Whither the average reader? (was Re: Artistic expression and popular demand)
Mike Chary
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>when that audience says "Hey buddy! This is what will please us!"
>>why in God's name shouldn't they listen to that?
>
>As soon as someone says "this is what I want", they're no longer part
>of the main audience. Because they've paid enough attention to figure
>out where and how and to whom to say that, which is more information
>than most comic buyers have or want.
I, personally, am starting to think that "the average comic" reader is
some mythical construct much as "the street" in discussions on
rec.martial-arts.
In any case, how much information can a reader have and still be average?
I think that one can know which titles one likes and still be an average
reader. I would like to think one could read the lettercol and still be
an average reader. And even the credit box.
Now, of course, based on sales figures, the average reader might be one
who has gotten sick of comics and quit reading. (I might fall into that
last category myself, not having read a new comic in a month or so.)
As to companies having relationships with their readers: DC and Marvel
are big corporations. Like all big corporations, they really want our
commerce, not our opinions.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"You've got some nerve calling yourself blind." - Louis DePalma
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now, I
have the South fight the Klingons." -- David Spensely
William Sudderth
In article <67s2nl$44v$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>, ma...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>As soon as someone says "this is what I want", they're no longer part
>>of the main audience. Because they've paid enough attention to figure
>>out where and how and to whom to say that, which is more information
>>than most comic buyers have or want.
>
>
>I, personally, am starting to think that "the average comic" reader is
>some mythical construct much as "the street" in discussions on
>rec.martial-arts.
Aside to Chary from a practicing aikidoka: THANK YOU.
>In any case, how much information can a reader have and still be average?
>
>I think that one can know which titles one likes and still be an average
>reader. I would like to think one could read the lettercol and still be
>an average reader. And even the credit box.
>
>Now, of course, based on sales figures, the average reader might be one
>who has gotten sick of comics and quit reading. (I might fall into that
>last category myself, not having read a new comic in a month or so.)
>
>As to companies having relationships with their readers: DC and Marvel
>are big corporations. Like all big corporations, they really want our
>commerce, not our opinions.
Well, geez, maybe I'm reading too much into Johanna's statement, but if I
were an active comics creator I'd seriously consider chucking the
profession and finding a different artistic niche upon reading it. If an
"average reader" is one who doesn't understand what the Letters to the
Editor section is all about, or can't figure out that he/she likes Artist
A better than Artist B, and this "average reader" is the MAIN AUDIENCE...
...than any interest I would have in creative storytelling within the
constraints of my selected genre would be strongly tempered by the
company's low expectations of the target demographic.
I'm probably overinflating things here, but my interest in comics (and in
the superhero genre) has always been helped by the fact that, when done
well, the stories can work on different levels. Flash and bang for the
kids, attention to detail and creativity for older readers. An animation
analogy: the success of Warner Bros.' modern cartoons such as TINY TOON
ADVENTURES, ANIMANIACS, BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, or Disney's ALADDIN
and THE LION KING.
Obviously too much catering to "fannishness" or "continuity" drives away
that younger, less sophisticated audience. But too much fear of
intelligent, creative, dare-I-even-suggest challenging storytelling drives
away the rest of the audience. And, as has been repeated many times on
this newsgroup, comics are so expensive, and the casual buyer's tastes so
fickle (particularly with so much competition for the entertainment
dollar), that I see little to be gained in pursuing the "average reader"
at the expense of the "sophisticated reader."
And I have never been convinced that you can't get both. Maybe I've put
too much faith in UNDERSTANDING COMICS.
Will
--
William Sudderth <*>
Greensboro, NC
Wandering aimlessly with a liberal-arts Master's degree....
JohannaLD
From: wsud...@nr.infi.net (William Sudderth)
>If an "average reader" is one who doesn't understand what the Letters
>to the Editor section is all about,
Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
>or can't figure out that he/she likes Artist A better than Artist B,
Most can't figure out why. They like Artist A because he's hot (as in
Liefeld) or she's hot (as in Fauve). (Sorry, that's a little joke.)
>and this "average reader" is the MAIN AUDIENCE...
Most comic readers read X-Men or Superman or Spawn and little else,
going from sales numbers. Those are the successes.
Johanna
Andrew Black
On 24 Dec 1997 22:35:33 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
Chary) wrote:
[major snippage]
>Now, of course, based on sales figures, the average reader might be one
>who has gotten sick of comics and quit reading. (I might fall into that
>last category myself, not having read a new comic in a month or so.)
>As to companies having relationships with their readers: DC and Marvel
>are big corporations. Like all big corporations, they really want our
>commerce, not our opinions.
If I were a shareholder of a company that was losing 10%+ of its
market per annum I, for one, would be pretty keen to see that said
company made every effort to identify, attract and keep customers to
my product.
The posts made both here and in RACDU suggest that there has been
little systematic sampling of exactly whom the 'average' customer
might be (although there have several posters happy to tell us that
whover that mythical custmomer is, we're not it :)) and what would
cause said customer to purchase and keep on purchasing books at such a
rate as to pull the mainstream indiustry out of the slump that it's in
(and indirectly help to sales to smaller companies by widening the
ready-made audience for their books).
Unlike the pre-Direct Market days of the industry, where sales were
pretty much the all-determining factor in telling TPTB whether a book
was successful or not, I would have though that it would be far easier
to survey fans as they are now mostly cornered in one place at the
same time.
The recent success (relatively speaking) of JLA, for example. Is it
due to:
a) The return of the Big Seven?
b) Grant Morrison's writing?
c) Howard Porter's art?
d) all of the above?
e) none of the above?
Being the fan of Grant Morrison that I am. I'd be hoping that it was
mostly b), but in all likelihood I would think that it's a big batch
of a) with parts of b) and c) mixed in (deduced from the fact that JLA
has has held its numbers and even increased them a smidge in a market
that generally trending down. The problem is that without doing
conclusive surveys, DC must assume d), so that Morrison's & Porter's
stars are on the rise, *even if* a chimp with a typewriter doing the
big 7 could achieve similar numbers!
The ability for DC and Marvel to deduce how to bring in non-comic
readers or those who have given them up many years ago is a far more
nebulous prospect, but it is incumbent upon them to ensure that as
many people who are currently reading (or have recently dropped out
of) comics. The cost of one or two comics per surveyed individual
would be a fairly small price to pay if it could bring in more
readership.
Cheers,
Andrew Black abl...@melbpc.org.au
--
P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
familiar enough with them to pick the swipes??
Carl Henderson
>P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
>books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
>familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing than
yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post (I've been guilty of of the
comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
But the anecdote raises some questions?
1) Is it true?
2) If so, what's wrong with that? Where is the line drawn between a swipe and
a reference? Alex Ross uses tons of photo references in his art; many other
well-known artists do the same. Is the line drawn at the source of the
picture? Between a picture and another artists work?
3) Is the difference between a swipes, reference, and a homage a function of a
artist's popularity and repuation?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson "All books are holy books"
carl.he...@airmail.net Tome of Esoteric Grafitti
POEE, Craig Shergold Cabal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Carl Henderson (carl.he...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
: >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
: >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
: Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing than
: yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post...
And yet, if he does, this doesn't explain why Selina's breasts look so
unnatural. Actual breasts don't have that shape, even silicon-enhanced
ones, so if he's referencing porn he's doing it badly.
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Steve Lieber
In article
<8AECFF37BC66E03C.24C30228...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson) wrote:
> 2) If so, what's wrong with that? Where is the line drawn between a swipe and
> a reference? Alex Ross uses tons of photo references in his art; many other
> well-known artists do the same. Is the line drawn at the source of the
> picture? Between a picture and another artists work?
> 3) Is the difference between a swipes, reference, and a homage a function
of a
> artist's popularity and repuation?
For me an homage is something that would've taken less work to draw from
scratch, or is so wonderfully transformed by it's new context that it
becomes a new thing.
For the former, I'd point to a panel at the beginning of a chapter of Jaime
Hernandez's "Bob Richardson." There's a shot of a dog hunkering down
underneath part of a big abandoned machine, trying to keep out of the rain.
If you look closely, you'll notice that the machine is the same one Steve
Ditko drew in a well remembered Spiderman story, wherin Spidey is trapped
under the machine and has to lift it off of himself to save Aunt May. Jaime
certainly didn't need to dig out an old Ditko comic to figure out how to
draw a random piece of unidentifiable machinery. Walt Simonson in his Thor
run did an homage to the same Spiderman story, using a frog trying to lift
Thor's hammer. The idea- "hero, filling up ever-larger thought balloons,
struggles for several pages to lift heavy object," is the same. The effect
is vey different, and a love for the original idea is evident in the
execution.
