crossover storyline. (As Superman
already had been, and as Batman was starting to be.) Not so, however.
Diana shows up for six panels (across two pages--less than she got in
issue 1), speaks one line ("Now what do you know about the attacks on
Sue Dibny and Jean Loring?"), is there at Green Arrow's initiative, no
ther own, and is portrayed soley via her hands (and, by the way, her
left hand lookd like she's wearing a man's wedding band on it--which is
neither here nor there, but was really distracting...) and a shot of
her hip and crotch (which was accompanied by a joke/non-joke about her
breasts). Then, the lady vanishes, as they say.
Issue 5: Zip. Nada. No Diana again, at all, despite the fact that teams
of heroes (going all the way down the female icon food chain to
Firehawk and Vixen) are shown rounding up various suspects or potential
informants.
Issue 6: One panel of Diana laying a sword at her mother's tomb, no
dialogue, in a montage of various losses suffered by various
characters. (This is almost an exact replay of the moment in an earlier
issue that showed Zatanna laying flowers on her mother's grave.)
Issue 7: despite multiple montages in which she could have been
included, she gets three panels, all in JLA group shots, utters one
word of dialogue ("Thanksgiving"), and exits the scene in a panel
resonant with the hip/crotch/breast set-up of issue 4 (again, no face)
with a voice over in the preceeding panel that says "...back to
normal". (Indeed.)
So, by my count, that's a total of 17 panels (most of them crowd
scenes) and 3 lines of dialogue across seven issues. How, exactly, did
Morales "go with" Wonder Woman in IC? She's barely there at all.
Some of that is unavoidable, due to the post-Crisis history which
cannot have her be present during any of the story's flashback
sequences. But, then, Meltzer seemed to be positing, in issue 1, an
especially close relationship between Diana and Sue (which is damn odd
on its own, but setting that aside), only to go on to show her doing
next-to-nothing to investigate her dear friend's murder. (In this she
joins J'onn J'onnzz and Ralph himself, so that's not bad treatment of
women per se.) Had they wanted to correct against any possible misuse
of female characters, it'd have been painfully easy to enlarge Diana's
role in IC--and could, in fact, have been thematically quite useful to
them, given her role as someone who seeks the truth. (Diana as
detective is an interesting angle. Perhaps not as interesting as the
also-wasted physicist detective they could have used with Ray, but
interesting.)
Or, should using Diana have felt too artificial in a story that was so
deliberately focused on the past, the next obvious (and simliarly
wasted) characters are Black Canary and Zatanna--who get (relatively
speaking) a lot of screen time, but come off pretty poorly throughout.
(Yes: *more* poorly than the men, even though, yes, *everyone* comes
across poorly herein. These two supposedly strong, powerful women
mostly follow orders and screw up, while most of the men merely screw
up.)
Oracle comes off a bit better, but not by much--she's part and parcel
of the rampanat incompetence which plagues the characters throughout,
from the pointlessness over the non-surveilling surveillance of the bad
guy's satellite to the inability to help protect Jack Drake in any more
substantial way. At least she doesn't take a week to do an autopsy.
Firehawk, the other major non-Jean/non-Sue female character (Lois and
Ma Kent only show up for a few pages each as typical threatened female
loved ones), gets played as near-total neophyte (Ralph calls her a
"puppy") and total girly-girl. She asks Ralph, while on a potentially
dangerous stakeout, how he and Sue met---of which Ralph says, "Can I
say one thing--and to be sexist--but when you're on a stakeout with
Batman he never asks that. Black Canary asked that. So did Zatanna.
Power Girl didn't, God bless her, but that's..." (Wonder how the rest
of that sentence was going to play out...). She then wants to know
whether Ralph thinks Wonder Woman is beautiful, and starts to cry
listening to Ralph's sweet description of his feelings for Sue. While
in other contexts this might all work just fine as a bit of
characterization, in this series it's merely another moment in which a
female character comes off as victim, insane, emotional, ineffective,
or just plain silly, when not being sexy. (The lowest points are by far
the fight with Deathstroke, yes, but Firehawk's treatment doesn't help,
nor does Vixen's nonsenical and out-of character "S-somebody go get
help." line in issue 5.)
So, again, if the perception among at least one of its creators is that
WW was deployed in IC in such a way as to balance some of this--well,
that perception really doesn't hold up to a review of the story pages.
As to Michael Turner's covers (which are only relevant in so far as
Wonder Woman's overall presence in the series) she shows up on two
(three if you count her implied presence as icon via the hanging lasso
on #7). One of those, #4, is the standard sex=death implied bondage
crap she's been associated with throughout her history--not exactly a
salve against any concerns of ill-treatment of female characters
therein.)
--
Peace,
George
Dario Delfino
George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>"Went with" how, exactly?
>
I think what they mean is that post-IC, Rags has chosen (or "went with")
Wonder Woman's title, partly to cool down the criticisms of misogyny that
he gets by association.
George
> In article <2005022813325475249%geeluvss@netscapenet>,
> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> "Went with" how, exactly?
>>
>
> I think what they mean is that post-IC, Rags has chosen (or "went
> with") Wonder Woman's title, partly to cool down the criticisms of
> misogyny that he gets by association.
In the words of the late, great "Emily Litella":
Oh. That's very different. Never mind.
(Cue Stephen Bayer showing up to call me an ignorant slut. Apologies to
Gilda, Jane, and Dan.)
(Was still fun putting together that little "Where's WW?" synposis for
IC, though...)
--
Peace,
George
George
Also, it might be nice to see Morales get to draw Diana's face a bit
more than he did/got to in IC.
And, I agree with Shawn: if he's thinking that accepting the assignment
of DC's flagship female book is somehow going to ipso facto excuse
whatever sexist flaw there may or may not have been in IC, that's just
silly. The proof will be on the pages--or not. (Presumably, that's what
he means, but we haven't seen his WW work yet.)
--
Peace,
George
Dario Delfino
George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Also, it might be nice to see Morales get to draw Diana's face a bit
>more than he did/got to in IC.
I myself would like to see him draw a story that's well-structured with
long-term ramifications considered.
>And, I agree with Shawn: if he's thinking that accepting the assignment
>of DC's flagship female book is somehow going to ipso facto excuse
>whatever sexist flaw there may or may not have been in IC, that's just
>silly. The proof will be on the pages--or not. (Presumably, that's what
>he means, but we haven't seen his WW work yet.)
This annoys me. Not your opinion or you guys or anything, it's that an
artist who was just drawing what the Great New York Times Best-Selling
Author scripted feels taht he has to take this assignment to counter the
allegations of misogyny. That's ridiculous.
I also feel that publicly stating it does him no favors either, as that
only sets up a lightning rod for the misguided/anal-retentive to zero in
and rant... it'd be like an artist illustrating a GL John Stewart book
whom everyone believes the writing on was racist, so his next project he does
a Black Lightning book to "prove" he's not racist. Come on.
George
> In article <2005022814503275249%geeluvss@netscapenet>,
> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Also, it might be nice to see Morales get to draw Diana's face a bit
>> more than he did/got to in IC.
>
> I myself would like to see him draw a story that's well-structured with
> long-term ramifications considered.
Of course.
>
>> And, I agree with Shawn: if he's thinking that accepting the assignment
>> of DC's flagship female book is somehow going to ipso facto excuse
>> whatever sexist flaw there may or may not have been in IC, that's just
>> silly. The proof will be on the pages--or not. (Presumably, that's what
>> he means, but we haven't seen his WW work yet.)
>
> This annoys me. Not your opinion or you guys or anything, it's that an
> artist who was just drawing what the Great New York Times Best-Selling
> Author scripted feels taht he has to take this assignment to counter
> the allegations of misogyny. That's ridiculous.
I'm not in his head, so I don't know why he felt the need to say that,
how much it actually reflects of his reasons for taking the assignment,
or even if he feels the accusations against IC are well-founded. (He
either thinks there's something to them--hence his reasoning the WW
assignment as a kind of corrective for him, or thinks they're just
silly but nonetheless something he has to be careful to counter.)
Either way, it's silly. He'll be judged on the basis of his work on WW,
just as he was on IC.
And I don't know if it's accurate to describe Morales as just having
drawn exactly what he was told to by Meltzer. Many writer/artist
dynamics don't work that way--at least not exclusively. Presumably, he
had choices about how to visually frame various sequences in IC--and
some of them are indeed questionable on this issue of the treatment of
female characters.
>
> I also feel that publicly stating it does him no favors either, as that
> only sets up a lightning rod for the misguided/anal-retentive to zero
> in and rant... it'd be like an artist illustrating a GL John Stewart
> book whom everyone believes the writing on was racist, so his next
> project he does a Black Lightning book to "prove" he's not racist.
> Come on.
I agree that artists and writers should generally let their work speak
for itself.
--
Peace,
George
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Oh the twisted reasoning of comics creators, whose beliefs and need for
>their salaries must be at times rationalized in the face of (admittedly
>often extreme) fan complaint.
>
>This is from Comic Shop News #923:
>
>"So if anyone thinks the intent of IC was to be misogynistic, that's flat
>out wrong .. I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen, so I went with
>Wonder Woman."
>
>If he thinks merely drawing Wonder Woman is going to save him from
>charges of misogyny, he's naive. That will depend on the stories,
>execution and images. And if there was no problem with misogyny in IC,
>then why did he choose to take an assignment that, for him, admittedly
>addresses that complaint?
>
>I've got nothing against his art (he was the best part of IC by far), and
>look forward to his work on WW. But, c'mon, admit it. The story treated
>women horribly (or, as he puts it "[Meltzer] writes strong women in his
>[other] stories, but in this case, he went a different route in
>highlighting certain female characters").
>
Men got it far, far worse.
Ollie gave away his, Bats, and Wally's Secret ID's
Atom condemned his insane wife to be assraped for an indefinite amount
of time
Batman was horribly ineffective
Hal was more concerned with his upcoming series than with actually
helping.
Hawkman, with no justification, bashed in the side of Monocles head.
Midnight took a week to do a simple autopsy.
Half the Justice League seems to think Dr.Light uses Flame throwers.
And Superman's (the top gun of forensic medicine) main contribution
was to identify a knot
Kyle forgot he has a longrange weapon.
Carter thought he *was* a longrange weapon
At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
>listening to Ralph's sweet description of his feelings for Sue. While
>in other contexts this might all work just fine as a bit of
>characterization, in this series it's merely another moment in which a
>female character comes off as victim, insane, emotional, ineffective,
>or just plain silly, when not being sexy.
So If I started to cry during that scene what does that make me?
George
Easily manipulated?
--
Peace,
George
George
A further correction. (I am knocking them *out* of the park today, eh?)
The man's wedding band that caught my eye as out of place on WW's hand
in IC 4 isn't, of course, on her hand: it's on a man's hand, the
guard's as he takes Ollie's arrows away from him. I had thought it was
Diana's at first, since the color of his sleeve is the same color (and
has an odd ridge on it) as is used for Diana's bracelets elsewhere in
the story. My error. (Of course, this also diminishes WW's total panels
in IC by one, for whatever that's worth noting, so she's down to
sixteen.)
--
Peace,
George
Dario Delfino
Magnus, Robot Fighter. <m...@key.com> wrote:
>Men got it far, far worse.
>
>Ollie gave away his, Bats, and Wally's Secret ID's
There's no logical way to consolidate this damn series with any of the
characterization we've seen from these characters in over two decades.
