Wondar Woman#102 -SPOILERS
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Hi all,
: Well WW#102 came out and what can I say? I'm shocked.
I am too, Yuen, but not in the same way you are. I was actually
*pleasantly surprised* by the writing in this issue.
: First off the
: cover, is it just me or does the cover look like an ad for a *ahem* blow up
: doll that Bud Bundy would buy? I also have the feeling that there will be
: some controvesy about having WW in restraints, probably from people who didn't
: like the WW 'strip-tease' scene last ish.
Just carrying on that Bolland tradition, I guess. I can't remember the
last time I thought a Wonder Woman covered looked appropriate.
The art in general is still less than I'd hoped it would be.
: Byrne's story seems to be picking up, which is good. I'm not sure why
: Byrne would blow up Paradise Island though? Is this suspose to improve the
: WW mythos?
It's supposed to tie in to the Fourth World books, I think.
Is this sacrelige, to say what I'm going to say? Will my fellow Kirby
fanatics loathe me? Will Johanna ever speak to me again?
I LIKED IT. I actually LIKED this issue.
I thought Darkseid, DeSaad and Metron were all done pretty "true" to how
I've always understood them. I was just about to say to myself, "Rather
quick recovery, Diana," when Byrne had her slump back again. I could
pretty much *buy* Metron's tie-in of the New Gods and the Old Gods, even
as I smiled that it was pretty much not what Kirby had in mind. :) I
thought it was a cute twist.
Steven's still getting over what he considers the atrocious grammar of
"Out of that destruction was born two worlds..." "Shouldn't that be
'were' born two worlds, Elayne?" I hate when he asks me grammatically
based questions to which I should know the answer. "Well," I began, "it
would sound awkward. The sentence should probably read 'out of that
destruction two worlds were born,' but then Byrne loses the effect of
putting 'two worlds' at the end of the sentence for maximum impact.
'Sides, it's Metron, it's supposed to sound slightly off." I then
realized I, the consummate grammarian at Chez Chaput, had no friggin'
idea of what I spoke. :)
I have a headache...
But I did like the book. This issue convinced me to keep getting the
title, and just squint through the art...
- Elayne
--
"I am de Head of de Fireheads. I Head de Fireheads. I am de #~~
Firehead Head..." (E-Mail me for more information about the )#(
official Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal!) ( # )
^^^
Yuen
Well WW#102 came out and what can I say? I'm shocked. First off the
cover, is it just me or does the cover look like an ad for a *ahem* blow up
doll that Bud Bundy would buy? I also have the feeling that there will be
some controvesy about having WW in restraints, probably from people who didn't
like the WW 'strip-tease' scene last ish.
Byrne's story seems to be picking up, which is good. I'm not sure why
Byrne would blow up Paradise Island though? Is this suspose to improve the
WW mythos? Well anyway, I'll let other people comment on this month's issue.
Mr. YUEN \ ,--, \ U of MB CANADA - Comp Sci <umyu...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
) _ ___/ /\| ) http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umyuen22
/ ;( )__, ) /
( ; // '--; ( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Waiter! There's a bug in my soup
\ \ | \ -=-=-="Sorry sir, the chef was a computer programmer
snei...@speed.net
a real improvement over 101. At least now, she
doesn't look like a drag queen.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
umyu...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Yuen) writes:
> Hi all,
> Well WW#102 came out and what can I say? I'm shocked.
So am I. I actually liked an issue of WW. The last time that happened
was back in the early 80s when I was still a teen.
> doll that Bud Bundy would buy? I also have the feeling that there will be
> some controvesy about having WW in restraints,
BFD.
> Byrne's story seems to be picking up, which is good. I'm not sure why
> Byrne would blow up Paradise Island though? Is this suspose to improve the
> WW mythos? Well anyway, I'll let other people comment on this month's issue.
I 'll admit I read it very fast (4 minutes) on the bus , but I thought
it was quite entertaining. Nice pacing and action. A good build up as
well and a nice follow-up to Action #600.
One thing I don't understand (and maybe I'll reread the book) is why
exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman. What information did he
want from her ?
Abhijit
"If I were King of the World, the first thing I would do is to stop
British writers from writing superheroes. I am convinced none of them
know how to write superheroes. Look at Watchmen. " -- John Byrne
NICOLA
Did you notice that in the flashback of her meeting with Superman she
was using the same "Byne-uniform" she has now? Ain't that a retcon? Or just
laziness....
M.S.Nicola
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: cover, is it just me or does the cover look like an ad for a *ahem* blow up
: some controvesy about having WW in restraints, probably from people who didn't
: like the WW 'strip-tease' scene last ish.
Well, Byrne does seem to be burning his bridges ---- but then with the
Loebs storyline there prob'ly ain't much -else- he could do.
If you are going to object to WW in restraints, I wonder how you would
have reacted to the Marston stories?