The difference between a swipe and a reference or a photo-reference (that
the artist didn't photograph himself) is the difference between calling
someone a hack and calling him a journeyman. Do you want to flatter the
subject or trash him? Part of it is your attitude towards the artist, but I
think a bigger part of it is how good a job you think the artist did of
changing and/or integrating the source material into the completed work.
(Note- by photo reference, I'm referring to using photos to trace or
closely copy, not for basic info like, "how many buttons on a milkman's
shirt in 1950?" or "how long is the barrel on a luger?" Using photos for
this stuff is generally regarded as the height of virte.)
The question also turns on what you think constitutes the completed work.
Is it a swipe to use a room design from a painting and put a comics story
in that room? The artist might never show the room from the same angle as
the source material, but the furnishings and architechture would have
originated elsewhere. If Mike Kaluta draws a woman in a dress that only
ever existed on an Erte statue, can we say that the picture he's drawing
contains a swipe? How about if the dress actually existed? Would that be
any different from drawing a soldier's uniform accurately? Would the
dress's designer be justified in feeling swiped from?
To muddy the waters further, I'll add one more to your list of possible
sins- sampling. I sampled another artist's work in a panel of my Two-Fisted
Science story. Has anyone spotted this by the way? I'd be very interested
to hear arguments for or against the use in this instance. It was something
that took me a lot longer than it would've to pull out of my head, and I
think the effect that was created justifies the sample, but I'm willing to
be trashed in public if anyone wants to argue that it's theft.
Lieber
Asking For Trouble
(And Swiping Martha's Approach To Signatures)
--
Pathetic beginnings of a web page at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/slieber/
Kevin J. Maroney
On 27 Dec 1997 13:24:20 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>And yet, if he does, this doesn't explain why Selina's breasts look so
>unnatural. Actual breasts don't have that shape, even silicon-enhanced
>ones, so if he's referencing porn he's doing it badly.
He's probably using skin magazines for reference and then building on
the reference in ways that he prefers.
I have nothing against artists using pictures of naked people of any
gender for artistic reference--it's a good way to start from (usually)
credible anatomy, if that's what you want, without the distraction of
clothing. One of my best friends did a lot of work from a two-volume
Muybridge he kept checked out of the library whenever possible.
However, problems start emerging when an artist limits him/herself to
one *type* of artistic reference. Mark Beachum, to name a
disappointing example, seems to be working exclusively from skin
magazines these days; all of the shots of Vampirella in the
_Vampirella/Dracula_ one-shot* have her posed like a skin
model--arched back, etc.. This approach was vaguely appropriate for
the story, which is very much about Vampirella as a lust-object, but
it got tiring. For a series like _Catwoman_, which is ostensibly about
a super-person doing super-persony things, an excessive reliance upon
skin magazines is going to show through and weigh down the title.
And, as alluded to above, there's a fairly narrow range of body-types
available in standard skin magazines. I doubt seriously that Jim
Balent's reference library is liberally dosed with _Plumpers_ or
_Dimensions_...
*Not that I *need* to defend myself for buying _V/D_, but it *does*
have stories by Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, and James Robinson. The
Ellis story would have been pretty good with better art; the other two
were okay.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
ale...@juno.com
Carl Henderson wrote:
>
> In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au (Andrew Black) wrote:
>
> >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
> >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
> >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
>
> Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing
>of of the comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
>
> But the anecdote raises some questions?
>
> 1) Is it true?
Hell, yeah. You got eyes,don't cha? It certainly explains why CatWoman
is often in poses that would be lewd/rude/crude if she wasn't painted
purple.
> 2) If so, what's wrong with that?
Well,it certainly gives one insight into the artist's mental landscape
if the only photo-reference for women he uses is porn. And commercial
porn, at that.
> 3) Is the difference between a swipes, reference, and a homage a
>function of a artist's popularity and repuation?
A homage is deliberately done and is considered a professional "tip of
the hat". Affection and respect are often the reasons behind it. A swipe
is also deliberately done, but laziness, deadline pressures, or
inability to actually draw is more often the motivation.
Frankly, Balent draws some damn weird-shaped women. Cat Woman's breasts
look like she's smuggling sofa cushions. She has to be at least a 50 EE
cup. When a woman has breasts that size, doing *anything* acrobatic is
close to impossible. She'd be constantly straining her lower back. And
her hips certainly don't counter balance that amorphous mass that passes
for her bust. And that skin-tight off-purple jumpsuit is just plain
ugly-insulting. Although that's not as bad as the drawing of Purgatori I
saw where Balent had her leg apparently growing out of her chest. It
leaves one to wonder whether he's familiar with 3-dimensional
nekkid women.
Which leaves me to wonder--how come the male superheroes are never
sexualized as blatantly as the female characters? Let's see the
JLA, X-Men, and Legion rosters drawn from,say, BlueBoy, ManHole, and
Inches, and see how the fanboys like it for a change.
Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
superheroes without thinking twice.
Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
homo-erotic content in superheroes. (After years of DC being humorless
about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
it, you humorless proles".
alecto
Gabe DeLang
> alecto wrote
> Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
> males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
> sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
> have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
> superheroes without thinking twice.
Huh?!? You're pretty quick to speak for a whole lot of people aren't
you?
>
> Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
> of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
> said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
> safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
> Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
> homo-erotic content in superheroes. (After years of DC being humorless
> about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
> turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
> Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
> fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
> it, you humorless proles".
"blatant homo-erotic content in superheroes"?!?! It get's me everytime
some one says that. Batman and Robin have more "blatant" father/son or
teacher/apprentice content than homo-erotic content. I can't remember
ever having read any Batman comic anywhere where the relationship
between Batman and Robin was portrayed in any way as gay. Maybe you see
some similarities between their relationship and a gay relationship.
Fine. That doesn't mean it was the writers intent. And to say that using
a gay director for the Batman movies is openly admitting Batman and
Robin are gay is just silly. If you looked hard enough you could find
"gay similarities" between any two guy friends.Does that mean that any
movie he does has to be a "gay" movie? You're just another example of
someone looking way too deep into the comic book medium. Come down to
Earth.
-Gabe DeLang
http://www.teleport.com/~delang/comlink1.htm
Brandon Blatcher
>Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
>males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
>sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
>have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
>superheroes without thinking twice.
As opposed to some women "identifyin" with the "perfectly porportioned"
herione of the cover of many romance books?
>Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
>of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
>said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
>safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
>Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
>homo-erotic content in superheroes.
Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
(After years of DC being humorless
>about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>it, you humorless proles".
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Brandon
has never seen a homo erotic cigar
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
Jon Clark
>
>"blatant homo-erotic content in superheroes"?!?! It get's me everytime
>some one says that. Batman and Robin have more "blatant" father/son or
>teacher/apprentice content than homo-erotic content. I can't remember
>ever having read any Batman comic anywhere where the relationship
>between Batman and Robin was portrayed in any way as gay. Maybe you see
>some similarities between their relationship and a gay relationship.
>Fine. That doesn't mean it was the writers intent. And to say that using
>a gay director for the Batman movies is openly admitting Batman and
>Robin are gay is just silly. If you looked hard enough you could find
>"gay similarities" between any two guy friends.Does that mean that any
>movie he does has to be a "gay" movie? You're just another example of
>someone looking way too deep into the comic book medium. Come down to
>Earth.
>
>-Gabe DeLang
This (I think) was meant as a reference to Seduction of the Innocent- a book
which attacked comics in the 1950's. One of the books claims was that Batman
and Robin were obvious homsexuals (remember the writer also believed that since
some criminals read comics- that meant comics caused crime). This claim became
a running gag for years afterward (either intentionally in a spoof or
unintentionally when somebody went on an anti-comic campaign). Look at the
Ambiguously Gay Duo- an obvious spoof of the old Batman series.
While no one who actually reads Batman would ever assume there was anythinng
improper between Bruce and any of the Robins, the general public doesn't
necessarily share that view. There are some who wonder why a single man would
want to care for underaged boys? According to Seduction of the Innocent- it
was because Bruce was a pervert.
An argument could be made that with that in the back of some people's minds the
choice of director on the Bat-films does seem ironic.
Tom Vincent
In article
<8AECFF37BC66E03C.24C30228...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson) wrote:
>In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
(Andrew Black) wrote:
>
>>P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
>>books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
>>familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
>
>Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing than
>yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post (I've been guilty of of the
>comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
>
>But the anecdote raises some questions?
>
>1) Is it true?
Kinda looks like it.