Oh, right... Hypertime... -_-;;
>Atom condemned his insane wife to be assraped for an indefinite amount
>of time
That's what she gets for leaving footprints on an innocent woman's brain.
>Batman was horribly ineffective
Seriously, it should've Bats and J'onn uncovering a new Secret Society of
Super-Villains. THAT'S a goddamn event, not referecing a goddamn story
from 1974 that no one today knows or even gives a damn about.
>Hal was more concerned with his upcoming series than with actually
>helping.
Bah!
>Hawkman, with no justification, bashed in the side of Monocles head.
You NEVER need jusification to bash someone in the head! ESPECIALLY IF
THEY ARE WEARING A MONOCLE AND/OR SPEAK IN A HEAVY EUROPEAN ACCENT!!
>Midnight took a week to do a simple autopsy.
I hope he was supervised!
*shudders*
>Half the Justice League seems to think Dr.Light uses Flame throwers.
And the other half thinks he's a threat.
>And Superman's (the top gun of forensic medicine) main contribution
>was to identify a knot
HOLY CRAP DON'T EVEN START WITH ME
Yes, being a Superman fan I was overjoyed with the inner strength and
heart Superman exhibited in this series... how the world's first and
greatest superhero did his best to unite a community that was
cannibalizing itself in a paranoid frenzy over the death of a loved one...
how the Man of Steel once again shattered the general stereotype of being
a big, superfast lummox who contributes nothing to a story save
benchpressing mountains and taking up space, and instead used his keen
(though unequivocably human) mind to help his friends and comrades-in-arms
solve a complex and thought-provoking mystery.
/extreme sarcasm
(It was a damn boy scout knot, too...)
>Kyle forgot he has a longrange weapon.
Kyle reminded me of the teenager on the Simpsons with the zits. "I'm
sorry, Mr. Wilson, you'll have to leave..."
>Carter thought he *was* a longrange weapon
Well, he CAN be. :D But that's not the issue...
He fought like a man who has had thousands of years of combat
experience on Earth and beyond!
If he were a bronze medal special olympian, that is.
>At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
I had the pleasure of JLA: Classified #4 this weekend (you know, a GOOD
comic book), and I found myself annoyed that what should've been
fun jokes about Sue possibly being pregnant came across as bittersweet and
even a little sad. I can ignore it up to a point, but what bothers me is
that Identity Crisis DID have an impact... even when I am actively trying
to ignore it.
/ramble
Sorry, had to vent.
George
> Men got it far, far worse.
Not proportionally, though. And at least they're in the story in truly
significant ways, unlike all women other than Sue and Jean.
>
> Ollie gave away his, Bats, and Wally's Secret IDs
That's only reader supposition at this point, isn't it? We don't *know*
that anyone heard him or read his lips.
> Atom condemned his insane wife to be assraped for an indefinite amount
> of time
Yup.
> Batman was horribly ineffective
Yup. As were Diana, Dinah, Zatanna, and Oracle. (And J'onn.)
> Hal was more concerned with his upcoming series than with actually
> helping.
LOL!
> Hawkman, with no justification, bashed in the side of Monocles head.
Don't you know? He's a barbarian. A *Barbarian*, I tells ya.
> Midnight took a week to do a simple autopsy.
Well, he is blind. (Ba-dump-cha!)
> Half the Justice League seems to think Dr.Light uses Flame throwers.
Including Dinah, Zatanna, Diana, Oracle, Firehawk, and all the other
female characters who should also, like the male members, know better.
> And Superman's (the top gun of forensic medicine) main contribution
> was to identify a knot
That puts him several notches up on Wonder Woman, though, as well as on
Zatanna and BC.
> Kyle forgot he has a longrange weapon.
Kyle seemed to forget everything he's ever known. (Including, in his
own title, the desirablity of perhaps nabbing one of those security
systems for his mom.) Maybe this was really Kyle snatched out of time
just after the moment Ganthet handed him the ring like a crackerjack
prize?
> Carter thought he *was* a longrange weapon
He's a Barbarian.
>
> At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
I'll never understand how people don't see that as the single most
damming line relative to IC's problems portraying female characters.
--
Peace,
George
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
Had i started to cry then I'd agree. The waterworks didn't come til
Ralph lost it.
Theron
the rest of the sentence was?
Here's my top 5.
George wrote:
> Power Girl didn't, God bless her, but that's..." (Wonder how the rest
> of that sentence was going to play out...). She then wants to know
5. Because we don't talk much after I ran over her dog.
4. Because we've spent every minute of every conversation using my
detective skills to try to figure out her %$*# origin, and we haven't
gotten one @#*! bit closer.
3. Because she, like her partner Serena, is a lesbian.
2. Because I was staring at her chest so hard that my ears wiggled
shut.
and
1. Because, as you probably know, Superman had to cut out her "chick
parts" during the Crisis.
Shawn H
: Men got it far, far worse.
: Ollie gave away his, Bats, and Wally's Secret ID's
: Atom condemned his insane wife to be assraped for an indefinite amount
: of time
: Batman was horribly ineffective
: Hal was more concerned with his upcoming series than with actually
: helping.
: Hawkman, with no justification, bashed in the side of Monocles head.
: Midnight took a week to do a simple autopsy.
: Half the Justice League seems to think Dr.Light uses Flame throwers.
: And Superman's (the top gun of forensic medicine) main contribution
: was to identify a knot
: Kyle forgot he has a longrange weapon.
: Carter thought he *was* a longrange weapon
Yes, this new "more realistic" tone they're slathering all over their
heroes is bad for everyone, but it did break down in certain ways
depending on which gender we were slathering. The men failed, not for
lack of trying. The women didn't even seem to understand what game they
were in.
: At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
Nah, she probably enjoyed it. Jean was tiny and in her ear and just
telling her to give into it all, take it like a good girl, etc.
Shawn
Shawn H
: And how can he be blamed for any actual or precieved misogyny on IC?
: He's just the artist. Isn't it his job to draw what the writer writes?
The sequence that comes to mind is Sue's rape. And the depiction of Sue
in general. How does that wistful mommy-to-be fit with the tough, shrewd
woman who manages the day-to-day duties of Super Buddies? Is there a
tasteful way to present rape? Did he make it worse or better?
An artist is not free of responsibility just because he didn't write the
story. He was still one of the major creative forces behind the series.
Shawn
Shawn H
: >At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
: I had the pleasure of JLA: Classified #4 this weekend (you know, a GOOD
: comic book), and I found myself annoyed that what should've been
: fun jokes about Sue possibly being pregnant came across as bittersweet and
: even a little sad. I can ignore it up to a point, but what bothers me is
: that Identity Crisis DID have an impact... even when I am actively trying
: to ignore it.
: /ramble
: Sorry, had to vent.
Amen, brother.
Shawn
Shawn H
: On 2005-02-28 11:35:05 -0500, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
: > Oh the twisted reasoning of comics creators, whose beliefs and need for
: > their salaries must be at times rationalized in the face of (admittedly
: > often extreme) fan complaint.
: > This is from Comic Shop News #923:
: > "So if anyone thinks the intent of IC was to be misogynistic, that's
: > flat out wrong .. I wanted to make sure that couldn't happen, so I went
: > with Wonder Woman."
: "Went with" how, exactly?
Went with WW as his new steady illustration assignment. I'm sorry I
didn't make that clear in my post; I thought it was common knowledge here
by now that he is Rucka's next art partner.
Shawn H.
Shawn H
: I also feel that publicly stating it does him no favors either, as that
: only sets up a lightning rod for the misguided/anal-retentive to zero in
: and rant... it'd be like an artist illustrating a GL John Stewart book
: whom everyone believes the writing on was racist, so his next project he does
: a Black Lightning book to "prove" he's not racist. Come on.
It's not just LIKE that. It IS that. That's exactly what he's doing.
Morales does himself no favors by trying to discount a valid and
consistent criticism, and we all do him a favor by letting him know how
his work is perceived.
Shawn
Shawn H
Tim Turnip
There's still a technical distinction between creating a story and
then illustrating that story. If IC was created whole cloth and
Morales had some hand in determining Sue's fate, then yes, I suppose
he'd bear some proportion of "responsibility" there, for whatever that
would be worth. But your theoretical questions point to sheer
absurdity, with notions such as whether Morales could/should have
drawn Sue's rape more "tastefully", or whether he could/should have
(somehow) drawn her to more resemble her "tough, shrewd" Super Buddies
personna.
As someone who liked IC, I found Morales' remark inexplicable, first
and foremost because he has nothing to atone for, and secondly
because, as others have correctly pointed out, being appointed the new
Wonder Woman artist proves exactly nothing, and absolves Morales of no
charge, real or false.
George
If I had to guess, based on knowledge of how these things have worked
between artists and writers in the past, I'd say Morales had relatively
little to do with the rape scene itself, which "feels" very
writer-directed, to me, beat by beat. I'd put money on it, and I'd do
the same with the Deathstroke fight. Those seem like sequences where
Meltzer essentially called the visual shots.
With some other sequences, such as Wonder Woman in the jail
interrogating Slipknot, or Dinah's and Zee's poses in various crowd
scenes, or even Diana getting up from the table at the end of the last
issue, I'd guess Morales had freer rein. Many of those scenes seem, to
me, to have artistic or framing missteps in them relative to the larger
issue of women's portryal in the story.
>
--
Peace,
George
George
Okay, so you're not *really* easy to manipulate. Only regular easy.
--
Peace,
George
George
> Oh man, I missed this quote the first time around. What do y'all think
> the rest of the sentence was?
>
> Here's my top 5.
>
> George wrote:
>
>> Power Girl didn't, God bless her, but that's..." (Wonder how the rest
>
>> of that sentence was going to play out...).
>
>
>
> 1. Because, as you probably know, Superman had to cut out her "chick
> parts" during the Crisis.
That's "chick organs," it was during an early JLE story, and it gets my vote.
(I think the implication of Ralph's line is, essentially, that PG is a
such a bitch-powerhouse that she doesn't care about such things,
implying that women can really be at one extreme or the other, along
with the idea that no men would care about such things at all.)
--
Peace,
George
George
Not your fault. I didn't know, but it was clear from your post, if I
had read it more carefully.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> : At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
>
> Nah, she probably enjoyed it. Jean was tiny and in her ear and just
> telling her to give into it all, take it like a good girl, etc.
Shawn, if anything ever happens to me...you know...if the IC fans
ever....do something....to me...well....
I....I want you to know I'll rest easier knowing you're still out there
to carry on the mission.
--
Peace,
George
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
>On 2005-02-28 16:01:11 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:48:45 -0500, George <geel...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-02-28 15:39:59 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>>>
>>>>> , and starts to cry listening to Ralph's sweet description of his
>>>>> feelings for Sue. While in other contexts this might all work just fine
>>>>> as a bit of characterization, in this series it's merely another moment
>>>>> in which a female character comes off as victim, insane, emotional,
>>>>> ineffective, or just plain silly, when not being sexy.
>>>>
>>>> So If I started to cry during that scene what does that make me?
>>>
>>> Easily manipulated?
>>
>> Had i started to cry then I'd agree. The waterworks didn't come til
>> Ralph lost it.
>
>Okay, so you're not *really* easy to manipulate. Only regular easy.
Yup...Im a big baby when the guy on screen (or on the page loses it)
Star Trek 2: I held on til Kirk's voice broke. Then it was all she
wrote.