HINT TO DARKSEID: Next time you get WW tied up, don't use DeSaad's
machine. You know now it ain't gonna work. Go down the hall and look up
Durand-Durand, and borrow his'n.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IHCOYC XPICTOC gust...@iglou.com
"Sumus autem nos omnes corporis et rebus subjecti Diabolo."
Yuen
:If you are going to object to WW in restraints, I wonder how you would
:have reacted to the Marston stories?
I don't object to WW in restraints, which I think is normal in comic
books ie star of book gets caught, tied up, blah. Heck Batman was recently
tied up twice in the same month in two different books.
I think Darkseid has a third plan, and that is to make WW look more
and more unattractive every issue, did you see next month's cover? :)
William S. Kartalopoulos
nic...@d0gs03.fnal.gov (NICOLA) writes:
I believe the official word is that Byrne's rendering does *not*
represent an official costume change, but is regarded merely as
artistic license.
--Bill.
Marc Singer
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>
>umyu...@cc.umanitoba.ca (Yuen) writes:
>
>> doll that Bud Bundy would buy? I also have the feeling that there will be
>> some controvesy about having WW in restraints,
>
>
>> Byrne's story seems to be picking up, which is good. I'm not sure why
>> Byrne would blow up Paradise Island though? Is this suspose to improve the
>> WW mythos? Well anyway, I'll let other people comment on this month's issue.
>
>I 'll admit I read it very fast (4 minutes) on the bus , but I thought
>it was quite entertaining. Nice pacing and action. A good build up as
>well and a nice follow-up to Action #600.
>
>One thing I don't understand (and maybe I'll reread the book) is why
>exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman. What information did he
>want from her ?
Well, if he didn't torture her, Byrne couldn't have put a bondage scene
on the cover.
Oh, I forgot, Abhijit doesn't care to think about that, so "BFD."
Three letters which do, I admit, perfectly capture my reaction to John
Byrne's Wonder Woman.
>"If I were King of the World, the first thing I would do is to stop
>British writers from writing superheroes. I am convinced none of them
>know how to write superheroes. Look at Watchmen. " -- John Byrne
And that does sum up Mr. Byrne rather nicely... :)
Marc
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: and more unattractive every issue, did you see next month's cover? :)
When you are fighting for your home and country, sometimes you don't have
time to put on your lipstick and makeup. . .
Nyteshde
>One thing I don't understand (and maybe I'll reread the book) is why
>exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman. What information did he
>want from her ?
<<Well, if he didn't torture her, Byrne couldn't have put a bondage scene
on the cover.>>
Unneccessary cheap shot, Marc.
He was trying to get her to tell him where the Olympian Gods were hanging
out. She, of course, didn't know, but he thought she did.
Nyx
Patman
> Did you notice that in the flashback of her meeting with Superman she
> was using the same "Byne-uniform" she has now? Ain't that a retcon? Or just
> laziness....
It's the past/present superposition of WW's memory. Byrne was tempted
to give Supes his pony-tail in that flashback scene too.
--
"Your momma's so fat, she stepped on a rainbow and made Skittles."
Pitcher-o-beer-winning Team Trivia Name, August 3, 1995
Marc Singer
Nyteshde <nyte...@aol.com> wrote:
>Marc Singer said:
>
>>One thing I don't understand (and maybe I'll reread the book) is why
>>exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman. What information did he
>>want from her ?
>
><<Well, if he didn't torture her, Byrne couldn't have put a bondage scene
>on the cover.>>
>
>Unneccessary cheap shot, Marc.
That was in response to the earlier comment by Abhijit, which you excised,
that he didn't care about the implications of the bondage scene on the
cover. Honestly, you anti-feminists have no sense of humor. ;-)
(Footnote for the humor-impaired: that last bit wasn't serious, either.)
Marc
Ray Randell
says...
>
>
> Did you notice that in the flashback of her meeting with
Superman she
> was using the same "Byne-uniform" she has now? Ain't that a
retcon? Or just
> laziness....
I've read that Byrne's version of Wonder Woman's uniform is just that:
his version. He says that she hasn't actually adopted a new uniform;
but that he's taken artistic liscence in drawing it. He says that other
artists are free to continue drawing her as she's always been drawn.
I'm quoting someone who quoted Byrne here so it might have been mangled
in the transition, but I find it a little annoying because, other than
the huge tiara (which he seems to be tuning down now) I LOVE his
refining of her uniform. I've long thought that Byrne has fine sense of
clothing design -- he's the only artist who seems to be able to dress
Lois Lane in anything that does't look like it came from Value-Village
-- and I love the modifications he's done to Wonder Woman's uniform
such as: finally giving her cool gauntlets instead of jewelry on her
forearms, refining the mess of sparkles into two stylized stars,
removing the strip of red above her WW chest-plate that only Perez
could ever seem to remember to draw with any consistancy, and
punching-up the look of the entire uniform by drawing black hightlights
(blacklights?) in both the red and blue areas. I think its great that
Byrne has been able to update her look while retaining the integrity of
the character design. He's proven that Wonder Woman can look like a
90's heroine without having to resort to butt-thongs or leather bras.