>
>2) If so, what's wrong with that? Where is the line drawn between a swipe and
>a reference? Alex Ross uses tons of photo references in his art; many other
>well-known artists do the same. Is the line drawn at the source of the
>picture? Between a picture and another artists work?
I use photo refrence all the time. All thos painted backgrounds in The
Thanos Quest? Photo refrenced from astronomy books. The skies? photo
refrenced from photos I had taken. (Yes, I have a large collection of
photographs of cloudscapes) Amusingly, when my wife saw one of the
cloudscapes I had painted in the sequence where Thanos is playing the chess
game for the mind gem, she said "That sky looks fake. You'd better change
it." So i whipped out the photos I had taken the week before in a hayfeild
near our house, and loa and behold, there was the very same sky. her
comment did prompt me to stip the backing off the photographic paper and
paste the picture up into a small background, though- just to prove that it
was real.
I also used a Penthouse centerfold as the model for an oil painting I once
did of "The Frost Giant's Daughter", where she is "zapped' away just as
Conan is reaching for her. In the photo, she was lying nude on satin
sheets, her hand at her crotch, and her head thrown back in orgasmic
extacy. In the painting, she was bathed in blue light, and her hand
appeared to be reaching down to the white/blue light which was enveloping
her from the feet up, and her head was turned aside as though wondering
what was ripping her from this reality.
I don't think anyone who ever saw the painting saw her as a centerfold.
I recall seeing an issue of Master of Kung Fu drawn by Paul Gulacy which
had a panel of a woman standing under a tree, her figure draped in somewhat
striped shadows. Beautiful drawing. A couple of years later, I saw the
original photo- in a Playboy magazine.
>
>3) Is the difference between a swipes, reference, and a homage a function of a
>artist's popularity and repuation?
I don't think so. I think all those Liefield "homages" to Byrne, Miller,
Perez, et.al. are swipes, plain and simple. A cheater's shortcut. Yet I
think that a lot of Jim Lee's earlier stuff did pay homage to some Barry
Windsor-Smith, which was a different animal entirely. What Lee drew,
although it evoked Winsdor-Smith (to me, anyway) was entirely his own.
Byrne would give a nod to Kirby all the time in his FF's, but I never once
saw them as swipes. The stuff was all Byrne's, while (once again) evoking
the "feel" of his predecessor's art. I think McFarlanes entire run of
Spiderman was giving nods to Ditko's Spiderman, yet I don't recall ever
seeing any outright swipes. (And I'm _not_ a big McFarlane fan).
I just think it has more to do with the artist's intent and execution than
his or her popularity and reputation.
---Tom Vincent
The gallery will soon be open. Watch this space for more info.
ale...@juno.com
> >>
> >> In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
> (Andrew Black) wrote:
> >>
> >> >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
> >> >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
> >> >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
> >>
> >> Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing
> >>than yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post (I've been guilty
> >>of of the comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
> >>
> >> But the anecdote raises some questions?
> >>
> >> 1) Is it true?
> >
> >is often in poses that would be lewd/rude/crude if she wasn't painted
> >purple.
> >
> >
> >if the only photo-reference for women he uses is porn. And commercial
> >porn, at that.
> >
> >>function of a artist's popularity and repuation?
> >
> (After years of DC being humorless
> >about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
> >turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
> >Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both >
>baffling--andfucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
> >it, you humorless proles".
>
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And sometimes its a large smoldering turd.
> Brandon
> has never seen a homo erotic cigar
Yeah. Right.
Alecto,
Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
particular idea.
ale...@juno.com
Gabe DeLang wrote:
>
> > alecto wrote
>
> > Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
> > of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
> > said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
> > safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
> > Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
> > about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
> > turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
> > Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
> > fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
> > it, you humorless proles".
>
> some one says that. Batman and Robin have more "blatant" father/son or
> teacher/apprentice content than homo-erotic content. I can't remember
> ever having read any Batman comic anywhere where the relationship
> between Batman and Robin was portrayed in any way as gay. Maybe you see
> some similarities between their relationship and a gay relationship.
> Fine. That doesn't mean it was the writers intent. And to say that using
> a gay director for the Batman movies is openly admitting Batman and
> Robin are gay is just silly. If you looked hard enough you could find
> "gay similarities" between any two guy friends.Does that mean that any
> movie he does has to be a "gay" movie? You're just another example of
> someone looking way too deep into the comic book medium. Come down to
> Earth.
My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re Die
Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
discussing.
Alecto
"The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
Brandon Blatcher
>> >Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
>> >of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
>> >said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
>> >safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
>> >Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
>> >homo-erotic content in superheroes.
>>
>> Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros,
>>but I guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>>
>My, my. Seems the River Nile runs far from Egypt's heart.
>
>> (After years of DC being humorless
>> >about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>> >turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>> >Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both >
>>baffling--andfucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester:
"Choke on
>> >it, you humorless proles".
>>
>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>
>And sometimes its a large smoldering turd.
Well, if that's what you want to see....
>> Brandon
>> has never seen a homo erotic cigar
>
>Yeah. Right.
No. Really. I have seen a homoerotic telephone pole though. And pencils,
woo hoo, talk about blatant! That's why I stick to keyboards these days.
>Alecto,
>Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
>particular idea.
Methinks thou dost read to much into this.
Brandon
talking with a wall?
Brandon Blatcher
>Gabe DeLang wrote:
>>
>> > alecto wrote
>>
>> > Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
>> > of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
>> > said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
>> > safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
>> > Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
>> > homo-erotic content in superheroes. (After years of DC being humorless
>> > about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>> > turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>> > Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>> > fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>> > it, you humorless proles".
>>
>> "blatant homo-erotic content in superheroes"?!?! It get's me everytime
>> some one says that. Batman and Robin have more "blatant" father/son or
>> teacher/apprentice content than homo-erotic content. I can't remember
>> ever having read any Batman comic anywhere where the relationship
>> between Batman and Robin was portrayed in any way as gay. Maybe you see
>> some similarities between their relationship and a gay relationship.
>> Fine. That doesn't mean it was the writers intent. And to say that using
>> a gay director for the Batman movies is openly admitting Batman and
>> Robin are gay is just silly. If you looked hard enough you could find
>> "gay similarities" between any two guy friends.Does that mean that any
>> movie he does has to be a "gay" movie? You're just another example of
>> someone looking way too deep into the comic book medium. Come down to
>> Earth.
>
>My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
Yep. But not for the reason you think.
>Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re Die
>Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
>behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
>Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
>Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
>shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
>discussing.
Is it sexism or homophobic? I want to know who I'm supposed to be predjuice
against.
Please point to an example where the mentor-pupil relationship between two
males in American comics is in some way homosexual.
>Alecto
>"The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
>For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
Its time for your medication dear.
Brandon
in the living room, not the closet
Paul O'Brien
In article <72674.2012-ya024080...@news.compuserve.com>,
>> 3) Is the difference between a swipes, reference, and a homage a function
>of a
>> artist's popularity and repuation?
A reference is a use of another creator's work which the audience is
expected to recognise as such. A homage is a type of reference by
which approval for the original creator is intended to be shown.
A swipe is use of another creator's work in a context where the reader
cannot reasonably be expected to recognise it, and is therefore
plagiarism.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
"A terrifically important film" - Independent on Sunday
J. J. Novotny
B. P. Uecker wrote:
> I was taught during my brief stay in art school that working from
> photographs was a bad habit due to photography's limitations.
> Certainly
> in the case of drawing the human form I think this is very true, but I
>
> don't know whether such a rule would apply to landscapes. Drawing
> from
> one's own photographs, at least, sets aside the issue of whether or
> not
> the artist is unfairly borrowing the compositional aspects of the
> photographer's work (just as serious a charge as swiping from another
> artist, I would think).
>
Drawing from a photograph of a distant object is different in an
artistic sense then drawing from a close-up photograph of a person
because the visual perspective is different in each case. A photograph
flattens out everything because it has a single "eye" -- it can only see
from one viewpoint. Hence, you lose the sense of depth that you get when
you look at something with your eyes. You are no longer able to "see"
some things that you would be able to see with 3-D vision and in some
cases it's easy to get fooled and extrapolate something that you really
can't see. With a photograph of something in close-up range, such as a
figure modelling a pose, this can lead to a lack of visual depth or to
errors in anatomy.
Of course, when you are dealing with a far away image, such as a
skyscape, the object is so far away (several miles) that you are seeing
it at the same angle with both eyes (I think Physics-types call this the
parallax effect, but I'm not a Physics-type, so I'm not sure :) ), so
there is no harm in using a photograph. Put another way, the a distant
sunset will look virtually the same in a photograph or through your own
eyes, a close-up object won't.