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
>On 2005-02-28 14:43:45 -0500, George <geel...@netscape.net> said:
>
>> On 2005-02-28 13:38:30 -0500, da...@panix.com (Dario Delfino) said:
>>
>>> In article <2005022813325475249%geeluvss@netscapenet>,
>>> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> "Went with" how, exactly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think what they mean is that post-IC, Rags has chosen (or "went
>>> with") Wonder Woman's title, partly to cool down the criticisms of
>>> misogyny that he gets by association.
>>
>> In the words of the late, great "Emily Litella":
>>
>> Oh. That's very different. Never mind.
>>
>> (Cue Stephen Bayer showing up to call me an ignorant slut. Apologies to
>> Gilda, Jane, and Dan.)
>>
>> (Was still fun putting together that little "Where's WW?" synposis for
>> IC, though...)
>
>Also, it might be nice to see Morales get to draw Diana's face a bit
>more than he did/got to in IC.
Just look at Zatanna...or for that matter Ralph Dibney. He's got one
face in his repertoire.
David...@yahoo.com
for itself."
I think a lot of creators might give a "press-shy recluse" persona a
shot, at least for a while. And while Morales seems like an amiable
guy with lots of enthusiasm for his work, he tends to make some public
statements that turn around on themselves.
While IC was actually being published and selling like mad, he was one
of the standard-bearers for the "little book that could" PR line that I
found so annoying. As if DC ever thought for a moment that a violent,
depressing, revisionist summer blockbuster thick with A-list characters
and covers by "hot" Michael Turner was in any way a commercial risk.
Morales seemed to be putting out the idea that only adventurous readers
were likely to enjoy the book.
In one sense that was smart. Flatter your audience by telling them
that they "get it" and that their collective discernment has turned a
risky venture into a sleeper smash. At the same time it suggests that
IC was like GOTHAM CENTRAL or RUNAWAYS or something, and absolutely
nothing could be farther from the truth, from conception to marketing
to tone.
David
Ken from Chicago
"Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> wrote in message
news:8kv6211nppjev5087...@4ax.com...
So did Firestorm. I guess they've been hanging around Superman too long.
> Carter thought he *was* a longrange weapon
>
> At least Sue fought...at least i hope she fought.
>
-- Ken from Chicago
Earl Allison
Shawn H wrote:
> Oh the twisted reasoning of comics creators, whose beliefs and need
for
> their salaries must be at times rationalized in the face of
(admittedly
> often extreme) fan complaint.
Scary. I wonder, is he doing this because in retrospect he thinks
there WAS legitimate criticism and possible hints of misogyny in IC, or
is this a ham-handed attempt to head off criticisms he doesn't even
believe in?
I guess Morales is sad, but powerful :)
And I agree with you, George, the line about Sue fighting is probably
the most damning bit in all of IC.
Take it and run.
Earl Allison
George
<David...@yahoo.com> said:
> "I agree that artists and writers should generally let their work speak
> for itself."
>
> I think a lot of creators might give a "press-shy recluse" persona a
> shot, at least for a while.
I agree. Unfortunately, one of the modes of panicked response to the
doom and gloom of the market that we seem to be getting from the
publishers and the creators is just a constant stream of interviews and
such. (This is now the norm in all entertainment media, of course, and
it would be really, really odd--however pleasant--to see comics folks
go against the current.)
>
>
> While IC was actually being published and selling like mad, he was one
> of the standard-bearers for the "little book that could" PR line that I
> found so annoying. As if DC ever thought for a moment that a violent,
> depressing, revisionist summer blockbuster thick with A-list characters
> and covers by "hot" Michael Turner was in any way a commercial risk.
> Morales seemed to be putting out the idea that only adventurous readers
> were likely to enjoy the book.
I'd forgotten that. Yes, that was indeed annoying, and a bit insipid,
for the reasons you cite. Wasn't he (or was it DiDio?) also offering
the line that IC showed that comics could be serious literature? (As if
it were, and as if that point hadn't been proved decades and decades
ago?)
>
--
Peace,
George
George
<hel...@BABYJESUSHATESSPAMTAMPABAY.RR.COM> said:
>>>
>>
>> Also, it might be nice to see Morales get to draw Diana's face a bit
>> more than he did/got to in IC.
>
> Just look at Zatanna...or for that matter Ralph Dibney. He's got one
> face in his repertoire.
Same can be said of far too many comics artists, sadly. I do think
that Morales' female face(s) is preferable to his male face--at least
with women he seems to be able to resist the impulse to give them all
really long chins/square jaws.
--
Peace,
George
George
I am, too, when such moments emerge organically, with subtlety. But I
turn stone cold heartless when the manipulation is so blatant *as*
manipulation, as something the creator counts on to get that reaction
out of me. When I can see too many of the wires showing, it doesn't
work. IC #1 was one big piece of wire from start to finish, a whole
sequence of scenes telling me how to feel instead of earning that
response from me. (This is why most of, say, Speilberg's "emotional"
moments leave me utterly cold, and why I rarely if ever am moved by
anything on network TV, since these things are just so often big,
flashing neon signs saying: "CRY NOW! IT'S VERY, VERY SAD!")
Plus, I personally have found it far more heartbreaking to watch
someone manage to hold it together when you know he's about to fall
apart than it is watching him actually fall apart. (Dramatically
speaking, the first scenario retains more emotional tension, if nothing
else.) I thought that moment in IC--along with the literalization of it
in Ralph's case that Meltzer obviously couldn't resist--was really,
really labored and obvious. ("He stretches, right? And his pregnant
wife is dead, right? And he's just been talking about how much he loves
her, right? So we'll have him try to talk at the funerall and he'll
fall apart. Really fall apart--'cuz he stretches, right? It'll be,
like, a metaphor. And really, really sad.")
If I sound harsh, it's because I am, and because I have to go shovel
more frelling snow.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
>
> And I agree with you, George, the line about Sue fighting is probably
> the most damning bit in all of IC.
As bad as it is on its own terms, it's even worse because of its
proximity to the line that talks about how they suspect Light was
looking for his gun or a trophy but found "something more valuable".
That "thing," of course, being Sue.
Gaaahh.
--
Peace,
George
David...@yahoo.com
that comics could be serious literature? (As if it were, and as if that
point hadn't been proved decades and decades ago?)"
Oh, gads, I'd forgotten about that. I think that was more DiDio than
Morales, though I seem to remember Morales playing the "mature" card a
bit, too. But, yeah, DiDio was all over the place with the "comics
aren't just for kids, we have just as much brutality as anything you
can find on FX" line. I particularly remember a couple of articles in
the New York Times to that effect. (No evidence that anyone at the
Times actually read the comics in question, mind you; it seemed like
they were swallowing the story whole from DC's marketing office.)
David
Shawn H
: would be worth. But your theoretical questions point to sheer
: absurdity, with notions such as whether Morales could/should have
: drawn Sue's rape more "tastefully", or whether he could/should have
Not "more tasteful," but less exploitative. He wrangled all the emotional
drama he could out of that scene; it was disgusting, and meant to be
disgusting. But was it prurient as well? Certainly the depiction of Dr.
Light as a sniveling animal was.
: (somehow) drawn her to more resemble her "tough, shrewd" Super Buddies
: personna.
It's absurd to ask that Sue be presented in her established character,
rather than as some unrecognizable stay-at-home mom to be?
: As someone who liked IC, I found Morales' remark inexplicable, first
: and foremost because he has nothing to atone for, and secondly
: because, as others have correctly pointed out, being appointed the new
: Wonder Woman artist proves exactly nothing, and absolves Morales of no
: charge, real or false.
Well, that's what I'm trying to explicate. That need to rationalize comes
from somewhere real, however ill-understood.
Shawn
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
I dont find it damning because its such a 'what?' moment.
If you think Ralph is saying "I hope she didn't enjoy it..." then
there's something wrong with you.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
Now.....enh nevermind....this discussion is months old. Next you'll be
saying people shouldn't say "MY wife".
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
>>>>> Easily manipulated?
>>>>
>>>> Had i started to cry then I'd agree. The waterworks didn't come til
>>>> Ralph lost it.
>>>
>>> Okay, so you're not *really* easy to manipulate. Only regular easy.
>>
>> Yup...Im a big baby when the guy on screen (or on the page loses it)
>
>I am, too, when such moments emerge organically, with subtlety. But I
>turn stone cold heartless when the manipulation is so blatant *as*
>manipulation, as something the creator counts on to get that reaction
>out of me. When I can see too many of the wires showing, it doesn't
>work. IC #1 was one big piece of wire from start to finish, a whole
>sequence of scenes telling me how to feel instead of earning that
>response from me. (This is why most of, say, Speilberg's "emotional"
>moments leave me utterly cold, and why I rarely if ever am moved by
>anything on network TV, since these things are just so often big,
>flashing neon signs saying: "CRY NOW! IT'S VERY, VERY SAD!")
>
On the plus side (for Spielberg) though Tom Hanks crying jag in SPR
was the most realistic " guy about to fall apart cry" I've ever
seen....I guess Kiefer did a good job at the end of 24 last season
,but it happened so suddenly i was kind of taken aback.
>
>If I sound harsh, it's because I am, and because I have to go shovel
>more frelling snow.
At least you don't have to work.....or do you?
Shawn H
Dario Delfino
Magnus, Robot Fighter. <m...@key.com> wrote:
>Yup...Im a big baby when the guy on screen (or on the page loses it)
>
>Star Trek 2: I held on til Kirk's voice broke. Then it was all she
>wrote.
The bagpipes always get me.
-DD
P.S. As stated before, I don't believe Morales should be held at fault
for any misogyny (real or perceived) in IC. Just stating my opinion (and
trying to stay on topic).
--
"You don't tug on Superman's cape."
- Jim Croce
Jason Michael
<David...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109688792.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Wasn't he (or was it DiDio?) also offering the line that IC showed
> that comics could be serious literature? (As if it were, and as if that
> point hadn't been proved decades and decades ago?)"
>
> Oh, gads, I'd forgotten about that. I think that was more DiDio than
> Morales, though I seem to remember Morales playing the "mature" card a
> bit, too.
Morales definitely said it:
"the miniseries' success shows how intelligent our audience and retailers
are - literature really works in comics! A big, hearty thank you to all our
supporters."
The quote is from a press release posted at Comicon Sept. 21:
http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/pulse.cgi?http%3A//www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi%3Fubb%3Dget_topic%26f%3D36%26t%3D002818
Jason
Shawn H
: I'd forgotten that. Yes, that was indeed annoying, and a bit insipid,
: for the reasons you cite. Wasn't he (or was it DiDio?) also offering
: the line that IC showed that comics could be serious literature? (As if
: it were, and as if that point hadn't been proved decades and decades
: ago?)
I'm still mystified at how reinventing 80s Vertigo is the same as doing
anything "new," "adult," or "serious," just as I am nonplussed that the
"JLA-zation" of the New Avengers is any sort of an actual change for that
title. At least give credit to Alan Moore, James Robinson, Gaiman,
Morrison et al for being founding fathers or something.
Didn't Heroes Reborn already underline the "big guns with their own
books" approach that JLA was then figuring out simultaneously as well?
Shawn
Shawn H
: wrote:
: >As bad as it is on its own terms, it's even worse because of its
: >proximity to the line that talks about how they suspect Light was
: >looking for his gun or a trophy but found "something more valuable".