But if what Byrne says is true, then this is going to be limited to
only when he draws the character, because she's still wearing the same
old uniform; it just looks different when he draws it. This could
explain why in the flash-back in #102 Diana was still seen in the "new"
uniform.
Does this mean she is going to contine wearing the "old" uniform in
JLA? If Diana appears anywhere else will other artists have to choose
between the two looks? When Byrne leaves the title will she revert back
to the old outfit? What if there has to be a fill-in artist during
Byrne's run? Needless to say, this leap in visual logic is going to
drive fans nuts.
Interestingly, on the cover of the recent Wizard #48:"Women in Comics",
Jim Balent drew Wonder Woman with the new look, so hopefully it will
stick.
I prefer to think that since the flash-back scene was actually a dream
that Diana was having while unconscious then she simply visualized
herself experiencing past events while in her new uniform.
Otherwise I'm just going to end up really aggravated. Sheesh. I guess
only time will tell...
By the way, did anyone else notice the little cover preview on the
letters page? Diana looks fantastically NASTY! Talk about a Warrior
Woman! I thought it was a Bolland drawing for a minute. Looking forward
to #103...
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
> Nyteshde <nyte...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Marc Singer said:
> >
> >>One thing I don't understand (and maybe I'll reread the book) is why
> >>exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman. What information did he
> >>want from her ?
> >
> ><<Well, if he didn't torture her, Byrne couldn't have put a bondage scene
> >on the cover.>>
> >
> >Unneccessary cheap shot, Marc.
>
> That was in response to the earlier comment by Abhijit, which you excised,
> that he didn't care about the implications of the bondage scene on the
> cover.
Bondage Scene ? Hardly. All it showed was her contorted face. Doubtless
the trial of Galactus, which shows Reed in manacles throughout was a
bondage scene too ...
>Honestly, you anti-feminists have no sense of humor. ;-)
> (Footnote for the humor-impaired: that last bit wasn't serious, either.)
And particularly weak in this case. Nytheshde is female.
Marc Singer
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>
>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>>Honestly, you anti-feminists have no sense of humor. ;-)
>> (Footnote for the humor-impaired: that last bit wasn't serious, either.)
>
>And particularly weak in this case. Nytheshde is female.
You *don't* say, Abhijit. (Apparently, you need to reread the footnote.)
Marc
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: By the way, did anyone else notice the little cover preview on the
: letters page? Diana looks fantastically NASTY! Talk about a Warrior
: Woman! I thought it was a Bolland drawing for a minute. Looking forward
: to #103...
Someone else had commented about that one, too, in an uncomplimentary way.
AFAICS her facial expression is just exactly like Superman would appear
if he had been through the kind of day that WW was having. I too am
looking forward to seeing the rest of it.
Nyteshde
his version.>>
<snip>
<<I'm quoting someone who quoted Byrne here so it might have been mangled
in the transition,>>
I'm the someone who quoted him. Nope, no mangling, in fact, on AOL, I
commented that the flashback tends to "prove" that, and he responded with
"Bless you, Nyx!" and went on to say that his version seems to have become
canonical, but he never intended it to be.
<<and I love the modifications he's done to Wonder Woman's uniform such
as: finally giving her cool gauntlets instead of jewelry on her forearms,
refining the mess of sparkles into two stylized stars, removing the strip
of red above her WW chest-plate that only Perez could ever seem to
remember to draw with any consistancy, and punching-up the look of the
entire uniform by drawing black hightlights (blacklights?) in both the red
and blue areas.>>
Diana's bracelets aren't supposed to be cool gauntlets; they're basically
slave bracelets. But I do like John's version. ;)
By the way, Perez did those cool black highlights on the red and blue
areas too. Always liked that look.
<<If Diana appears anywhere else will other artists have to choose between
the two looks?>>
Basically. But the general opinion seems to go toward following in suit
with John anyway.
<<When Byrne leaves the title will she revert back to the old outfit? What
if there has to be a fill-in artist during Byrne's run? Needless to say,
this leap in visual logic is going to drive fans nuts.>>
It might, but I think fan can handle it as long as they know it's just
artistic license. :)
<<I prefer to think that since the flash-back scene was actually a dream
that Diana was having while unconscious then she simply visualized herself
experiencing past events while in her new uniform.>>
John also says that the only way DC would *let* him change the costume was
if he swore it was just artistic lisence, not a real change. It's safe to
assume it's not a new uniform.
<<By the way, did anyone else notice the little cover preview on the
letters page? Diana looks fantastically NASTY! Talk about a Warrior Woman!
I thought it was a Bolland drawing for a minute. Looking forward to
#103...>>
Bolland? Naah, Bolland could never draw such a masterful WW! GREAT
picture!
-Nyx
JSandsmark
>>Honestly, you anti-feminists have no sense of humor. ;-)
>> (Footnote for the humor-impaired: that last bit wasn't serious,
either.)