I hope my description of this wasn't too confusing. It seems to me to be
a little unclear.
Best;
J. J.
(who has taken classes at art school, too.)
deck_the_tals_with_babs_&_holly
In article <34A6A8...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com says...
>Alecto,
>Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
>particular idea.
Yes, we're all crouching behind the sofa in morbid terror of this topic that's
been rehashed more times than Elayne plonks publicly.
But I do enjoy the way you get off on your own evilness. ;)
Talon T M
Gabe DeLang
ale...@juno.com wrote:
>
> My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
> Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re Die
> Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
> behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
> Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
> Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
> shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
> discussing.
The key word here is "was". Maybe the mentor-pupil thing did originally
come from some spartan/lover thing. This has absolutely nothing to do
with Batman or Captain America or any other super hero that has a
sidekick. Again, these characters have never been portrayed as
homo-erotic, therefor they are not homo erotic. If the spartans of
ancient Greece were written as lovers, then fine, they were lovers. If I
wrote a Batman comic using Robin and someone told me it was homo erotic,
I would laugh. If the writer (who is like god to a comic character)
decides a character is not gay then the character is not gay. That's it
and that's all.
>
> Alecto
> "The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
> For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
No, I'm not homophobic. Got no problem with gays. Don't even care if
they are in comics. If Batman was gay I wouldn't care (although Robin
being under aged would bug me). I simply don't agree with you on your
assessment of alleged "homo erotic" in super hero comics. Read the
comics will you? They are not about gay men.
-Gabe DeLang
http://www.teleport.com/~delang/comlink1.htm
Mike Chary
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: wsud...@nr.infi.net (William Sudderth)
>>If an "average reader" is one who doesn't understand what the Letters
>>to the Editor section is all about,
>
>Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
So what? The question I, at least , was addressing was whether they knew
how to contact people. You claimed they did not.
>>or can't figure out that he/she likes Artist A better than Artist B,
>
>Most can't figure out why. They like Artist A because he's hot (as in
>Liefeld) or she's hot (as in Fauve). (Sorry, that's a little joke.)
I find this unlikely. Artists become hot because people like them.
After they become hot, this might be a factor, but nobody told everyone
to like Erik Larsen after Todd left Spider-Man.,
>>and this "average reader" is the MAIN AUDIENCE...
>
>Most comic readers read X-Men or Superman or Spawn and little else,
>going from sales numbers. Those are the successes.
So Spiderman, Batman, The Hulk, et al. are not successful?
And in any event, do you claim these readers of those books don't
distinguish between creative teams or know how to contact such?
Because I was an X-books reader for 18 years, and I don't the readers to
be that oblivious.
Robin
In article <aUKZnDAY...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A reference is a use of another creator's work which the audience is
>expected to recognise as such. A homage is a type of reference by
>which approval for the original creator is intended to be shown.
>A swipe is use of another creator's work in a context where the reader
>cannot reasonably be expected to recognise it, and is therefore
>plagiarism.
Not quite. A reference is often an acknowledgment of another work. An
homage is meant to be a tribute to another work (but is often just an
excuse to redraw something and sign your name to another's work). A swipe
is theft, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with anyone being expected
to recognise it.
Robin.
Chris M.
In article <67s2nl$44v$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
ma...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
> I, personally, am starting to think that "the average comic" reader is
> some mythical construct much as "the street" in discussions on
> rec.martial-arts.
:-) Props to Mike. I suspect you are right.
> Now, of course, based on sales figures, the average reader might be one
> who has gotten sick of comics and quit reading.
Amen, Brother Mike!
One of the things that is amazing to me about this whole discussion, as
well as the never-ending discussion on racm about how to get new comic
book readers into comic book shops, is this:
Comic book publishers couldn't *keep* the people who were reading comic
books *before* the boom! They're gone, not just the speculators and fan
boy collectors but the guys and gals who put titles like X-Men, New Teen
Titans, Legion of Super Heroes, Swamp Thing, American Flagg! etc. etc.
etc. on the map in the first place. So, when a current-creative-regime
apologist like Johanna or Elayne comes along and says that the creators
should ignore fan feedback I have to ask what on Earth makes them think
that the people editing and creating comics now know what they're doing?
How many excuses can you come up with before you have to acknowledge
that, simply, they ain't publishing comics that the American public wants
to buy?
I bet that literally millions of people who hadn't read a comic book
since they were kids, or hadn't read a comic book ever, picked up and
looked at comics in the early '90's. Between all the publicity about the
Batman movies, the Death of Superman, and the hype about collecting
comics in general, a steady stream of potential new comic book buyers
poured into stores. Sure, most of 'em were just curious to see what the
fuss was about, or they, in spite of all logic or knowledge of how market
economies work, thought they could get rich buyin' and baggin' comics,
but they did look at the comics. They flipped through comics. It may or
may not be a shame that there weren't more non-super hero titles on those
shelves, but if the Big Two, at least, were publishing quality super hero
comics that young and old would enjoy, at least some of those people
would've stuck around and would've eventually found the quality non-super
hero titles (as well as continuing to buy the super hero fare). And the
people who were already reading comics wouldn't've left.
So should creators be listening to fans? When should the artist stick to
his "vision" and when should he do what the masses want to make a buck?
Color me academic, but I think that when fans point out to an artist that
what he is doing may be critically, logically, problematic (for example,
"less talking heads, more action"), that artist may want to listen to
that. The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
answer to both questions is "yes." So the artist should think about it
(and I say do it).
In any event, comic book creators are always free to ignore fans and do
what they want anyway, and fans are always free to not buy their books.
But that seems to me to boil down to some sort of weird artistic game of
chicken, and I don't know why you would want to do that.
--Chris M.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Chris M.
In article <19971227035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>
> From: wsud...@nr.infi.net (William Sudderth)
> >If an "average reader" is one who doesn't understand what the Letters
> >to the Editor section is all about,
>
> Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
Pretentious much? Yes, clearly, Johanna, you are the only person slick
enough to figure that out. "Most" everyone else is just too dumb.
I think most people have a little more on the ball than that.
Nevertheless, most letter columns will, and do, publish negative letters.
It is not unreasonable for a fan (who, in just about any other business,
would be referred to as a "customer" -- funny how that isn't the case in
the comics industry) who dislikes something in a comic book he currently
reads to write to the editor or creators of that book and hope that his
letter might be published in the letter column and that the
editor/creators will read it and consider it.
> >or can't figure out that he/she likes Artist A better than Artist B,
>
> Most can't figure out why.
And I thought the letter column crack was bad. Wow, that's a pretentious
statement.
>They like Artist A because he's hot (as in
> Liefeld)
>
> >and this "average reader" is the MAIN AUDIENCE...
>
> Most comic readers read X-Men or Superman or Spawn and little else,
> going from sales numbers. Those are the successes.
First, if someone likes Spawn because "the art is kewl," that's fine.
That's a valid reason. It may not be a particularly articulate or
critically sophisticated reason, but so what?
Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Chris Maka (cm...@io.com) wrote:
: Comic book publishers couldn't *keep* the people who were reading comic
: books *before* the boom! They're gone, not just the speculators and fan
: boy collectors but the guys and gals who put titles like X-Men, New Teen
: Titans, Legion of Super Heroes, Swamp Thing, American Flagg! etc. etc.
: etc. on the map in the first place. So, when a current-creative-regime
: apologist like Johanna or Elayne comes along and says that the creators
: should ignore fan feedback....
Hold it right there. The question of whether creators should let fans
write their stories for them-- and I admit I've come down on the side of
"no, they shouldn't"-- is completely different from the question of
whether I'm a "regime apologist." And creators, a regime? You can't be
serious. Creators are the people people nowadays most likely to get
readers interested in the comics. If they're not doing their job, and
sadly too many of them aren't, people won't be interested in the books.
But NOT because of lack of fan feedback-- in most cases, because they're
just not telling good and interesting stories. I'm not defending bad
stories, Chris, I completely agree with you on that.
: I have to ask what on Earth makes them think
: that the people editing and creating comics now know what they're doing?
Many of them don't. I completely concur with this. Even so, I'd sooner
trust a creator than a fan, in terms of knowing how to create.
: How many excuses can you come up with before you have to acknowledge
: that, simply, they ain't publishing comics that the American public wants
: to buy?
I have never had a problem acknowledging this. Hell, that's one of the
reasons I'm so active in Friends of Lulu, a national industry organization
actively working to get more women and girls (the largest potential
readership in this country, and a proven readership based on bookstore and
magazine purchases) interested in comic books.
: So should creators be listening to fans?