: >That "thing," of course, being Sue.
: >
: >Gaaahh.
: Now.....enh nevermind....this discussion is months old. Next you'll be
: saying people shouldn't say "MY wife".
They shouldn't say "MAN and wife." That doesn't seem fair.
Shawn
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Do they still say that at weddings? Huh.
Dario Delfino
Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>: I'd forgotten that. Yes, that was indeed annoying, and a bit insipid,
>: for the reasons you cite. Wasn't he (or was it DiDio?) also offering
>: the line that IC showed that comics could be serious literature? (As if
>: it were, and as if that point hadn't been proved decades and decades
>: ago?)
>
>I'm still mystified at how reinventing 80s Vertigo is the same as doing
>anything "new," "adult," or "serious," just as I am nonplussed that the
>"JLA-zation" of the New Avengers is any sort of an actual change for that
>title. At least give credit to Alan Moore, James Robinson, Gaiman,
>Morrison et al for being founding fathers or something.
It's hype. It's also ironic, given the use of rape, numerous
plot/continuity issues, and overall execution made IC the kind of series
an immature teenager would've written. I know because when I was 13-15 or
so, I used to throw in all kinds of "realism" into my own superhero
stories. They ended up being garbage, for the most part.
Anyways, they're not going to say "Identity Crisis, our most successful
mini-series, owes a debt to many more critically-acclaimed and revered
stories published earlier, some by people who no longer work for us."
It's hype.
>
>Didn't Heroes Reborn already underline the "big guns with their own
>books" approach that JLA was then figuring out simultaneously as well?
>
It was part of an industry-wide "back to basics" movement. Morrison was
all, "superheroes should be fun, damn it!" and Busiek was all, "AVENGERS
ASSEMBLE!!" and Waid was all, "viva la resistance!" and wacky shenanigans
ensued. I dug it, I really did. The Heroes Reborn relaunch of Cap, FF,
IM, and Avengers were wonderful.
Anyways, point is, that's all in the past. They had to hype IC, so they
did - in a corporate way. Referencing Vertigo or James Robinson's work or
anything like that would be like Stan Lee referencing Jack Kirby or Steve
Ditko. Not gonna happen.
-DD
Shawn H
: It's hype. It's also ironic, given the use of rape, numerous
: plot/continuity issues, and overall execution made IC the kind of series
: an immature teenager would've written. I know because when I was 13-15 or
: so, I used to throw in all kinds of "realism" into my own superhero
: stories. They ended up being garbage, for the most part.
Well, perhaps that's part of the answer, too. Perhaps it is the current
little versions of that kid you were that they wish to reach; I liked
blood and guts more as a teen, too.
: Anyways, they're not going to say "Identity Crisis, our most successful
: mini-series, owes a debt to many more critically-acclaimed and revered
: stories published earlier, some by people who no longer work for us."
: It's hype.
I'm sure you're right, but I'd love it if at leat the CREATORS would say
so. I expect corporate speak from the editors/publishers, but from
everyone?
: >Didn't Heroes Reborn already underline the "big guns with their own
: >books" approach that JLA was then figuring out simultaneously as well?
: It was part of an industry-wide "back to basics" movement. Morrison was
: all, "superheroes should be fun, damn it!" and Busiek was all, "AVENGERS
: ASSEMBLE!!" and Waid was all, "viva la resistance!" and wacky shenanigans
: ensued. I dug it, I really did. The Heroes Reborn relaunch of Cap, FF,
: IM, and Avengers were wonderful.
Hear hear!
: Anyways, point is, that's all in the past. They had to hype IC, so they
: did - in a corporate way. Referencing Vertigo or James Robinson's work or
: anything like that would be like Stan Lee referencing Jack Kirby or Steve
: Ditko. Not gonna happen.
Yep, that's me, stuck in the past. Well, luckily I'm a part-time
historian, I guess. I'm sure the way it's all being trumpeted as new is
just like fashion; it's the nature of the industry, meant to hook those
new readers who weren't there yet. I'm not sure if I hope it worked, as
the IC-ized DC-Universe seems pretty bleak to me, whereas the
Vertigo-ized one seemed more interesting and creative at the time.
Maybe this is the NYPD-Blue-ized DC-verse? DC_SVU (Superhero Victims
Unit)?
Shawn
Tim Turnip
wrote:
>On 2005-03-01 05:45:21 -0500, "David...@yahoo.com"
><David...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> "I agree that artists and writers should generally let their work speak
>> for itself."
>>
>> I think a lot of creators might give a "press-shy recluse" persona a
>> shot, at least for a while.
>
>I agree. Unfortunately, one of the modes of panicked response to the
>doom and gloom of the market that we seem to be getting from the
>publishers and the creators is just a constant stream of interviews and
>such. (This is now the norm in all entertainment media, of course, and
>it would be really, really odd--however pleasant--to see comics folks
>go against the current.)
Okay, well if a constant stream of interviews is now the norm in
entertainment media, then I don't see how you can simultaneously claim
that it's due to a panicked response.
Tim Turnip
<m...@key.com> wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2005 04:42:55 -0800, "Earl Allison" <eall...@tiac.net>
>wrote:
>>And I agree with you, George, the line about Sue fighting is probably
>>the most damning bit in all of IC.
>I dont find it damning because its such a 'what?' moment.
>
>If you think Ralph is saying "I hope she didn't enjoy it..." then
>there's something wrong with you.
Thank you... there was a whole thread about this back during IC where
some here did indeed claim that interpretation.
Dario Delfino
Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Dario Delfino <da...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>: It's hype. It's also ironic, given the use of rape, numerous
>: plot/continuity issues, and overall execution made IC the kind of series
>: an immature teenager would've written. I know because when I was 13-15 or
>: so, I used to throw in all kinds of "realism" into my own superhero
>: stories. They ended up being garbage, for the most part.
>
>Well, perhaps that's part of the answer, too. Perhaps it is the current
>little versions of that kid you were that they wish to reach; I liked
>blood and guts more as a teen, too.
Oh, I like blood and guts as much as the next man. It's all in HOW you do
it. My friend Tori keeps saying that the ideas in IC are strong, but
they're not developed or executed well at all (that, and the League should
be divided into untrusting factions...)
>
>: Anyways, they're not going to say "Identity Crisis, our most successful
>: mini-series, owes a debt to many more critically-acclaimed and revered
>: stories published earlier, some by people who no longer work for us."
>: It's hype.
>
>I'm sure you're right, but I'd love it if at leat the CREATORS would say
>so. I expect corporate speak from the editors/publishers, but from
>everyone?
Sure. The creators work for the corporation, don't they? I hate it, too,
but that's the way of the world.
>
>: Anyways, point is, that's all in the past. They had to hype IC, so they
>: did - in a corporate way. Referencing Vertigo or James Robinson's work or
>: anything like that would be like Stan Lee referencing Jack Kirby or Steve
>: Ditko. Not gonna happen.
>
>Yep, that's me, stuck in the past. Well, luckily I'm a part-time
>historian, I guess. I'm sure the way it's all being trumpeted as new is
>just like fashion; it's the nature of the industry, meant to hook those
>new readers who weren't there yet. I'm not sure if I hope it worked, as
>the IC-ized DC-Universe seems pretty bleak to me, whereas the
>Vertigo-ized one seemed more interesting and creative at the time.
I have faith. Morrison will continue to bounce around the DCU, and Rucka,
Simone, Winick, and others aren't going to make the DCU into the Image
Universe of 1993. Case in point, check out The Rann/Thanagar War -
written by Dave Gibbons!! :D
> >Maybe this is the NYPD-Blue-ized DC-verse? DC_SVU (Superhero Victims
>Unit)?
>
My head just exploded from all those acronyms.
I also forgot what my point was.
Lurking Girl
>
>Oh, I like blood and guts as much as the next man. It's all in HOW you do
>it. My friend Tori keeps saying that the ideas in IC are strong, but
>they're not developed or executed well at all
"The ideas" is a bit strong. I meant that the base concept about
"here's this guy who could wreck all our lives, what do we do with
him?" is interesting and worth exploring. Though I'm not sure it's
one that wants to be done in a traditional superhero context--if you
want to play it seriously realist, I have this suspicion you'd need to
do it in a separate place. Like Watchmen, or something.
Or else you get the kind of breakage that IC has visited on the world.
>(that, and the League should be divided into untrusting factions...)
Divided, hell, I'd envision the League shattering like a wineglass at a
Jewish wedding after the whole lobotomizing thing.
--
Victoria Swann to...@panix.com LJ: syringavulgaris
Mother America is brandishing her weapons / she keeps me
safe and warm with threats and misconceptions
-- Drivin'n'Cryin
Shawn H
: >such. (This is now the norm in all entertainment media, of course, and
: >it would be really, really odd--however pleasant--to see comics folks
: >go against the current.)
: Okay, well if a constant stream of interviews is now the norm in
: entertainment media, then I don't see how you can simultaneously claim
: that it's due to a panicked response.
The panick is ongoing. We live in a time of crisis, war without end.
Shawn
Theron
> That's "chick organs," it was during an early JLE story, and it gets
my vote.
Ah, yes. What George said, then.
George
>
> At least give credit to Alan Moore, James Robinson, Gaiman,
> Morrison et al for being founding fathers or something.
Indeed. And for usually having some artistic point at stake *beyond*
merely "darkness". (And also, in most cases, for knowing when to put
that particular toolkit down and move on to other things.)
>
--
Peace,
George
George
> In article <d02b58$1o1$2...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>,
> Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> : I'd forgotten that. Yes, that was indeed annoying, and a bit insipid,
>> : for the reasons you cite. Wasn't he (or was it DiDio?) also offering
>> : the line that IC showed that comics could be serious literature? (As
>> if : it were, and as if that point hadn't been proved decades and
>> decades : ago?)
>>
>> I'm still mystified at how reinventing 80s Vertigo is the same as doing
>> anything "new," "adult," or "serious," just as I am nonplussed that the
>> "JLA-zation" of the New Avengers is any sort of an actual change for that
>> title. At least give credit to Alan Moore, James Robinson, Gaiman,
>> Morrison et al for being founding fathers or something.
>
> It's hype. It's also ironic, given the use of rape, numerous
> plot/continuity issues, and overall execution made IC the kind of
> series an immature teenager would've written. I know because when I
> was 13-15 or so, I used to throw in all kinds of "realism" into my own
> superhero stories. They ended up being garbage, for the most part.
Exactly. It's this particular deployment of the concept of "adult" that
usually marks something quite clearly as being actually, deeply
adolescent: a fascination with all the dark tones of violence and
sexuality and taboo-- as if no one else had ever encountered such
things before or dealt with them artistically by juxtaposing them to
contexts and characters that tend to trend toward opposing themes.
I wonder if it's a new variant on the old "five year theory" of
audience turnover in comics? That is, do editors like Carlin and DiDio
assume that they only way to retain readers who may have begun reading
DC comics at, say, age 9 or 10 five years ago (all twelve of them, yes)
is to wrench the line "darker" and "more mature" as those readers hit
14 and 15? (Just a theory, and even I suspect these folks can't be
quite that silly, since that'd mean they'd have to have been ignoring
nearly every demographic/marketing study about the readership of the
last ten years....)
>
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> Maybe this is the NYPD-Blue-ized DC-verse? DC_SVU (Superhero Victims Unit)?