Marc,
Thanks for providing us with footnotes which point out when things you say
are supposed to be funny. This is a very useful tool. You see, I'm a
professional comedy writer, and even with this stellar background I found
no humor until you informed me it was there. Please continue this public
service. Thanks.
-- Joanna
Nyteshde
<<That was in response to the earlier comment by Abhijit, which you
excised,that he didn't care about the implications of the bondage scene on
the cover.>>
I took it out because it had nothing to do with anything. If I recall, all
he did was ask why Darkseid was torturing Diana, as he didn't know what DS
wanted to know. You responded with that by saying it was so John could
stick a "bondage scene" on the cover. It was uncalled for and came out of
nowhere.
<<Honestly, you anti-feminists have no sense of humor. ;-)>>
I have a fine sense of humor, when the joke is 1) funny and 2) not, like I
said, a cheap shot. That one was. I didn't say you were serious, I said it
was a cheap shot.
Nyx
Marc Singer
Nyteshde <nyte...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Unneccessary cheap shot, Marc.
>
><<That was in response to the earlier comment by Abhijit, which you
>excised,that he didn't care about the implications of the bondage scene on
>the cover.>>
>
>I took it out because it had nothing to do with anything. If I recall, all
>he did was ask why Darkseid was torturing Diana, as he didn't know what DS
>wanted to know. You responded with that by saying it was so John could
>stick a "bondage scene" on the cover. It was uncalled for and came out of
>nowhere.
That's not the comment you took out. You took out the comment where
Abhijit -- answering a person who said, "I wonder what all those people
who criticize WW for having bondage scenes will think of this cover" --
said, "BFD." In keeping, I might add, with his tendency to dismiss all
such objections to comics. So I dragged in the "bondage" angle he dismissed,
not believing it was bondage for a minute, to tweak that sensibility. It's
a sad world where shooting down other people's concerns (via an acronymic
profanity, no less) is honest expression, but then poking fun at that view
is a "cheap shot." Frankly, it's no cheaper than Abhijit lumping together
any ideas he doesn't agree with as a "big fucking deal." But then, I didn't
label such a comment as a cheap shot, did I, Nyx?
Marc
Marc Singer
>either.)
>
>Marc,
>
>Thanks for providing us with footnotes which point out when things you say
>are supposed to be funny. This is a very useful tool. You see, I'm a
>professional comedy writer, and even with this stellar background I found
>no humor until you informed me it was there. Please continue this public
>service. Thanks.
Joanna, I didn't say it was funny, I said it wasn't serious. But thanks
for encouraging me to keep footnoting: I apparently need to add some
explaining sarcasm, grammar, and rudimentary vocabulary as well. You might
also be interested in knowing that "professional" credentials don't count
for much in a group filled with professionals, and a group where *reading*
is essentially the profession (or hobby at a professional level of competence)
we all share. Frankly, if the above note is an example of professional
humor, I'll stick to reading amateurs.
Marc
ROBINSON, STEPHEN ER
>>Unneccessary cheap shot, Marc.
>
><<That was in response to the earlier comment by Abhijit, which you
>excised,that he didn't care about the implications of the bondage scene on
>the cover.>>
>
>I took it out because it had nothing to do with anything. If I recall, all
>he did was ask why Darkseid was torturing Diana, as he didn't know what DS
>wanted to know. You responded with that by saying it was so John could
>stick a "bondage scene" on the cover. It was uncalled for and came out of
>nowhere.
>
your average male). The cover isn't meant to arouse in the slightest.
And the torture scene inside was meant to mostly show that Diana
is one of the toughest around as opposed to sexually exciting lonely
adolescents. I can name dozens of other far worse, more blatantly
sexist scenes in mainstream comics.
As for the issue itself, I liked it a lot more than #101. I've
accepted that it's (at least this arc at least) is going to
be standard superhero fare with little deep characterization,
so I can say Byrne is at least doing that well. I don't like
the male sidekick and hope that Byrne either ditches him or
makes him more interesting in Diana's going to have a relationship
with him.
And as usual, Byrne delivered a good Darkseid.
Paradise Island exploding? Hmmm....it's been done.
I still want to have Diana's personality explored. Since Perez
left, she's been mostly reacting to various outside stimuli and
we haven't gotten anything else. Obviously she's changed and
matured, but let's see how.
Stephen
>.
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>
> That's not the comment you took out. You took out the comment where
> Abhijit -- answering a person who said, "I wonder what all those people
> who criticize WW for having bondage scenes will think of this cover" --
> said, "BFD." In keeping, I might add, with his tendency to dismiss all
> such objections to comics. So I dragged in the "bondage" angle he dismissed,
> not believing it was bondage for a minute, to tweak that sensibility.
Of course, your so-called humor would have had much more impact if you
had bothered to actually explain how the cover was a bondage scene. The
fact that you didn't and haven't leads me to believe you actually
haven't seen the cover in question.