I see nothing wrong with listening. But I do not believe a creator should
allow him or herself to be DICTATED TO by fans. Hell, I'm all for
feedback, but allow me to decide whether or not I think that feedback is
valuable.
And I still think the question of creator/fan interaction-- an interaction
which, by the way, has NEVER BEEN HIGHER than it is at present, what with
the advent of online communications-- is completely separate from the
irrefutable fact that just too many people are putting out lousy stuff,
and that stuff ain't selling.
: When should the artist stick to
: his "vision" and when should he do what the masses want to make a buck?
I think the creator should always stick as close to his or her vision as
possible. Otherwise you get comics by committee, and I think we can agree
there are far too many comics like that already. :) And since nobody
nowadays seems to know what's selling or how to sell it, making a buck is
still hit-and-miss.
: Color me academic, but I think that when fans point out to an artist that
: what he is doing may be critically, logically, problematic (for example,
: "less talking heads, more action"), that artist may want to listen to
: that.
He or she may. Then he or she should decide whether or not that feedback
is worth anything. Who are you to say the creator HAS to act on your
feedback?
: The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
: the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
: panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
: answer to both questions is "yes."
Examples, please.
: So the artist should think about it (and I say do it).
And you are, again...?
So you say, "Do this." And Jason Fliegel, whom I also respect, comes
along and says "No, do that." Then Rob Jensen, whom I also respect, says
"No no no, that's not how I read this continuity, you have to remember to
do that." Are you starting to see a pattern here, Chris?
: In any event, comic book creators are always free to ignore fans and do
: what they want anyway, and fans are always free to not buy their books.
One does not necessarily follow the other. Plenty of creators have no
contact with fans, and those fans buy their books anyway. Plenty of
creators have a lot of contact with fans, and their books don't sell.
It's the STORYTELLING that's important, not the pro/fan interaction.
Sadly, more and more today, it's neither that's important in terms of
successful sales-- it's just plain dumb luck and being in the right place
at the right time.
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Elmo
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
> Chris Maka (cm...@io.com) wrote:
> : The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
> : the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
> : panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
> : answer to both questions is "yes."
>
> Examples, please.
DC Comics Presents Annual #1. Crisis on Infinite Earths. New Teen Titans
#1-#25 or so. Uncanny X-Men 129-137.
Just for starters.
--
"The Magnificent Earth-7: where the JLA was replaced by cowboys."--Michael
Kelly
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
JohannaLD
From: fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary)
>The question I, at least , was addressing was whether they knew
>how to contact people. You claimed they did not.
You will notice that I wasn't responding to your post in that
section.
But yes, most people can't figure out how to contact the creators
directly, in my opinion, based on the letters I would get asking for
email or snail mail addresses.
>Artists become hot because people like them.
Depends on how we're determining "hot". Are we using Wizard's
list? Because that seems to me more prescriptive than descriptive.
>So Spiderman, Batman, The Hulk, et al. are not successful?
Batman is, to a degree. Spider-Man is being revamped as a Superman/
60s copy. The Hulk -- I don't know. I don't seem to notice it highly
placed on sales lists, and it was one of the ones chosen to be given
to outside creators in hopes of generating more heat.
>Because I was an X-books reader for 18 years, and I don't the readers to
>be that oblivious.
Do you maintain that most X-books readers were just like you? I
don't think that's an accurate assumption.
Johanna
Robin
In article <883410167...@dejanews.com>,
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
>But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
>six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
>angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
If you, as a customer, say just that, they will probably politely listen
and suggest to you that maybe you were actually looking for another item
already produced by their company. They produce quite a variety and they
are sure that if yo sample some others you'll find one that's to your
liking.
What they will not do is change their product to please a dissatisfied
customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
Robin.
Jason Fliegel
In article <B0CDAE0B9...@ag185.du.pipex.com>,
Robin Riggs <Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>What they will not do is change their product to please a dissatisfied
>customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
>
A single dissatisfied customer? No, that would be very foolish. You
can't please everyone.
On the other hand, if a siginficant percentage of their customer base were
dissatisfied, you can bet most companies would take whatever steps were
feasible to make their product more to the liking of the complainers.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Paul O'Brien
In article <B0CD4BF09...@0.0.0.0>, Robin Riggs
<Robin...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Not quite. A reference is often an acknowledgment of another work. An
>homage is meant to be a tribute to another work (but is often just an
>excuse to redraw something and sign your name to another's work). A swipe
>is theft, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with anyone being expected
>to recognise it.
But what do you mean by "theft"? It can't be just reusing another
person's work, since "reference" and "homage" do that as well. To
me, the morally reprehensible element of swiping is that you're passing
the work off as your own - so I think a prerequisite is that the swipe
isn't reasonably recognisable.
Mike Chary
>
>>Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
>>But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
>>six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
>>angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
>>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
>>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
>
>If you, as a customer, say just that, they will probably politely listen
>and suggest to you that maybe you were actually looking for another item
>already produced by their company. They produce quite a variety and they
>are sure that if yo sample some others you'll find one that's to your
>liking.
No, what they usually do is say that the readers don't know what they are
talking about.
>What they will not do is change their product to please a dissatisfied
>customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
Not one customer. But LSH, for instance, has lost many thousands of
readers over the years. I guarantee you that *ANY* other business would
take losing 50 percent of it's consumer base with alarm.
Lemming
eep. Chris M. <cm...@io.com>. klordny. Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:51:12
-0600. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <19971227035...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>>
>> From: wsud...@nr.infi.net (William Sudderth)
>> >If an "average reader" is one who doesn't understand what the Letters
>> >to the Editor section is all about,
>>
>> Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
>Pretentious much? Yes, clearly, Johanna, you are the only person slick
>enough to figure that out. "Most" everyone else is just too dumb.
Guess so. I never figured it out at all.
Seems to me the good lettercols are just a forum for (supposedly)
intelligent discussion, like what we're doing here. I mean, I've
gotten a load of letters published lately, and have you ever heard me
say something positive?
Inverse, reverse, and perverse;
Lemming
writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
"Bread is made for laughter,
and wine gladdens life,
and money answers everything."
-- Ecclesiastes 10:19
Lemming
eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:22:18 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>Please point to an example where the mentor-pupil relationship between two
>males in American comics is in some way homosexual.
Men in tights? Climbing buildings? Nipples on the costumes?
What do you need, a flashlight?
We're talking homoerotic here, right? Well, I know a bungload of gay
men who get off on it, and that's all the proof I need. If you see
the erotic potential in Catwoman or Gen13 or Cheeks, the Toy Wonder,
you've gotta be able to turn yourself around and check out Supes.
Lemming
eep. Gabe DeLang <del...@teleport.com>. klordny. Sun, 28 Dec 1997
22:52:55 -0800. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>ale...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
>> Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re Die
>> Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
>> behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
>> Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
>> Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
>> shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
>> discussing.
>The key word here is "was". Maybe the mentor-pupil thing did originally
>come from some spartan/lover thing.
No, of *course* it didn't. He knows it too, he's making a point. The
mentor relationship comes from some caveman teaching his son how to
bang rocks together a certain way. And I'm sure you know where sex
comes from. What he's talking about is a combination of the two. Is
it any wonder that people keep getting the peanut butter in the
chocolate?
>This has absolutely nothing to do
>with Batman or Captain America or any other super hero that has a
>sidekick. Again, these characters have never been portrayed as
>homo-erotic, therefor they are not homo erotic.
Now that, in the purest sense, is fucking wrong. Anything a
homosexual gets off on is homoerotic. Period. Sex is in your head,
not in someone else's costume.
And if you don't think they've ever been portrayed as homosexual
you're being incredibly naive.
>If the spartans of
>ancient Greece were written as lovers, then fine, they were lovers.
Strangely enough, they -were- lovers. Probably the media's fault.
>If I
>wrote a Batman comic using Robin and someone told me it was homo erotic,
>I would laugh. If the writer (who is like god to a comic character)
>decides a character is not gay then the character is not gay. That's it
>and that's all.
You can be homoerotic without being gay. Hell, watch Crash. There
are people who find plane wrecks erotic. I assure you not all airline
pilots are flying the Hershey Highway.
>No, I'm not homophobic. Got no problem with gays. Don't even care if
>they are in comics. If Batman was gay I wouldn't care (although Robin
>being under aged would bug me).
You gotta start sometime. I was heterosexual long before my
eighteenth birthday. Wasn't practicing much, sure, but I knew what I
liked.
>I simply don't agree with you on your
>assessment of alleged "homo erotic" in super hero comics. Read the
>comics will you? They are not about gay men.
They're read by gay men, ain't they?