Nah. NYPD was often a high-quality show. There's not a single moment of
Sipowicz-like depth and complexity in evidence in IC, nor in most of
the books I've seen that seem to be taking their cues from it now.
And the only DC title that does seem to be taking deliberate
inspiration from NYPD and L&O shows is GOTHAM CENTRAL, which is so good
(or was, last time I checked) it should be allowed to go run free under
the Vertigo imprint, or at least be left alone by the rest of the DCU.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> I have faith. Morrison will continue to bounce around the DCU, and
> Rucka, Simone, Winick, and others aren't going to make the DCU into the
> Image Universe of 1993.
Winick's one of my "bad guys" at this point in regard to this dynamic,
as he seems to be well and fully in lockstep with Johns, Meltzer, et
al. on "the darkening" of the DCU. It's a shame, as he's very talented,
and capable of greater subtlety--but I think monthly superhero books
just aren't his best game. (I had high hopes for Rucka in the
mainstream superhero set--but have found his WW very mixed of late, and
he is, I'm told, just as much a part of the upcoming COUNTDOWN project
as the rest.)
> Case in point, check out The Rann/Thanagar War - written by Dave Gibbons!! :D
Huh? Details, please? (On a related note, for a book that shows how you
can do it right: check out the current ADAM STRANGE miniseries.)
--
Peace,
George
George
It's both. It's the norm in most media, and comics executives and
creators are blindly following along, not stopping to consider whether
it best serves their interests over the long term--because the stink of
deseperation in comics these days can be sniffed a mile away. Comics
*aren't* other media, and don't necessarily benefit from going head to
head with other modes of media promotion--yet they do it because no one
feels they can afford to stop and slow down long enough to consider
other options.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
>>
>
> On the plus side (for Spielberg) though Tom Hanks crying jag in SPR
> was the most realistic " guy about to fall apart cry" I've ever
> seen....
I do give credit to Hanks for that one, yes. Got to me. (Most of the
movie did, but that was for its familial resonances more than anything
in its actual technique. We've all got our buttons, eh?)
>>
>> If I sound harsh, it's because I am, and because I have to go shovel
>> more frelling snow.
>
> At least you don't have to work.....or do you?
Do indeed. Hence the shoveling, to be able to get there.
--
Peace,
George
George
No, I won't. It's an entirely innocuous phrase in everyday usage, and
not remotely related to my critique of "At least I hope she fought" and
the alignment of Sue with a trophy. Don't distort the argument simply
because you don't agree with it.
--
Peace,
George
George
No, that's not what I think he's saying at all.
Rather, I think he's saying that he feels it'd be better on some level
for her to have fought back against a rape than not to have done so,
largely because it would make *him* feel better about what happened.
It's a deeply troubling statement--whether or not a woman has fought
back against a rapist is so completely beside the point of the trauma
of rape, and for Ralph not to get that suggests there's something
deeply wrong with *him*. (And I don't buy that characterization of
Ralph.)
--
Peace,
George
George
So what *does* he mean by it, then? I agree he's not imply he
thinks/fears she "enjoyed" it (even Meltzer's not that inept), but
what's the meaning of the line? *Why* does Ralph hope she fought back?
What's the difference, to him, whether she did or not? Is it 'better"
to have been raped and to have fought back than to have been raped
without fighting back? On what possible basis?
Imagine a woman you care for (wife, sister, mother, lover, friend)
being raped. Imagine yourself saying this about her in the aftermath. I
can't. I can't see the remotest relevance, excpet as it starts to hew
close to some pretty damming ideas about victims, to our cultural need
to believe that they at least went down fighting--as if that somehow
makes one damn bit of difference.
--
Peace,
George
Glennsim
understood it to mean "I hope she managed to get a few good shots in on
Light during the process, so that it wasn't an easy thing for him."
It's not a matter of trying or not trying, but whether she succeeded in
hurting Light back.
Lurking Girl
>
>So what *does* he mean by it, then? I agree he's not imply he
>thinks/fears she "enjoyed" it (even Meltzer's not that inept), but
>what's the meaning of the line? *Why* does Ralph hope she fought back?
>What's the difference, to him, whether she did or not? Is it 'better"
>to have been raped and to have fought back than to have been raped
>without fighting back? On what possible basis?
And in fact, I have heard a school of thought which advises a woman in
such a situation NOT to fight back, for two reasons: a) as they keep
telling us, rape is a matter of power not lust, so you're feeding the
bastard's head if you fight; and b) it lessens the chance that you
will end up dead.
Personally I do not subscribe to this theory, but I understand where
it's coming from and I acknowledge its points.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
news:2005030209141250878%geeluvss@netscapenet:
> On 2005-03-01 14:51:30 -0500, da...@panix.com (Dario Delfino) said:
>
>>
>> I have faith. Morrison will continue to bounce around the DCU, and
>> Rucka, Simone, Winick, and others aren't going to make the DCU into
>> the Image Universe of 1993.
>
> Winick's one of my "bad guys" at this point in regard to this dynamic,
> as he seems to be well and fully in lockstep with Johns, Meltzer, et
> al. on "the darkening" of the DCU. It's a shame, as he's very
> talented, and capable of greater subtlety--but I think monthly
> superhero books just aren't his best game. (I had high hopes for Rucka
> in the mainstream superhero set--but have found his WW very mixed of
> late, and he is, I'm told, just as much a part of the upcoming
> COUNTDOWN project as the rest.)
Personally, and I know I'm in the minority here, at least in the anti-IC
camp, I find Johns' take on "the darkening" to be interesting, at least
most of the time, and being dragged semi-willingly in Metzler's wake,
rather than being in step with him. I've been finding Winick's writing
vaguely annoying in an indefinable way for a while, but I'm not sure if
that's to do with "the darkening" or not.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc/
Fate protects fools, little children and ships called "Enterprise".
But not shows called "Enterprise".
David...@yahoo.com
way for a while, but I'm not sure if that's to do with "the darkening"
or not."
It's the smirky-ness that puts me off. His characters often sound more
like "I Love the '90s" commentators than... well... characters.
David
Dario Delfino
Daibhid Ceannaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in
>news:2005030209141250878%geeluvss@netscapenet:
>
>> On 2005-03-01 14:51:30 -0500, da...@panix.com (Dario Delfino) said:
>>
>>>
>>> I have faith. Morrison will continue to bounce around the DCU, and
>>> Rucka, Simone, Winick, and others aren't going to make the DCU into
>>> the Image Universe of 1993.
>>
>> Winick's one of my "bad guys" at this point in regard to this dynamic,
>> as he seems to be well and fully in lockstep with Johns, Meltzer, et
>> al. on "the darkening" of the DCU. It's a shame, as he's very
>> talented, and capable of greater subtlety--but I think monthly
>> superhero books just aren't his best game. (I had high hopes for Rucka
>> in the mainstream superhero set--but have found his WW very mixed of
>> late, and he is, I'm told, just as much a part of the upcoming
>> COUNTDOWN project as the rest.)
>
>Personally, and I know I'm in the minority here, at least in the anti-IC
>camp, I find Johns' take on "the darkening" to be interesting, at least
>most of the time, and being dragged semi-willingly in Metzler's wake,
>rather than being in step with him. I've been finding Winick's writing
>vaguely annoying in an indefinable way for a while, but I'm not sure if
>that's to do with "the darkening" or not.
>
mentioned him above).
-DD
--
"You can beat the young-at-heart comics fan with a crowbar and blow him
up, but his basic optimism endures."
- Tony Isabella
Dario Delfino
Speaking of which, THE RANN/THANAGAR WAR will be a six-issue mini,
spinning out of events of ADAM STRANGE as well as factoring into COUNTDOWN
somehow (as other minis will, such as THE O.M.A.C. PROJECT). WAR will
feature Adam Strange, Hawkman, and Green Lantern.
Kyle Rayner.
Seriously.
George
> In article <2005030209141250878%geeluvss@netscapenet>,
> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On 2005-03-01 14:51:30 -0500, da...@panix.com (Dario Delfino) said:
>>> Case in point, check out The Rann/Thanagar War - written by Dave Gibbons!! :D
>>
>> Huh? Details, please? (On a related note, for a book that shows how you
>> can do it right: check out the current ADAM STRANGE miniseries.)
>>
>
> Speaking of which, THE RANN/THANAGAR WAR will be a six-issue mini,
> spinning out of events of ADAM STRANGE as well as factoring into
> COUNTDOWN somehow (as other minis will, such as THE O.M.A.C. PROJECT).
> WAR will feature Adam Strange, Hawkman, and Green Lantern.
Thanks for the info.
The fact that it's tied into COUNTDOWN may well cause me to skip it,
though Gibbons' involvement pulls strongly in the other direction.
Probably something I wait on for trade collection and/or positive
reviews.
>
--
Peace,
George
Shawn H
: On 2005-03-01 14:17:56 -0500, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
: >
: > Maybe this is the NYPD-Blue-ized DC-verse? DC_SVU (Superhero Victims Unit)?
: Nah. NYPD was often a high-quality show. There's not a single moment of
: Sipowicz-like depth and complexity in evidence in IC, nor in most of
: the books I've seen that seem to be taking their cues from it now.
NYPD had its share of stinker episodes, and was ham-handed with trying to
give the appearance of sophistication: the unintelligible, mannered
accents, the uneasiness around gay sexuality, the flashes of violence,
language and nudity.
: And the only DC title that does seem to be taking deliberate
: inspiration from NYPD and L&O shows is GOTHAM CENTRAL, which is so good
: (or was, last time I checked) it should be allowed to go run free under
: the Vertigo imprint, or at least be left alone by the rest of the DCU.
I was thinking more of the sensationalistic, "ripped-from-the-headlines"
aspects of both shows.
Shawn
George
> George <geel...@netscape.net> dixit:
>>
>> So what *does* he mean by it, then? I agree he's not imply he
>> thinks/fears she "enjoyed" it (even Meltzer's not that inept), but
>> what's the meaning of the line? *Why* does Ralph hope she fought back?
>> What's the difference, to him, whether she did or not? Is it 'better"
>> to have been raped and to have fought back than to have been raped
>> without fighting back? On what possible basis?
>
> And in fact, I have heard a school of thought which advises a woman in
> such a situation NOT to fight back, for two reasons: a) as they keep
> telling us, rape is a matter of power not lust, so you're feeding the
> bastard's head if you fight; and b) it lessens the chance that you
> will end up dead.
That's the general advice given out by law-enforcement professionals
and sexual assault educators I've worked with, yes. If you can't get
away to safety (and/or summon help--the typical advice is to yell
"Fire!" rather than "Help!" or "Rape!"), and if you feel your life
itself is not in direct danger, not fighting back is generally
considered the "safer" option--especially if your assailant has a
weapon.
This advice changes somewhat, of course, if you have defensive
training--and the opportunity to use it in the given situation--and/or
a weapon you know how to use without increasing the risk to yourself.
Most cops and SA profressionals I've known will say that the time to
fight back fiercely--past the initial moments of the assault, when your
object is to fight just long enough to effect an escape--is when you
feel your life is likely to be taken no matter what you do. Most of
these professionals don't adivse fighting back at all against an armed
assailant, unless you *know* you know exactly what you're doing with
your own training and/or weapon.
>
> Personally I do not subscribe to this theory, but I understand where
> it's coming from and I acknowledge its points.