> a sad world where shooting down other people's concerns (via an acronymic
> profanity, no less) is honest expression, but then poking fun at that view
> is a "cheap shot."
Read Yuen's followup. He wasn't concerned, he thinks restraint scenes
are normal in hero comics. Its an even sadder world when people comment
on comics they apparently haven't read.
> Frankly, it's no cheaper than Abhijit lumping together
> any ideas he doesn't agree with as a "big fucking deal." But then, I didn't
> label such a comment as a cheap shot, did I, Nyx?
Oh, you mean your sarcastic response wasn't a cheap shot. Give me a
break.
Honestly you hyper-left wing PC activists have no sense of humor :-).
For the footnote impaired thats a joke. [ And it just demonstrates how
unfunny it is to make an insulting comment, and then claim its a joke.]
Johanna Draper
>exactly Darkseid was torturing Wonder Woman.
So Byrne could reuse the art from Babe 2? <g>
Johanna
Marc Singer
<Abhiji...@transarc.com> wrote:
>
>
>ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>>
>> That's not the comment you took out. You took out the comment where
>> Abhijit -- answering a person who said, "I wonder what all those people
>> who criticize WW for having bondage scenes will think of this cover" --
>> said, "BFD." In keeping, I might add, with his tendency to dismiss all
>> such objections to comics. So I dragged in the "bondage" angle he dismissed,
>> not believing it was bondage for a minute, to tweak that sensibility.
>Of course, your so-called humor would have had much more impact if you
>had bothered to actually explain how the cover was a bondage scene. The
>fact that you didn't and haven't leads me to believe you actually
>haven't seen the cover in question.
I have indeed seen it; have you read the post you responded to? I'll be
charitable and assume that you assumed the underlined section applied to
you. In fact it applied to me (as "I" is the subject of the sentence), and
I never have believed the cover to be a bondage scene. So basically,
Abhijit, you need other people's posts as thoroughly footnoted as possible,
right?
>> a sad world where shooting down other people's concerns (via an acronymic
>> profanity, no less) is honest expression, but then poking fun at that view
>> is a "cheap shot."
>
>Read Yuen's followup. He wasn't concerned, he thinks restraint scenes
>are normal in hero comics. Its an even sadder world when people comment
>on comics they apparently haven't read.
And indeed, this too was apparent in the post you responded to. Really,
Abhijit, to talk about not reading a 22-page comic (which I have, I just
didn't buy the thing), when you can't even read a 22-line post.
>> Frankly, it's no cheaper than Abhijit lumping together
>> any ideas he doesn't agree with as a "big fucking deal." But then, I didn't
>> label such a comment as a cheap shot, did I, Nyx?
>
>Oh, you mean your sarcastic response wasn't a cheap shot. Give me a
>break.
If you're going to parade your views in your posts, and offhandedly shoot
down other people's, then you're inviting responses (and probably inviting
much more serious and heartfelt ones, but I doubt it would be worth it
anymore). That precludes them from being cheap shots -- or at least any
cheaper than the original comments.
>Honestly you hyper-left wing PC activists have no sense of humor :-).
Something that gets said all the time, which is why this time it was
reversed. Honestly, you rabid reactionary brownshirted etc. etc. But at
least your replies are so original. :-)
>For the footnote impaired thats a joke. [ And it just demonstrates how
>unfunny it is to make an insulting comment, and then claim its a joke.]
You write these things quite well, Abhijit (really); try putting a fraction
of that effort into reading them.
Marc
Abhiji...@transarc.com
ma...@wam.umd.edu (Marc Singer) writes:
>didn't buy the thing), when you can't even read a 22-line post.
I can read very well, thank you. I just think the contradictions in
your position need to be pointed out: your claim that others' concerns
were being shot down, when in fact there were no others, and your
two step dance "Its a bondage cover","Its not a bondage cover: I was
just joking". Its not my inability to read that's a problem. Its your
inability (in this case anyway) to muster a solid debating position.
> >Oh, you mean your sarcastic response wasn't a cheap shot. Give me a
> >break.
>
> If you're going to parade your views in your posts, and offhandedly shoot
> down other people's, then you're inviting responses (and probably
>inviting
What nonsense. I didn't parade any views: if I had, I wouldn't be shy
about defending them. My first reaction was aimed solely at anyone who
claims the cover is a bondage scene. To date no one has done so.
Consequently I haven't shot down any views except your so-called joke
about the cover. And quite frankly the only reason I responded at all
was because you were attributing a whole set of motives andresponses to
me that I haven't made. You into mind-reading or something ?
> anymore). That precludes them from being cheap shots -
Ya sure. Ha ha ha.
>
> Something that gets said all the time, which is why this time it was
> reversed.
And that makes it justifiable ? Horse manure. For the record I've never
said something like that before. In fact I don't even use the term PC
normally because its been corrupted by overuse.
fredrick b. chary
>said something like that before. In fact I don't even use the term PC
>normally because its been corrupted by overuse.