Lemming
eep. SPAMBLO...@capital.net (Tom Vincent). klordny. Sun, 28 Dec
1997 09:04:15 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article
><8AECFF37BC66E03C.24C30228...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>, carl.he...@airmail.net (Carl Henderson) wrote:
>>In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
>(Andrew Black) wrote:
>>
>>>P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
>>>books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
>>>familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
>>
>>Obviously Jim Balent using porn books as references is more intriguing than
>>yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post (I've been guilty of of the
>>comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
>>
>>But the anecdote raises some questions?
>>
>>1) Is it true?
>Kinda looks like it.
Kinda?
>>
>>2) If so, what's wrong with that? Where is the line drawn between a swipe and
>>a reference? Alex Ross uses tons of photo references in his art; many other
>>well-known artists do the same. Is the line drawn at the source of the
>>picture? Between a picture and another artists work?
Photo reference is completely awesome. Porno reference is completely
cheesy. If your concept of women is based on Jenny McCarthy, well,
I'm reluctantly forced to concede that you don't know very many women.
Those who use porn for reference tend to draw the same women, the same
ways, over and over and over. Like Balent does. Ah, ennui.
>I use photo refrence all the time. All thos painted backgrounds in The
>Thanos Quest? Photo refrenced from astronomy books. The skies? photo
>refrenced from photos I had taken. (Yes, I have a large collection of
>photographs of cloudscapes) Amusingly, when my wife saw one of the
>cloudscapes I had painted in the sequence where Thanos is playing the chess
>game for the mind gem, she said "That sky looks fake. You'd better change
>it." So i whipped out the photos I had taken the week before in a hayfeild
>near our house, and loa and behold, there was the very same sky. her
>comment did prompt me to stip the backing off the photographic paper and
>paste the picture up into a small background, though- just to prove that it
>was real.
Odd. Because, even though it was real, the sky you painted -still-
looked fake. It didn't answer the question at all, did it?
>I also used a Penthouse centerfold as the model for an oil painting I once
>did of "The Frost Giant's Daughter", where she is "zapped' away just as
>Conan is reaching for her. In the photo, she was lying nude on satin
>sheets, her hand at her crotch, and her head thrown back in orgasmic
>extacy. In the painting, she was bathed in blue light, and her hand
>appeared to be reaching down to the white/blue light which was enveloping
>her from the feet up, and her head was turned aside as though wondering
>what was ripping her from this reality.
Didn't her parents explain it to her?
Lemming
eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
Sun, 28 Dec 1997 03:32:29 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <34A5F1...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>>Carl Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
>(Andrew Black) wrote:
>>>
>>> >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
>>> >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
>>> >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
I don't know if you've ever been in a comic company, so I'll tell you
a little secret --
They're dirty and perverted folks, them staffers. I wsa the most
innocent person for cubicles and cubicles, and I sat through Meet the
Feebles without flinching. Everything I know about straight porn I
learned working on comics (and I know a lot these days, a lot too
much). All my experience with gay porn comes from working on films,
though. Strangely enough, straight porn is a lot more repulsive.
>>Well,it certainly gives one insight into the artist's mental landscape
>>if the only photo-reference for women he uses is porn. And commercial
>>porn, at that.
Yes, the underground independent porn is soooooo much more thought
provoking.
>>It
>>leaves one to wonder whether he's familiar with 3-dimensional
>>nekkid women.
Can't he be a bad artist without us questioning his sex life too?
>>
>>Which leaves me to wonder--how come the male superheroes are never
>>sexualized as blatantly as the female characters? Let's see the
>>JLA, X-Men, and Legion rosters drawn from,say, BlueBoy, ManHole, and
>>Inches, and see how the fanboys like it for a change.
>>
>>Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
>>males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
>>sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
>>have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
>>superheroes without thinking twice.
Huh? Are you saying women can't?
Interesting....
I, personally, can identify with Bootsie Collins, Kurtz, and Oddjob.
Which is odd, because I look like the Encyclopedia Britannica kid
("Hi, remember me? I'm the kid who had the report due on space.
Please kill me").
>>Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
>>of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
>>said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
>>safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
>>Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
>>homo-erotic content in superheroes.
>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
>(After years of DC being humorless
>>about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>>turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>>Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>>fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>>it, you humorless proles".
>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Never.
Lemming
eep. Deck the Tals with Babs & Holly. klordny. 28 Dec 1997 19:45:47
-0800. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
Er, he's a man, ain't he?
And you're getting off, Talon?
Bill Roper
In article <B0CDAE0B9...@ag185.du.pipex.com>,>In article <883410167...@dejanews.com>,
>Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
>>But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
>>six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
>>angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
>>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
>>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
>
>If you, as a customer, say just that, they will probably politely listen
>and suggest to you that maybe you were actually looking for another item
>already produced by their company. They produce quite a variety and they
>are sure that if yo sample some others you'll find one that's to your
>liking.
>
>customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
Which is why, when I complained to my local Jewel Food Store about
them dropping a variety of croutons that I particularly liked, they
brought them back.
Or perhaps why most minivans now have a driver's-side passenger door.
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.net
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Robin Riggs <Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: >Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
: >>Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
: >>But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
: >>six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
: >>angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
: >>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
: >>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
: >
: >If you, as a customer, say just that, they will probably politely listen
: >and suggest to you that maybe you were actually looking for another item
: >already produced by their company. They produce quite a variety and they
: >are sure that if yo sample some others you'll find one that's to your
: >liking.
: No, what they usually do is say that the readers don't know what they are
: talking about.
Depends on how you approach them, doesn't it? In fact most of the times
I've voiced negative opinions on books I get pretty much that response,
usually some form or other of "Sorry you didn't like it, here's something
you might like better." But if someone is going to come on all self-
righteous and blustering, yeah, I can see getting a more hostile response.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Second, if people want to read X-Men or Spawn or whatever, that's fine.
: >>But there's a happy middle ground between that stuff and the
: >>six-pages-of-staff-meeting-per-issue of the Legion books, or the pissy
: >>angsty attitude of Starman. If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
: >>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
: >>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
: >
: >If you, as a customer, say just that, they will probably politely listen
: >and suggest to you that maybe you were actually looking for another item
: >already produced by their company. They produce quite a variety and they
: >are sure that if yo sample some others you'll find one that's to your
: >liking.
: >
: >customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
: Which is why, when I complained to my local Jewel Food Store about
: them dropping a variety of croutons that I particularly liked, they
: brought them back.
Misleading analogy. Your food store is analagous to your comics retailer.
If your retailer didn't provide you with a book that was available at
other stores, you'd have every right to complain. The crouton company is
analagous to the comic book publisher. If the company stopped making the
stuff and you complained that you wanted them back, unless a LOT more
people voiced the same complaint the company would pretty much shrug.
Chris M.
In article <688kak$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> Hold it right there. The question of whether creators should let fans
> write their stories for them-- and I admit I've come down on the side of
> "no, they shouldn't"--
I'm not saying they should let fans write their stories, I'm saying they
should be willing to listen to fans and acknowledge when fans may be
right.
> Creators are the people people nowadays most likely to get
> readers interested in the comics.
Wrong. Other readers have been and always will be the people most likely
to get readers interested in comics. There are, I bet, less than half a
dozen creators anymore whose presence can, in and of itself, lead to a
signficacant increase in sales. If anyone else says his new book is
gonna be the greatest thing since full process color I'm thinking "Yeah,
whatever." He has to say that. If Rick Jones says, "If you like X and
Y, you really should check out Waid's new book," then I'll think about
it. As Andrew pointed out, can you definitively say that the sales on
JLA are because of Morrison or because the Big Seven are finally back?
I'm not disagreeing that *who* is doing the book is important -- it very
much is -- but there's much more to the equation than that, and nothing
is as powerful as pleasing the fans and getting strong word of mouth
going.
> Many of them don't. I completely concur with this. Even so, I'd sooner
> trust a creator than a fan, in terms of knowing how to create.
I would not accept that as an axiom in this day and age. I could go on
for hours about all of the incredibly, insanely bad comics that have, in
defiance of all reason, been done over the last several years. I'm not
convinced you couldn't draft a random fan out of a comic book shop and
have them do a better job as a story editor than the people who are
supposed to be editing this slop. A random fan might not be able to draw
or format a script correctly, but I bet they could tell you that having
Hal Jordan become a slobbering power-mad idiot, or having the Metal Men
turn out to actually be human beings, is a pretty lame idea.
> : How many excuses can you come up with before you have to acknowledge
> : that, simply, they ain't publishing comics that the American public wants
> : to buy?