Obviously, there's no "right" way to respond to a rape--just ways to
hopefully ameliorate the possible harm--and Ralph's line seems to imply
there is, or at least a "preferable" way, from his persepctive. (One
really has to wonder what's going through Black Canary's mind as she
hears him say this to Wally and Kyle, btw, given her own experiences.)
It's also worth noting that he doesn't even truly *believe* Sue in this
matter. The two-line sequence is: "She told me she fought. I hope she
fought." That's a fairly astounding thing to come from the mouth of a
man whose wife has just been murdered, while he's recounting a story
how she was raped years ago, when he's got a background of dealing
with victims of violent crime of all types. Ralph of all people should
know that the fought back/didn't fought back question doesn't matter,
and it should be the last thing on his mind at this point anyway.
--
Peace,
George
George
Which matters: why?
That's the point: the comment takes the focus off of the vicitm's
suffering and trauma and survival and places it on the bad guy. It's
really about the non-victim wanting to make someone else suffer and
it's therefore a fundamentally self-centered remark. What it really
means is: "I hope she fought back so that *I* can feel better about it,
and knowing that he got hurt while hurting her makes me feel better."
It is, perhaps, an understandable reaction from a husband in the
immediate aftermath of a sexual assualt upon his wife. (Though not
Ralph, I'd argue, with his experience.) But it's not one should still
be so present in his mind that he includes in in the narration of the
rape in the hours after her funeral.
Had Meltzer wanted to sound this note, something along the lines of:
"She told me she fought. I know she did, and while I knew it shouldn't
matter, I took some comfort in that--at first." would have been far,
far better. (But I don't even know if we can be sure he was going for
something that subtle.)
--
Peace,
George
Lurking Girl
>
> Obviously, there's no "right" way to respond to a rape--just ways to
>hopefully ameliorate the possible harm--
Indeed not; it's entirely a personal choice between a set of rotten
options.
>and Ralph's line seems to imply there is, or at least a "preferable"
>way, from his persepctive.
Blech. I might could hear it coming from a chest-thumping grunt type,
but that isn't the Ralph _I_ am familiar with.
>It's also worth noting that he doesn't even truly *believe* Sue in this
>matter. The two-line sequence is: "She told me she fought. I hope she
>fought."
I would like to take a cheese grater to the brain of whoever is
responsible for that particular bit of dialogue.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
>On 2005-03-01 14:40:23 -0500, Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0600, "Magnus, Robot Fighter."
>> <m...@key.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Mar 2005 04:42:55 -0800, "Earl Allison" <eall...@tiac.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> And I agree with you, George, the line about Sue fighting is probably
>>>> the most damning bit in all of IC.
>>
>>> I dont find it damning because its such a 'what?' moment.
>>>
>>> If you think Ralph is saying "I hope she didn't enjoy it..." then
>>> there's something wrong with you.
>>
>> Thank you... there was a whole thread about this back during IC where
>> some here did indeed claim that interpretation.
>
>So what *does* he mean by it, then? I agree he's not imply he
>thinks/fears she "enjoyed" it (even Meltzer's not that inept), but
>what's the meaning of the line? *Why* does Ralph hope she fought back?
So that her attacker suffered of course.
>What's the difference, to him, whether she did or not? Is it 'better"
>to have been raped and to have fought back than to have been raped
>without fighting back? On what possible basis?
>
>Imagine a woman you care for (wife, sister, mother, lover, friend)
>being raped. Imagine yourself saying this about her in the aftermath. I
>can't. I can't see the remotest relevance, excpet as it starts to hew
>close to some pretty damming ideas about victims, to our cultural need
>to believe that they at least went down fighting--as if that somehow
>makes one damn bit of difference.
IMO....without reading further down the thread (I don't want to lose
my train of thought on this) Ralph is saying "I hope she
fought".....without completing the rest: "I hope she bit him, I hope
she kicked his nuts black and blue."
It's an angry reading of the line.To himself, not to the others.
But there need not be any connection between the line and any 'value'
in her if she did or didn't fight. I'm sure it *doesn't make a damn
bit of difference* to Ralph.
If my wife was raped I would sure as hell hope she fought. But i
wouldn't hold her in any less esteem if she didn't.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
>On 2005-03-02 09:58:14 -0500, "Glennsim" <glenns...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> You know, while I admit it could have been phrased better, I generally
>> understood it to mean "I hope she managed to get a few good shots in on
>> Light during the process, so that it wasn't an easy thing for him."
>> It's not a matter of trying or not trying, but whether she succeeded in
>> hurting Light back.
>
>Which matters: why?
>
>That's the point: the comment takes the focus off of the vicitm's
>suffering and trauma and survival and places it on the bad guy. It's
>really about the non-victim wanting to make someone else suffer and
>it's therefore a fundamentally self-centered remark. What it really
>means is: "I hope she fought back so that *I* can feel better about it,
>and knowing that he got hurt while hurting her makes me feel better."
No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out. My feelings have nothing to do
with it. I'm not afraid my wife enjoyed it, nor do i think she's
'weak' if she didn't fight. I'm not going to feel ANY different if she
fought or not.
Are you implying he feels guilty for 'not being there' for her? And
that if she fought he'll feel better about that? Such a thought would
never occur to me.
>
>It is, perhaps, an understandable reaction from a husband in the
>immediate aftermath of a sexual assualt upon his wife. (Though not
>Ralph, I'd argue, with his experience.) But it's not one should still
>be so present in his mind that he includes in in the narration of the
>rape in the hours after her funeral.
I agree. It *is* bad writing. I'm not arguing that. I'm just trying to
understand the objections to the line and the 'something better' line.
>
>Had Meltzer wanted to sound this note, something along the lines of:
>"She told me she fought. I know she did, and while I knew it shouldn't
>matter, I took some comfort in that--at first." would have been far,
>far better. (But I don't even know if we can be sure he was going for
>something that subtle.)
When are you going to make a pitch to DC so we can cowrite a book?
George
> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
> : On 2005-03-01 14:17:56 -0500, Shawn H <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> said:
>
> : > : > Maybe this is the NYPD-Blue-ized DC-verse? DC_SVU (Superhero
> Victims Unit)?
>
> : Nah. NYPD was often a high-quality show. There's not a single moment
> of : Sipowicz-like depth and complexity in evidence in IC, nor in most
> of : the books I've seen that seem to be taking their cues from it now.
>
> NYPD had its share of stinker episodes, and was ham-handed with trying to
> give the appearance of sophistication: the unintelligible, mannered
> accents, the uneasiness around gay sexuality, the flashes of violence,
> language and nudity.
I confess to being a very casual watcher over the years, with the bulk
of my knowledge of it drawn from the Jimmy Smits era, which seemed,
generally, quite good TV to me, and very much in accord with the lives
of NYC detectives I know. But I'm sure it had its share of stinkers, as
you say.
--
Peace,
George
George
> George <geel...@netscape.net> dixit:
>>
>> Obviously, there's no "right" way to respond to a rape--just ways to
>> hopefully ameliorate the possible harm--
>
> Indeed not; it's entirely a personal choice between a set of rotten
> options.
Well said.
>> and Ralph's line seems to imply there is, or at least a "preferable"
>> way, from his persepctive.
>
> Blech. I might could hear it coming from a chest-thumping grunt type,
> but that isn't the Ralph _I_ am familiar with.
Exactly. From Guy Gardner? Sure, I'd buy this. Or even from a younger
character with little to no experience dealing with such things. Ralph?
No.
>
>> It's also worth noting that he doesn't even truly *believe* Sue in this
>> matter. The two-line sequence is: "She told me she fought. I hope she
>> fought."
>
> I would like to take a cheese grater to the brain of whoever is
> responsible for that particular bit of dialogue.
It's really a case where a good editor should have stepped back a
moment and said: "Are you sure you want to say it that way? What are
you aiming for? Do you know how this sounds? Can we tweak it?"
But, no one edits anymore, particularly not mega-projects like IC; they
just track the printing schedules.
--
Peace,
George
George
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:32:12 -0500, George <geel...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-01 14:40:23 -0500, Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:17:39 -0600, "Magnus, Robot Fighter."
>>> <m...@key.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Mar 2005 04:42:55 -0800, "Earl Allison" <eall...@tiac.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> And I agree with you, George, the line about Sue fighting is probably
>>>>> the most damning bit in all of IC.
>>>
>>>> I dont find it damning because its such a 'what?' moment.
>>>>
>>>> If you think Ralph is saying "I hope she didn't enjoy it..." then
>>>> there's something wrong with you.
>>>
>>> Thank you... there was a whole thread about this back during IC where
>>> some here did indeed claim that interpretation.
>>
>> So what *does* he mean by it, then? I agree he's not imply he
>> thinks/fears she "enjoyed" it (even Meltzer's not that inept), but
>> what's the meaning of the line? *Why* does Ralph hope she fought back?
>
> So that her attacker suffered of course.
Which doesn't matter.
Which Ralph Dibny should know.
>
> It's an angry reading of the line.To himself, not to the others.
It's in his spoken narration to Wally, Kyle, and the whole group about
the night of the rape. It's not an interior, unvoiced thought.
>
> If my wife was raped I would sure as hell hope she fought.
Why? What possible difference does it make?
--
Peace,
George
Tim Turnip
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Not "more tasteful," but less exploitative. He wrangled all the emotional
>drama he could out of that scene; it was disgusting, and meant to be
>disgusting. But was it prurient as well?
No, it was not. (Hey, if you're not going to go all the way and
specifically accuse the art of being prurient, I feel pretty confident
in dismissing the suggestion.)
Firstly, I think we can all pretty much agree that Morales at least
had a professional obligation to draw the scene he was given. Claims
have been made that Morales might have had more of a creative stake,
but these claims have yet so far been unsupported.
Then, it becomes a question of how "tasteful" or "exploitative"
Morales' specific rendition of that scene is, and it is there where we
enter some very vague realms indeed. Ultimately it is only a matter
of interpretation, but it looks to me like Morales drew that scene as
tastefully and as non-exploitatively as he could, and still maintain
the dramatic impact of the scene.
>Certainly the depiction of Dr. Light as a sniveling animal was [prurient].
I think not. Yes, Light's own character was an embodiment of
prurience -- characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts -- but
the depiction of that character was not prurient, i.e. it did not have
the intention or effect of inspiring such thoughts in the reader.
>>: (somehow) drawn her to more resemble her "tough, shrewd" Super
>>: Buddies personna.
>
>It's absurd to ask that Sue be presented in her established character,
>rather than as some unrecognizable stay-at-home mom to be?
Artwise, I found Sue perfectly recognizable. Are you saying even the
physical illustration of her was a deviation from past appearances?
(And "Stay-at-home" was determined by the writing, not the art.)
>: As someone who liked IC, I found Morales' remark inexplicable, first
>: and foremost because he has nothing to atone for, and secondly
>: because, as others have correctly pointed out, being appointed the new
>: Wonder Woman artist proves exactly nothing, and absolves Morales of no
>: charge, real or false.
>
>Well, that's what I'm trying to explicate. That need to rationalize comes
>from somewhere real, however ill-understood.
The most likely answer seems to be that Morales is feeling
understandably defensive amid the vocal criticism of certain aspects
of the book. Many people have self-esteem issues and tend to take
blame undeservedly. This whole thread seems to be, "Hey, he's willing
to take the blame, so let's give it to him."