>
Hey, I have problems with IBM too, and certainly Windows 95 isn't helping
them gain my affection, but I'd hardly call the term PC "corrupt." :):) [1]
Mike, using fred's account.
[1] This has been a lame joke, brought to you by Lame Jokes, LTD.
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
>[1] This has been a lame joke, brought to you by Lame Jokes, LTD.
It's a good thing you footnoted it. :)
Is this enough to get me on the "list" of the Michael A. Chary ADL, or do I
have to be more insulting? I *gotta* get on that "list"! :)
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"Who said anything about panicking? This is still just the culture
shock. You wait until I've settled down into the situation and found
my bearings. Then I'll start panicking."
--Arthur Dent, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
LLL!
fredrick b. chary
>Previously on racd.u, Michael A. Chary wrote:
>
>>[1] This has been a lame joke, brought to you by Lame Jokes, LTD.
>
>It's a good thing you footnoted it. :)
>
>Is this enough to get me on the "list" of the Michael A. Chary ADL, or do I
>have to be more insulting? I *gotta* get on that "list"! :)
Me first. I think I have done more to give Michael Chary a bad name
than anyone lese.
Michael Chary, using Fred's account :)
TrishaDE
attacks. Every word, sentence, and interpretation there-of has been
dissected to death and the fun has been squeezed out of the discussion. I
don't think this is what "spoilers" was supposed to mean. Let's get back
on track; shift the focus away from ourselves and back to the book.
Please.
Trisha Mulvihill
Michael Taylor
>
> Did you notice that in the flashback of her meeting with Superman she
> was using the same "Byne-uniform" she has now? Ain't that a retcon? Or just
> laziness....
> M.S.Nicola
Maybe it's a statement that the costume is not physically different, but just a
different artistic interpretation of the old costume???
Michael Taylor
mich...@asymetrix.com
Johanna Draper
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Is this sacrelige, to say what I'm going to say? Will my fellow Kirby
>fanatics loathe me? Will Johanna ever speak to me again?
>I LIKED IT. I actually LIKED this issue.
You're entitled to like whatever you want, Elayne. Just like I'm entitled
not to like the New Gods. :)
>But I did like the book. This issue convinced me to keep getting the
>title, and just squint through the art...
Elayne, have you ever read the early issues of this title?
Johanna
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Elayne, have you ever read the early issues of this title?
Of Wonder Woman? What do you mean by "early issues" - like, Golden Age?
No, I must confess I really came into it with the never-to-be-topped
(IMHO) George Perez run. 'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only
been reading for about 10 years or so.
- Elayne
--
"I am de Head of de Fireheads. I Head de Fireheads. I am de #~~
Firehead Head..." (E-Mail me for more information about the )#(
official Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal!) ( # )
^^^
JSandsmark
<<Joanna, I didn't say it was funny, I said it wasn't serious.>>
I thought when you said "Footnote for the humor-impaired" it meant there
was something funny coming. My mistake.
<<But thanks for encouraging me to keep footnoting: I apparently need to
add some explaining sarcasm, grammar, and rudimentary vocabulary as well.
You might also be interested in knowing that "professional" credentials
don't count for much in a group filled with professionals, and a group
where *reading* is essentially the profession (or hobby at a professional
level of competence) we all share. Frankly, if the above note is an
example of professional humor, I'll stick to reading amateurs.>>
Truth is, I've been meaning to apologize for my rash remark. I was not in
the best of moods when I posted and for my lashing out you have my
sincerest regrets. I can't say I agree with the original posts or the
manner in which you have responded to others, but that is certainly your
right. I cannot, however, accept this sort of thing in myself. And I
never meant to imply that I wasn't speaking to other professionals -- I
know better than that. I was merely stating my own specialty as it
applied to the discussion.
Again, I apologize for any pain I caused you.
Oh, and don't worry, I doubt you'd watch the shows I write for, so you're
pretty safe from my humor!
-- Joanna
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Perez is what I was referring to, actually. I was attempting to correlate
: those who really liked Perez with those who aren't reading Byrne. However,
: it looks like it's more "people who read Wonder Woman are generally
: accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
Hmm. It's an interesting theory, I'll grant you, but I don't think it
holds up. Nobody was more psyched than I was when Bill Loebs took over
WW after the departure of Perez. I *loved* Loebs' work on FLASH and
especially on DR. FATE (picking up from what I considered a *very*
excellent run by Marc DeMatteis). But as soon as he got to the "Babes in
Bondage in Space" story (and no matter how many ways to Sunday this was
attempted to be described as a "feminist" tale, it was still Babes in
Bondage in Space to me), I was outta there. It became clear that either
Loebs had lost what had attracted me to his work (possible, considering I
wasn't that thrilled with his run on HAWKMAN either) or he was receiving
inordinate pressure from above to slant the stories in a certain
direction (very likely, from the way I understand these things to work).