>
> I have never had a problem acknowledging this. Hell, that's one of the
> reasons I'm so active in Friends of Lulu, a national industry organization
> actively working to get more women and girls (the largest potential
> readership in this country, and a proven readership based on bookstore and
> magazine purchases) interested in comic books.
Which I think is super-cool, btw.
> : So should creators be listening to fans?
>
> I see nothing wrong with listening. But I do not believe a creator should
> allow him or herself to be DICTATED TO by fans. Hell, I'm all for
> feedback, but allow me to decide whether or not I think that feedback is
> valuable.
Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear. I would not advocate that a creator
listen to everything every fan says. Obviously, creation by committee
almost never, ever works, and since we all know that making everyone
happy all the time is impossible it's a moot point anyway.
Incidently, I'm not sure that the actual creators should be corresponding
directly with fans anyway, if we're talking about company-owned
properties. I think the editor, as the person hired to oversee the
creation of the book, should be the one listening to and considering fan
feedback. If I'm hired to write "Warpo the Super Gorilla" (TM) or
whatever, I shouldn't have to be thinking about things like sales or the
fact that half my readership wants Warpo's sister, Nebulo-lo, to be gay
or that the fans don't like Warpo's costume. If I hear about these
things I would go to my editor and say, "Hey, Bob, I hear some of the
fans don't like Warpo's threads, you want me to change 'em?" If I have
an opinion on that or any creative issue I'll make my case with the
editor and let him make the call.
Now if you're talking about creator-owned properties, or if you don't
have strong editorial leadership, then as a creator you might find
yourself in a position, I suppose, where you feel like you have to, or
maybe you just want to, interact with the fans. Now you get to decide
what to listen to and what to ignore and how to deal with it. What
should your criteria be?
I think it's here where the Dynamic Duo, Logic and Reason, swing into
play. People want to pretend that art, or any act of creation, is some
sort of magical process for which their are no rules, and that's not
true. While it's true that any creator of any art can do whatever he
wishes, it is also true that there are certain concepts, like form and
structure and theme and etc., that make for consistently emotionally
satisfying art. And since we're talking about an art form which is
cranked out on (one hopes) a monthly basis and is allegedly intended to
appeal to a vast number of people, I as a fan am completely justified in
making appeals to logically valid artistic criticism and saying that the
creators or the editors oughta listen (and by extension, one would hope
that people who recognize that an argument is valid would act upon it
unless they have a logically valid reason not to do so).
> I think the creator should always stick as close to his or her vision as
> possible. Otherwise you get comics by committee, and I think we can agree
> there are far too many comics like that already.
This is where editorial leadership comes in. For example, TMK on Legion
of Super Heroes. The editor on that book should have listened to what
the fans were saying and, based on either raw sales or the validity of
the arguments posed (both for and against), decided upon what direction
the book should take and what the creators should be allowed to do. The
creators, then, can decide if what the editor wants is close enough to
their artistic vision to roll with it or if it's so different that they
have to leave the book. That's not creation by committee, that's
creation with strong editorial leadership.
> And since nobody
> nowadays seems to know what's selling or how to sell it, making a buck is
> still hit-and-miss.
Yes, since they destroyed the market in the first place. How to build it
back up? Logic would indicate that going back to what worked before the
boom and subsequent bust would be a good start. Look at what worked for
Marvel in the late 70's and early 80's: strong editorial control (of both
writing and artwork) and formula storytelling for the vast majority of
their books. Start there and then figure out what we've learned in the
90's that can be used to make books drawn from that base even better.
> Who are you to say the creator HAS to act on your
> feedback?
Well, since my specific feedback is based on logic and reason, and since
the powers that be destroyed the comic book market in the first place,
I'd hope that they would WANT to act on my feedback. They don't have to.
And I don't have to keep buying comics, and the market can shrink a
little bit more.
For example, the Green Lantern issue. Some fans hate Kyle, some love
him. Some want Hal back, some don't. What's an editor to do? Well
there's a pretty obvious happy medium there, which many, many fans are
already clamoring for. Keep Kyle on Earth, keep him in the JLA, let him
be the main Green Lantern. Bring Hal back and let him go off into deep
space to either assemble a new Corps or to plum the Guardians' Secrets of
the Universe or whatever. The people who don't like Kyle have Hal back,
and the the Kyle fans who don't like Hal can just ignore him. Now, why
on Earth would any editor or creator ignore feedback like that,
especially when there may be a buck to be made?
> : The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
> : the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
> : panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
> : answer to both questions is "yes."
>
> Examples, please.
I thought you read comics. LSH #290-300, New Teen Titans #1-36, Uncanny
X-Men #112-142, American Flagg! #1-24, Peter David's first several years
on the Incredible Hulk, both of the Michelenie (whose name I always
misspell) and Layton runs on Invincible Iron Man, Byrne's run on
Fantastic Four, particularly the first couple years, etc. etc. etc. I
could go on all day.
> : So the artist should think about it (and I say do it).
>
> And you are, again...?
The customer. One of the last of the Few and the Faithful, shelling out
big bucks every week to keep this business afloat. Someone who, when
happy, praises loudly and spends freely. The person whose patronage a
smart businessman would desperately want to cultivate.
> So you say, "Do this." And Jason Fliegel, whom I also respect, comes
> along and says "No, do that." Then Rob Jensen, whom I also respect, says
> "No no no, that's not how I read this continuity, you have to remember to
> do that." Are you starting to see a pattern here, Chris?
Not really. You act as if a satisfactory solution to the above situation
were impossible, and of course it is not. Let's take, as an example, the
Jeckie/Snake situation in LSH (for those who don't know, in the reboot
LSH continuity an old character was brought back, only now she's a giant
alien snake). What would I do as an editor? I most likely wouldn't've
let the creators do it, but let's say I did because they convinced me
they had good stories to tell based on this premise that could not be
told otherwise (which has not been borne out by the series itself, but
nevermind that). Now I've got a bunch of fans who're pissed off about it
and a bunch of fans who like it. If I decide that I really don't want to
change Sneckie or reveal that she's really human or whatever, then I'd
find another concession or two to make for my loyal and faithful longtime
fans. I'd bring Sun Boy back, have Karate Kid join, and probably would
not let the creators kill off another old character (like Colossal Boy)
for quite a while, and of course I'd have more action and less standing
around and talking in the book. Look at the good will engendered by
something as simple as letting Lar Gand be M'onel. A few more steps in
that direction at the time would've gone a long way towards making
longtime fans feel like the creators behind the Legion books respect them
and value their opinions, which I think would've been a brilliant move
after several years of making the longtime fans feel like the Legion
franchise existed only to piss on their loyalty.
I believe any situation can be handled with artistically satisfying
compromise and judicious concession. In fact, I think it's one of the
things that should be fun about working in comics. I should point out
that I think that fans are very much saavy enough to recognize the
difference between a creator-owned property that is a product of a very
specific artistic vision, like Kurt Busiek's Astro City or Leave it to
Chance, and one of the Big Two's franchise books, and if we're talking
about one of the franchise books I do think TPTB would do well to cast a
receptive ear in the direction of those who helped build the franchise.
They haven't, and look where the market is now.
> : In any event, comic book creators are always free to ignore fans and do
> : what they want anyway, and fans are always free to not buy their books.
>
> One does not necessarily follow the other. Plenty of creators have no
> contact with fans, and those fans buy their books anyway. Plenty of
> creators have a lot of contact with fans, and their books don't sell.
> It's the STORYTELLING that's important, not the pro/fan interaction.
All true, and actually not the argument that was made. It scans like
this: Creators (or editors) are free to ignore (unhappy) fans. This may
result in said fans deciding not to buy the books of said creators. When
I speak of fans, it is the storytelling which makes them happy or
unhappy.
> Sadly, more and more today, it's neither that's important in terms of
> successful sales-- it's just plain dumb luck and being in the right place
> at the right time.
That's a cop out, and not true. It is true that luck and fortunate
timing play a large roll in everything, but it's not coincidence or
planetary alignment or random chance that have led the industry to this
pass, nor is it these things which will lead it out again.
Right or wrong, I think that American comic books live and die with the
super hero, so if you want something like "A Distant Soil" to sell
better, you need to create better super hero comic books so that people
will get back into the habit of happily shelling out their bucks for
super hero comics and perusing the rest of the comics on the shelf week
after week. And no matter what the people who are still buying super
hero comics say, they are, with very few exceptions, not being done well.
The art is not clear enough or dynamic enough, and most of the artists
working today have terrible storytelling skills. The writing is not
concise enough, not focused enough, and also not dynamic enough. Any
episode of the Batman or Superman animated series is better than 95% of
the super hero comics on the shelf right now. That's why sales suck now.