Tim Turnip
wrote:
But unless I missed something, all you're talking about is people
giving interviews and maintaining a public profile. That's
boilerplate, it's how It's Done. You make it sound like some kind of
heedless, headlong rush into an abyss. Comics may not be other media,
but they are a medium nonetheless, and by their very existence,
they're competing for attention along with movies, magazines, music,
games and other books. There's not much anyone can do about that
unless comics becomes a patronage like opera. To even come close to a
level playing field, comics publishers have to adhere to at least some
of the dictums for popular media. This is not bellwether for failure,
it's building blocks for success.
George
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:38:25 -0500, George <geel...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-02 09:58:14 -0500, "Glennsim" <glenns...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> You know, while I admit it could have been phrased better, I generally
>>> understood it to mean "I hope she managed to get a few good shots in on
>>> Light during the process, so that it wasn't an easy thing for him."
>>> It's not a matter of trying or not trying, but whether she succeeded in
>>> hurting Light back.
>>
>> Which matters: why?
>>
>> That's the point: the comment takes the focus off of the vicitm's
>> suffering and trauma and survival and places it on the bad guy. It's
>> really about the non-victim wanting to make someone else suffer and
>> it's therefore a fundamentally self-centered remark. What it really
>> means is: "I hope she fought back so that *I* can feel better about it,
>> and knowing that he got hurt while hurting her makes me feel better."
>
> No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
> my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
> THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out.
Why? The woman is still raped, either way, and *that's* the salient
fact. There's no "better than" in rape unless it's focuse on the
experience of the *victim*, somehow. (See other discussion about
choices among a series of bad options.) Rapist with eyes scracthed out
is still: woman raped. That's the point--the rest is irrelevant.
> Are you implying he feels guilty for 'not being there' for her? And
> that if she fought he'll feel better about that? Such a thought would
> never occur to me.
I don't know *what* Ralph's supposed to be thinking in that scene,
because none of the available interpretations really square at all with
my sense of his character.
I do know that *some* men (especially college age and other 20
somethings) respond to sexaul assaults on their
wives/girlfriends/female friends with something *like* what Ralph says
here, some approximation of the "I hope she fought/I hope she hurt the
rapist" mentality and, in my experience, that response is so profoundly
hurtful to those women that some have described it to me as a kind of
"second attack". This is what I'm getting at: that response, while
understandable, perhaps, in the immediate aftermath, is a self-centered
response, and it obliterates the focus on the woman-who-was-harmed and
replaces it with a focus on the one-who-harmed. Rather than think about
what happened to the victim--and how we can best aid her recovery--we
focus on what pain was inflicted/can be inflicted on the perp. That may
feel all noble (and manly), but it isn't.
>>
>>
>> Had Meltzer wanted to sound this note, something along the lines of:
>> "She told me she fought. I know she did, and while I knew it shouldn't
>> matter, I took some comfort in that--at first." would have been far,
>> far better. (But I don't even know if we can be sure he was going for
>> something that subtle.)
>
> When are you going to make a pitch to DC so we can cowrite a book?
If you have a time machine and can take us back to the 1960s or 1980s, I'm in.
--
Peace,
George
George
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:16:56 -0500, George <geel...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-03-01 14:37:51 -0500, Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> said:
>>> Okay, well if a constant stream of interviews is now the norm in
>>> entertainment media, then I don't see how you can simultaneously claim
>>> that it's due to a panicked response.
>>
>> It's both. It's the norm in most media, and comics executives and
>> creators are blindly following along, not stopping to consider whether
>> it best serves their interests over the long term--because the stink of
>> deseperation in comics these days can be sniffed a mile away. Comics
>> *aren't* other media, and don't necessarily benefit from going head to
>> head with other modes of media promotion--yet they do it because no one
>> feels they can afford to stop and slow down long enough to consider
>> other options.
>
> But unless I missed something, all you're talking about is people
> giving interviews and maintaining a public profile. That's
> boilerplate, it's how It's Done.
Comics professionals give so many inteviews these days, in so many
fora, that they're starting to seem like Paris Hilton in terms of
ubiquity. (And, sometimes, talent.)
I'd rather they stopped spending so much energy competing with other
sources of entertainment on the terms set by those other sources, and
focused more on conveying what comics can do uniquely well. And I'd
rather they let more of the work speak for itself by getting into the
hands of newer readers in newer formats, through new distribution
models. All the endless interviews and message boards just keep saying
the same four things* to the same preexisting readers. I can't help but
see that as a colossal waste of time and energy.
*1. We're really, really excited about upcoming project X. 2. Upcoming
project X is going to change the status quo. 3. Just finished project X
wasn't as bad as some of you say it was, and here's why. 4. If you
liked/didn't like project X, you'll want to check out upcoming Project
Y, because it's more of the same/answers questions about project X.
(Lather, rinse, repeat.)
>
--
Peace,
George
Dario Delfino
George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>But, no one edits anymore, particularly not mega-projects like IC; they
>just track the printing schedules.
>
>
>
>--
>Peace,
>
>George
>
That's what drives me nucking futs about comics these days; these people
(these men, really) have this job that thousands of people would love.
They have this job, and they do it with salary; a lot of people do the
same job, for free. It's really insulting to me that the editors aren't
doing their job, when it's really such a great one.
I mean, your job as an editor is TO READ COMIC BOOKS.
Think about that a moment.
Oh, sure, you have to think about errors, but if you're an editor, than
you should have enough information to hold your own, and you should have a
computer with this bizarre thing called Teh Intra Web I keep reading
about, wherein you can do something called Google and your computational
device will spew information at you.
I mean, Hell, there's entire websites devoted to chronicling the
continuity of these characters.
Pardon the ramble. It's just frustrating. I'm sure you understand.
Glennsim
continuity, the writers act like the information was difficult for them
to have known. Because obviously people on Usenet know all the answers
to their questions. You could ask a question without giving away the
whole plot to the story.
Then the only mistakes you'd be left with are the ones where nobody
involved had any doubt (so they didn't ask), but are still wrong.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Had Meltzer wanted to sound this note, something along the lines of:
>>> "She told me she fought. I know she did, and while I knew it shouldn't
>>> matter, I took some comfort in that--at first." would have been far,
>>> far better. (But I don't even know if we can be sure he was going for
>>> something that subtle.)
>>
>> When are you going to make a pitch to DC so we can cowrite a book?
>
>If you have a time machine and can take us back to the 1960s or 1980s, I'm in.
No 70's? You don't want to write O.M.A.C., The Freedom Fighters or
Hercules Unbound??
Lurking Girl
>I find it interesting that when Usenet posters identify a problem with
>continuity, the writers act like the information was difficult for them
>to have known. Because obviously people on Usenet know all the answers
>to their questions. You could ask a question without giving away the
>whole plot to the story.
Two counterpoints:
1) Specifically mentioned were "websites", not "asking on Usenet". An
author could easily, with no one the wiser, check out the 5,235,473
comics continuity web sites available out there to know exactly how
many iterations of, e.g., Supergirl there have been and what the fate
of each was.
2) I might be going out on a limb here--I don't know what goes into
the negotiations for a writer who's about to start on a title, and how
much prep time they may have, and clearly if you've been told "You're
starting on Batman tomorrow, get crackin'" this may not be
possible--but speaking just for myself, if I were going to write a
character that I haven't invented, I would go out of my way to make
SURE I had the fullest possible understanding of that character. In
fact, for the shared-universe (amateur! non-published!) writing I'd
done in my wild youth, I _did_ do that. You don't have to obey it
all, but you should be aware of it and take it into account when
you're plotting your story(ies). To me, that shows a basic level of
respect for the character and and for your fellow creators.
Dario Delfino
Lurking Girl <to...@panix.com> wrote:
>"Glennsim" <glenns...@yahoo.com> dixit:
>>I find it interesting that when Usenet posters identify a problem with
>>continuity, the writers act like the information was difficult for them
>>to have known. Because obviously people on Usenet know all the answers
>>to their questions. You could ask a question without giving away the
>>whole plot to the story.
>
>Two counterpoints:
>
>1) Specifically mentioned were "websites", not "asking on Usenet". An
>author could easily, with no one the wiser, check out the 5,235,473
>comics continuity web sites available out there to know exactly how
>many iterations of, e.g., Supergirl there have been and what the fate
>of each was.
Ah, my little chickadee, but he does bring up the excellent point that if
a writer doesn't want to do the research, he can just ask on Usenet.
Sure, some would liken that to tossing a bloody chunk of meat in a shark
tank, but I think if a writer just politely said, "hey guys, help me out -
M.O.D.O.K. is still alive, right?" or something like that, I'm sure people
would be more than happy to help him out.
Then of course, the thread would degenerate into a flamewar over grammar,
but you know, whatever. :)
>
>2) I might be going out on a limb here--I don't know what goes into
>the negotiations for a writer who's about to start on a title, and how
>much prep time they may have, and clearly if you've been told "You're
>starting on Batman tomorrow, get crackin'" this may not be
>possible--but speaking just for myself, if I were going to write a
>character that I haven't invented, I would go out of my way to make
>SURE I had the fullest possible understanding of that character. In
>fact, for the shared-universe (amateur! non-published!) writing I'd
>done in my wild youth, I _did_ do that. You don't have to obey it
>all, but you should be aware of it and take it into account when
>you're plotting your story(ies). To me, that shows a basic level of
>respect for the character and and for your fellow creators.
>
>--
>Victoria Swann to...@panix.com LJ: syringavulgaris
> Mother America is brandishing her weapons / she keeps me
> safe and warm with threats and misconceptions
> -- Drivin'n'Cryin
I've often felt a writer has a specific responsibility to do this,
particularly when the character or concepts in question are older than he
is.
Lurking Girl
>On 2005-03-02 13:05:26 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>>
>> No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
>> my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
>> THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out.
>
>Why? The woman is still raped, either way, and *that's* the salient
>fact. There's no "better than" in rape unless it's focuse on the
>experience of the *victim*, somehow.
Yeah, I mean, if it happened to me, I think _I'd_ feel better knowing
that I'd scratched his eyes out or crushed a nut or something.
(Probably this gets back to it being a crime of power, as discussed
over ====> there. It gives a tiny bit of power back to the victim.)
But I'm not sure I'd appreciate nor accept input from the family and
friends, no.
>I do know that *some* men (especially college age and other 20
>somethings) respond to sexaul assaults on their
>wives/girlfriends/female friends with something *like* what Ralph says
>here, some approximation of the "I hope she fought/I hope she hurt the
>rapist" mentality and, in my experience, that response is so profoundly
>hurtful to those women that some have described it to me as a kind of
>"second attack".
Because let's say she fought and didn't manage to make a
mark...because everyone in her life thinking "well, gosh, she couldn't
even manage to scratch him" will constantly drive home just how
powerless she was. Bleh yick argh I wanna take a long shower just
_thinking_ about it.
George
> In article <2005030214552850073%geeluvss@netscapenet>,
> George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> But, no one edits anymore, particularly not mega-projects like IC; they
>> just track the printing schedules.
>>
>
> Oh, sure, you have to think about errors, but if you're an editor, than
> you should have enough information to hold your own, and you should
> have a computer with this bizarre thing called Teh Intra Web I keep
> reading about, wherein you can do something called Google and your
> computational device will spew information at you.
>
> I mean, Hell, there's entire websites devoted to chronicling the
> continuity of these characters.