When Byrne announced he was taking over, and when I found out Paul
Kupperberg would be his editor, it seemed as though the balance of power
re: the storylines would once again tip towards the writer (I like Paul,
but he's never struck me as a particularly strong editor). When Byrne
*did* take over and make a storyline set on Apokalips his first priority,
I cheered. I'm still not happy with the art, but I'm a die-hard Kirby
fan, and this was a lot of fun for me to read.
Once the Darkseid storyline is over, I'll re-evaluate this title again in
terms of my interest in it. If the stories keep grabbing me, I'm
staying; I can sooner tolerate good stories with art I don't like than
bad stories with even spectacular art.
I have no idea how you would categorize me now. :)
Johanna Draper
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Johanna Draper (dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: Elayne, have you ever read the early issues of this title?
>
>Of Wonder Woman? What do you mean by "early issues" - like, Golden Age?
>No, I must confess I really came into it with the never-to-be-topped
>(IMHO) George Perez run.
Perez is what I was referring to, actually. I was attempting to correlate
those who really liked Perez with those who aren't reading Byrne. However,
it looks like it's more "people who read Wonder Woman are generally
accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
>'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only been reading for about 10
>years or so.
That's longer than I have, this go round.
Johanna
Johanna Draper
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Johanna Draper (dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
>
>his work (possible, considering I wasn't that thrilled with his run on
>HAWKMAN either) or he was receiving inordinate pressure from above to
>slant the stories in a certain direction (very likely, from the way I
>understand these things to work).
See the word "decent" up there? Decent doesn't include work that's
interfered with by editors, for whatever reasons (different visions,
changeovers, etc.).
>I'm still not happy with the art, but I'm a die-hard Kirby
>fan, and this was a lot of fun for me to read.
I think that may explain a lot of it. I have little interest in or
familiarity with the whole Fourth World thing, so I don't have that
balancing factor against what I see as flaws in the book.
>I can sooner tolerate good stories with art I don't like than
>bad stories with even spectacular art.
Definitely.
>I have no idea how you would categorize me now. :)
You? You're uncategorizable, Elayne. :)
Johanna
Patman
>
>In a previous article, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) says:
>>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only been reading for about 10
>>>years or so.
>>
>>That's longer than I have, this go round.
>
Think of it this way: You can now drink a brewsky while you're
reading comics.
--
"Your momma's so fat, she stepped on a rainbow and made Skittles."
Pitcher-o-beer-winning Team Trivia Name, August 3, 1995
Marilee Stephens
: In a previous article, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) says:
: >Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >>'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only been reading for about 10
: >>years or so.
: >
: >That's longer than I have, this go round.
: Suddenly I feel very old. (22 years and counting)
*You* feel old... I just realize I've been reading these books longer than
any of you 'net regulars (24-25 years...). If you're old... I'm
ancient... (just don't tell anybody... :) :) ;)).
Marilee
Michael A. Chary
In a previous article, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) says:
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only been reading for about 10
>>years or so.
>
>That's longer than I have, this go round.
Suddenly I feel very old. (22 years and counting)
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, Dogbert's New Ruling Class
http://www.teleport.com/~knauer/mchary/
"There's a book called "The Vegetarian Dog and Cat." Take it, and *throw it
away!* *HELLO!* Dogs are carnivores! DUH!" - fx, Breakfast in the Morning
fredrick b. chary
>: >Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >>'Member, I'm a relative comics newbie, only been reading for about 10
>: >>years or so.
>: >
>: >That's longer than I have, this go round.
>
>: Suddenly I feel very old. (22 years and counting)
>
>any of you 'net regulars (24-25 years...). If you're old... I'm
I'm more like a big or a long, actually :)
>ancient... (just don't tell anybody... :) :) ;)).
Since tyg's not here, I'll guess he's been reading comics for around 3o years or so.
Roger Tang has been reading for a while as well.
The oldest per son whose age I know who posts is Tom Peyer who's been reading
since the early 60's.
Mike.
David H
fredrick b. chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>The oldest per son whose age I know who posts is Tom Peyer who's been reading
>since the early 60's.
I bought my first comic book in 1962. My paper route ended downtown
and I'd go in the bookstore and get two comics off the rack, go
to the drugstore and get a chocolate malted and read the books.
Of course if I still had any of those ...
later, david
--
David Hawkins dh...@netcom.com
"You've just killed a small animal. It's time for a light beer."
-- Robin Williams
Mark Bernstein
: Perez is what I was referring to, actually. I was attempting to correlate
: those who really liked Perez with those who aren't reading Byrne. However,
: accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
If so, I'm an exception. I ignored WW for years, started picking it up
with the Perez run, dropped it soon after Perez left completely, and
just started buying again with #101. Perez' early issues are still
far above anything else I've seen, but I enjoy Byrne's work. I can't
even compare the two, they're so different.
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
JSandsmark
: Perez is what I was referring to, actually. I was attempting to
correlate
: those who really liked Perez with those who aren't reading Byrne.