>
> Pardon the ramble. It's just frustrating. I'm sure you understand.
I do.
But I hasten to say that I think editor's jobs are monumentally
difficult, regardless of the fact that they're reading "comic books".
Good editing is probably one of the single hardest things to do in any
field of endeavor, and it's made all the more difficult in mainstream
comics by all the things editors are asked to do these days that have
nothing to do with actually editing the work (promotion, marketing,
scheduling, production oversight, etc.).
While I love continuity more than many here--I think it's a useful
storytelling tool, when used well--the example of "bad editing" at
stake in this discussion isn't a continuity issue. Knowing that the
line "She told me she fought. I hope she fought." doesn't work--on any
number of levels--has nothing to do with continuity--and everything to
do with attention to craft and storytelling and theme, with a
willingness to take the time to make the author's work appear in its
absolutely best possible form. Today, for a variety of reasons, too
many editors can't/don't take the time to do that, and reduced to
traffic cops.
I respectfully submit that Mike Carlin *used* to be better than this.
And that an Archie Goodwin or a Karen Berger would *never* have let
that line go out as first written, even from the pen of a NY Times Best
Selling Author.
--
Peace,
George
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
>George <geel...@netscape.net> dixit:
>>On 2005-03-02 13:05:26 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>>>
>>> No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
>>> my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
>>> THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out.
>>
>>Why? The woman is still raped, either way, and *that's* the salient
>>fact. There's no "better than" in rape unless it's focuse on the
>>experience of the *victim*, somehow.
>
>Yeah, I mean, if it happened to me, I think _I'd_ feel better knowing
>that I'd scratched his eyes out or crushed a nut or something.
>(Probably this gets back to it being a crime of power, as discussed
>over ====> there. It gives a tiny bit of power back to the victim.)
>But I'm not sure I'd appreciate nor accept input from the family and
>friends, no.
Except Sue wasn't there when ralph said it.
>
>>I do know that *some* men (especially college age and other 20
>>somethings) respond to sexaul assaults on their
>>wives/girlfriends/female friends with something *like* what Ralph says
>>here, some approximation of the "I hope she fought/I hope she hurt the
>>rapist" mentality and, in my experience, that response is so profoundly
>>hurtful to those women that some have described it to me as a kind of
>>"second attack".
>
>Because let's say she fought and didn't manage to make a
>mark...because everyone in her life thinking "well, gosh, she couldn't
>even manage to scratch him" will constantly drive home just how
>powerless she was. Bleh yick argh I wanna take a long shower just
>_thinking_ about it.
I'd ditch those people if thats what they were thinking. And i
certainly wouldn't ask my wife "Did you fight?" But if she offered the
information and told me she ripped a piece of her ear off Id say "good
for you" and if she said she tried I'd "say thats all anyone can do"
and if she said she just laid there and waited for it to be over I'd
say "That was probably the best thing to do".
George
Not really. I'd take a crack at Swamp Thing, Kamandi, the JSA, or even
Batman or the JLA during that period, though. (And Legion, of course,
to save us all from the Conway era.) And I dare say I could have done a
sight better than putting the Teen Titans in the basement of a disco on
Long Island.
But what I'd really want to do in the 70s would be to direct.
--
Peace,
George
George
> George <geel...@netscape.net> dixit:
>> On 2005-03-02 13:05:26 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>>>
>>> No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
>>> my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
>>> THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out.
>>
>> Why? The woman is still raped, either way, and *that's* the salient
>> fact. There's no "better than" in rape unless it's focuse on the
>> experience of the *victim*, somehow.
>
> Yeah, I mean, if it happened to me, I think _I'd_ feel better knowing
> that I'd scratched his eyes out or crushed a nut or something.
Right--that's the victim's perspective, and if she takes some comfort
in having done so, that's an entirely different thing.
> (Probably this gets back to it being a crime of power, as discussed
> over ====> there. It gives a tiny bit of power back to the victim.)
> But I'm not sure I'd appreciate nor accept input from the family and
> friends, no.
>
>> I do know that *some* men (especially college age and other 20
>> somethings) respond to sexaul assaults on their
>> wives/girlfriends/female friends with something *like* what Ralph says
>> here, some approximation of the "I hope she fought/I hope she hurt the
>> rapist" mentality and, in my experience, that response is so profoundly
>> hurtful to those women that some have described it to me as a kind of
>> "second attack".
>
> Because let's say she fought and didn't manage to make a
> mark...because everyone in her life thinking "well, gosh, she couldn't
> even manage to scratch him" will constantly drive home just how
> powerless she was. Bleh yick argh I wanna take a long shower just
> _thinking_ about it.
Exactly. It's a line of thought that reinscribes some
evaluation--however well intended--of how *she* handled herself, which
in most cases can only serve to remind her of how utterly out of her
hands things were.
I *think* it's the intimate heinousness of the crime that makes some
men want to focus on harm done to the perpetrator during the course of
the attack--it's a way of going right past the trauma inflicted on a
woman they care for to some sense of justice extracted out of the body
of the perp--but that's so potentially dangerous, because it risks
erasing the victim as a full person who didn't deserve any of it,
regardless of what she did/did not do to the attacker before, during,
or after. It risks replacing the focus on the woman's body and the harm
done to her with the criminal's body and the revenge done to it. And
it's not the kind of thing most men say to--or think of--their male
friends who may have been, say, physically injured during a mugging:
"Well, at least I hope you made it tough for the bastard, cost him a
tooth or something."
As one woman said to me in response to having heard something like this
from the man in her life: "It really isn't about how *he* feels about
this." (The guy had kept asking her--gently, he thought--for more
details about the attack and what she did so that he could make more
sense of it to himself, rather missing the point that whether *he*
could make sense of it really shouldn't have been his primary concern.)
--
Peace,
George
George
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:02:53 +0000 (UTC), to...@panix.com (Lurking Girl)
> wrote:
>
>> George <geel...@netscape.net> dixit:
>>> On 2005-03-02 13:05:26 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> said:
>>>>
>>>> No. I disagree. I keep playing this scenario in my head as if it were
>>>> my wife. And objectively, Rapist With Eyes Scratched out IS BETTER
>>>> THAN Rapist Without Eyes Scratched Out.
>>>
>>> Why? The woman is still raped, either way, and *that's* the salient
>>> fact. There's no "better than" in rape unless it's focuse on the
>>> experience of the *victim*, somehow.
>>
>> Yeah, I mean, if it happened to me, I think _I'd_ feel better knowing
>> that I'd scratched his eyes out or crushed a nut or something.
>> (Probably this gets back to it being a crime of power, as discussed
>> over ====> there. It gives a tiny bit of power back to the victim.)
>> But I'm not sure I'd appreciate nor accept input from the family and
>> friends, no.
>
> Except Sue wasn't there when ralph said it.
Dinah was, and she's also a survivor of sexual assault.
In any case, it's not just problematic that he says this, it's more
basically problematic that he's thinking it, all this time after the
incident, that he's still assessing the incident to a large degree
based on whatever she did/did not do to Dr. Light.
>>
>>> I do know that *some* men (especially college age and other 20
>>> somethings) respond to sexaul assaults on their
>>> wives/girlfriends/female friends with something *like* what Ralph says
>>> here, some approximation of the "I hope she fought/I hope she hurt the
>>> rapist" mentality and, in my experience, that response is so profoundly
>>> hurtful to those women that some have described it to me as a kind of
>>> "second attack".
>>
>> Because let's say she fought and didn't manage to make a
>> mark...because everyone in her life thinking "well, gosh, she couldn't
>> even manage to scratch him" will constantly drive home just how
>> powerless she was. Bleh yick argh I wanna take a long shower just
>> _thinking_ about it.
>
> I'd ditch those people if thats what they were thinking. And i
> certainly wouldn't ask my wife "Did you fight?" But if she offered the
> information and told me she ripped a piece of her ear off Id say "good
> for you"
Why "good for you?" Can't you see the clear implication of that
phrase? It means: "Well done." And should a woman *not* have done
that, or feel (as is most often the case) that she didn't do "enough",
the converse message is clear: "Not well done enough". Either way, it's
a statement and response that focuses on the perp's experience, not on
the survivor's.
> and if she said she tried I'd "say thats all anyone can do"
> and if she said she just laid there and waited for it to be over I'd
> say "That was probably the best thing to do".
And both of these--trust me--often sound like value judgements to
survivors of sexual assault, and can remind them of their sense of
powerlessness in the situation. Many rape/sa counselors try to proceed
from a standpoint of: "Remember that you survived, remember that it's
over, and concentrate on what you need to do to feel safe and empowered
from here on out."
In Sue's case, she wasn't even given the option of deciding whether she
wanted to press charges. For some survivors *that* becomes the way they
feel they can "fight back" most effectively, so Ralph's hope rings a
little hollow, given that his friends took that option away from her,
something he doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned over. I have a
hard time understanding why Ralph or Sue had anything to do with those
JLAers, ever again. They responsed to a situation in which she had been
fundamentally robbed of her autonomy by...robbing her of her autonomy.
--
Peace,
George
George
> They responsed to a situation in which she had been fundamentally
> robbed of her autonomy by...robbing her of her autonomy.
Left something off of this line of thought---as this occured to me I
also realized that IC doesn't deal with the question *at all*--doesn't
even seem aware that it should be in play--because the real "horror" of
the fallout of the JLA's actions is that they (gasp!) mindwiped
*Batman* (Dear...Lord...not...*him*!).
Not that mindwiping Batman (or Dr. Light, or anyone) in the fashion
shown isn't a serious crime, but merely to point out that in this
aspect, too, Sue's experience gets shoved entirely to the side. It's
the big reveal to Wally and Kyle, after all. And, under a better
author, at least one of them might well have said, in issue 2: "Wait.
You did what? You decided that *for* Sue? How dare you?" (Mindwiping
Light of the incident removes any chance whatsoever of bringing him to
justice on that charge, should Sue have wanted to do so.) Interesting
that that Never. Comes. Up. But what was done to Batman--woah, now,
that's the major dealie.....
--
Peace,
George
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
Actually, George you forgot: 5. Aliens replaced my brain with a peyote
bloom encased in an 11th dimensional matrix of quantum energy that
allows me to generate reality altering waves by masturbating.*
*Grant Morrison interviews only.
(ok...a slight exaggeration...)
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
>
> I *think* it's the intimate heinousness of the crime that makes some
>men want to focus on harm done to the perpetrator during the course of
>the attack--it's a way of going right past the trauma inflicted on a
>woman they care for to some sense of justice extracted out of the body
>of the perp--but that's so potentially dangerous, because it risks
>erasing the victim as a full person who didn't deserve any of it,
>regardless of what she did/did not do to the attacker before, during,
>or after. It risks replacing the focus on the woman's body and the harm
>done to her with the criminal's body and the revenge done to it. And
>it's not the kind of thing most men say to--or think of--their male
>friends who may have been, say, physically injured during a mugging:
>"Well, at least I hope you made it tough for the bastard, cost him a
>tooth or something."
>
>As one woman said to me in response to having heard something like this
>from the man in her life: "It really isn't about how *he* feels about
>this." (The guy had kept asking her--gently, he thought--for more
>details about the attack and what she did so that he could make more
>sense of it to himself, rather missing the point that whether *he*
>could make sense of it really shouldn't have been his primary concern.)
Fair enough. Food for thought to be sure.