However,
: it looks like it's more "people who read Wonder Woman are generally
: accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
Just because you don't like it, Johanna, doesn't mean those who do have
lost their standards. Please, you make it sound like the work is
acceptable only to automatons. It is possible some people have found
things in this work that while different from Perez, has merit on its own
and isn't a mere, dismissive "decent."
I understand and support your right to dislike it. Please try to afford
me the same courtesy. :) <--- I hate drawing smiley faces, but by golly
what's a girl to do? I like you too much not to smile!
-- Joanna
JSandsmark
<<I see John Byrne's version of Wonder Woman as a refreshing change from
<<the pathetic imitation that Loebs was creating. I managed to keep
<<buying the book (even tho he had her working at a taco joint and
<<working for a detective). However, when he decided to change the
<<Amazon history with that revolting wedding scene, I threw a fit. I
<<wrote a long letter to the book, never expecting (and never getting) it
to <<be printed. I did begin to notice that all of the letters on the
letter <<pages praised Loebs and the thong artist. I can't remember a
single <<letter saying that the story was wrong and that it was bad.
However, <<anyone that I talked to ridiculed the book. I just thought
(and still <<think) that it was odd that I would read other letters in
other books <<that didn't always praise the artist or the author while in
Wonder <<Woman, no one (other than me, of course) thought the story
sucked.>>
I wrote letters too. Some got printed early on (in issue #90 I take the
team to task for changing her personality. to me that was the beginning
of the end). And I had a couple printed after that, but when the books
really started to nosedive (and on issue zero which I screwered everyone)
well, no more letters printed. Then I stopped writing because I was tired
of carping. One problem could be the length of the letters, if they were
too long. But I will ask Paul Kupperberg about this next Tuesday if you'd
like. He often shows up on AOL for the Wonder Woman hour.
<<I don't really expect anyone to respond to this.>>
But that's the fun part!
<<It has become obvious that many people actually liked the stupid things
<<that Loebs did to the story. I just hope that Byrne forgets about the
<<wedding thing and that horrible retelling of the original Wonder Woman
<<contest (that stupid mask thing, and, no, I don't care if it was in the
<<70's version of her, that one was eliminated because it was too far
<<fetched; I mean, really, after living together on an island for 2000
<<years, do you honestly think that the other Amazons wouldn't know the
<<stranger who suddenly appeared would be the only Amazon not in
<<attendence?). I just wanted to vent a little.>>
John Byrne is, for the most part, ignoring all the wacked out continuity
that Loebs introduced and going strictly by Perez. He's keeping Loebs
stuff that didn't conflict, but on almost all other points, it's Perez.
So no wedding, no mask, no Diana Trevor's unborn child gave us Diana (it's
back to Hippolyte's unborn cavewoman child now, thank goodness). He is
doing his best to straighten out the morass of continuity and make it
whole again.
-- Joanna
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: John Byrne is, for the most part, ignoring all the wacked out continuity
: that Loebs introduced and going strictly by Perez. He's keeping Loebs
: stuff that didn't conflict, but on almost all other points, it's Perez.
: So no wedding, no mask, no Diana Trevor's unborn child gave us Diana (it's
: back to Hippolyte's unborn cavewoman child now, thank goodness). He is
: doing his best to straighten out the morass of continuity and make it
: whole again.
This is the best news on this title that I've heard so far. I'm
delighted that Byrne also (apparently) sees the Perez version as the
definitive one, as I do. This kind of revelation will actually keep me
buying the book, even when the art is less than pleasing to my eye. As
I've said in other threads, I'm much likelier to pick up a book whose
writing I like and whose art I don't find to my tastes, than I am to get
a book with wonderful art and (IMHO) lousy writing.
Johanna Draper
>: accepting, so they'll read anyone who's decent." :)
>
>Just because you don't like it, Johanna, doesn't mean those who do have
>lost their standards.
The reason I used the word "decent", Joanna, is because it's flexible
enough to include anything anyone wants to include. I was specifically
*not* making a value judgment, and I have no idea where you got the idea
that I was insulting you or anyone else.
Johanna
JSandsmark
<<The reason I used the word "decent", Joanna, is because it's flexible
<<enough to include anything anyone wants to include. I was specifically
<<*not* making a value judgment, and I have no idea where you got the
<<idea that I was insulting you or anyone else. >>
Okee doke, sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were using it in the way
folks sometimes say "the food was decent" which implies edible and not
terrible, but far from worthy of praise. You weren't. So never mind.
-- Joanna
Brenda Vieths
me out there. It seemed like I was the only one in the whole internet
that couldn't stand the changes Loebs did. And please, do ask Paul about
this. And just one more thing. My younger brother collected all of the
War of the Gods miniseries and he told me that Circe died in there.
Apparently Chronos sucked the energy right out of her. Hectate then
vaporized her. He said that there was no way she could have lived. And
yet, there she was in the pages of Wonder Woman. I'm curious how she
managed to come back to life since no one even mentioned her death after
she came back. Just thought I'd ask.
Thank you again.
-
BRENDA VIETHS SXB...@prodigy.com