What's broken here can be fixed. We are not at the mercy of dumb luck
and fortune.
bryan young
OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you disagree
all you have done is prove my point.
See how easy it is to say ANYTHING and then claim righteous indignation when
people challenge your claim. To prove your point you need to give examples.
What issue? What page? ANyone can say anything. To make it plausible you need
facts to back up your claim.
And no I don't really care about anyone's sexuallity. I'm just trying to prove
a point.
ale...@juno.com wrote:
> Gabe DeLang wrote:
> >
> > > alecto wrote
> >
> > > Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
> > > of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
> > > said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
> > > safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
> > > Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
> > > homo-erotic content in superheroes. (After years of DC being humorless
> > > about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
> > > turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
> > > Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
> > > fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
> > > it, you humorless proles".
> >
> > "blatant homo-erotic content in superheroes"?!?! It get's me everytime
> > some one says that. Batman and Robin have more "blatant" father/son or
> > teacher/apprentice content than homo-erotic content. I can't remember
> > ever having read any Batman comic anywhere where the relationship
> > between Batman and Robin was portrayed in any way as gay. Maybe you see
> > some similarities between their relationship and a gay relationship.
> > Fine. That doesn't mean it was the writers intent. And to say that using
> > a gay director for the Batman movies is openly admitting Batman and
> > Robin are gay is just silly. If you looked hard enough you could find
> > "gay similarities" between any two guy friends.Does that mean that any
> > movie he does has to be a "gay" movie? You're just another example of
> > someone looking way too deep into the comic book medium. Come down to
> > Earth.
>
> My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
> Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re Die
> Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
> behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
> Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
> Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
> shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
> discussing.
>
JohannaLD
From: Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
>joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>> Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
>
>Pretentious much?
No, but please, show me more about how to be so.
Ritual exchange of insults out of the way, I think you've missed some
of the context of this discussion. It began with the premise that most
(all?) people around here (online) aren't typical comic readers. So I'm
not saying you don't understand the lettercol; I'm saying the "average"
fan (who may or may not exist, but is generally constructed to be a
preteen (8-14 year old) male who reads a few of the hottest titles
(Spawn, X-Men, JLA) ) doesn't. No need to feel insulted; you were
excluded from the group several posts back.
>Nevertheless, most letter columns will, and do, publish negative letters.
Yes -- so they can either say "hey, look for the next issue, where that's
changing" or they can point out what the person misunderstood. Or they
can better define who they want their audience to be by defining who
it's not (Roo on JLA, anyone?). All ways of further promoting the
product.
Oh, I should probably also clarify that I'm talking about mainstream
letter columns, not indy.
>It is not unreasonable for a fan ... who dislikes something in a comic
>book he currently reads to write to the editor or creators of that
>book and hope that his letter might be published in the letter column
>and that the editor/creators will read it and consider it.
And, of course, they're still read, even if they're not printed.
I'm not saying that "only positive letters get printed". I'm simply
saying that the purpose of the lettercol is to sell the book, just as
the purpose of every other page is (by presenting good art and
story). I have seen any number of people that consider the lettercol
page, however, "theirs" and think that there's some kind of right to
be published. There's not.
>> Most comic readers read X-Men or Superman or Spawn and little else,
>> going from sales numbers. Those are the successes.
>
>First, if someone likes Spawn because "the art is kewl," that's fine.
>That's a valid reason.
Of course it is. It wouldn't fly very long around here (thus
demonstrating my initial premise), but it's a perfectly fine reason.
Heck, "I love this comic and I have no idea why" is perfectly fine.
>If I, as a customer, want to say to, say,
>the Legion creators, "Hey, find that middle ground of characterization
>*and* heavy action!" that's legit and they oughta listen.
No one said it wasn't.
Honest, I'm a little confused here at your venom -- we seem to be
misunderstanding each other. I'm doing group analysis, and you're
wanting to be heard. I think these are both great discussions; I just
don't know why you've brought them together.
Johanna
Robin
In article <68b3sv$t7i$1...@Venus.mcs.net>,
ro...@MCS.COM (Bill Roper) wrote:
>>What they will not do is change their product to please a dissatisfied
>>customer. Nor would any other company in any other business.
>
>Which is why, when I complained to my local Jewel Food Store about
>them dropping a variety of croutons that I particularly liked, they
>brought them back.
That's more like getting your local comic store to start carrying a title
that it's dropped. It's not the same as getting the way the croutons are
prepared changed.
Robin.
Robin
In article <883498816....@dejanews.com>,
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>> Who are you to say the creator HAS to act on your
>> feedback?
>
>Well, since my specific feedback is based on logic and reason, and since
>the powers that be destroyed the comic book market in the first place,
>I'd hope that they would WANT to act on my feedback. They don't have to.
> And I don't have to keep buying comics, and the market can shrink a
>little bit more.
An excellent basis for getting someone to listen to your supposedly
reasoned argument; "I'm logical and reasoned and you've destroyed the
market". Anyone would be a fool not to be enticed by such erudite advice.
>For example, the Green Lantern issue. Some fans hate Kyle, some love
>him. Some want Hal back, some don't. What's an editor to do? Well
>there's a pretty obvious happy medium there, which many, many fans are
>already clamoring for. Keep Kyle on Earth, keep him in the JLA, let him
>be the main Green Lantern. Bring Hal back and let him go off into deep
>space to either assemble a new Corps or to plum the Guardians' Secrets of
>the Universe or whatever. The people who don't like Kyle have Hal back,
>and the the Kyle fans who don't like Hal can just ignore him. Now, why
>on Earth would any editor or creator ignore feedback like that,
>especially when there may be a buck to be made?
Because the sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining.
Changing for Kyle probably saved the book from cancellation. Where is the
evidence that if they put Hal into a book that it will have enough readers
to support it if it didn't before? Personally I'd much rather have Hal as
GL (I hate having to draw that damn mask on Kyle) but I have no trouble
seeing why they made the change and why they don't change back.
If anyone does want to see a wonderfully drawn Hal Jordan GL they should
pick up the Justice League Elseworlds "The Nail" next summer. Alan Davis
does a lovely job on him (and everyone else).
Robin.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Chris Maka (cm...@io.com) wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: > Hold it right there. The question of whether creators should let fans
: > write their stories for them-- and I admit I've come down on the side of
: > "no, they shouldn't"--
: I'm not saying they should let fans write their stories, I'm saying they
: should be willing to listen to fans and acknowledge when fans may be
: right.
Ah, okay then. I have no problem with the first part of that. Most
creators I know are happy to listen to fans. But it has to be a judgement
call on whether they believe those fans are right. You may think
something's right and I may totally disagree with that, and then it just
becomes a matter of opinion.
: > Creators are the people people nowadays most likely to get
: > readers interested in the comics.
: Wrong. Other readers have been and always will be the people most likely
: to get readers interested in comics.
I sit corrected. Let me clarify-- Of all the people involved in the
process of making comics, creators are the ones most likely to get readers
interested. Is that better?
: There are, I bet, less than half a
: dozen creators anymore whose presence can, in and of itself, lead to a
: signficacant increase in sales.
I'd love to start a different thread about this. Can we solicit opinions
from rac* on who everyone thinks has the power to "open" a book? I'd say
there are more than a half-dozen artists, but likely not more than a half-
dozen writers, who fit that category. Still, readers are likelier to buy
on the strength of name-creators than on the strength of, say, editors. :)
: I'm not
: convinced you couldn't draft a random fan out of a comic book shop and
: have them do a better job as a story editor than the people who are
: supposed to be editing this slop.
Well, a random fan might not have the tools or experience. Granted, you
need talent as well, but having the tools and experience is at least half
of the job. :)
: A random fan might not be able to draw
: or format a script correctly...
That's what I mean. This is why I don't think Random Fan could produce a
successful comic book. There's lots of stuff you need to know before you
even start scripting a story.
: but I bet they could tell you that having
: Hal Jordan become a slobbering power-mad idiot, or having the Metal Men
: turn out to actually be human beings, is a pretty lame idea.
Well, lots of people who bought the books in which those stories appear
apparently *didn't* think they were lame ideas, no matter what you and I
might think.
: > : How many excuses can you come up with before you have to acknowledge
: > : that, simply, they ain't publishing comics that the American public wants
: > : to buy?
: >
: > I have never had a problem acknowledging this. Hell, that's one of the
: > reasons I'm so active in Friends of Lulu, a national industry organization
: > actively working to get more women and girls (the largest potential
: > readership in this country, and a proven readership based on bookstore and
: > magazine purchases) interested in comic books.
: Which I think is super-cool, btw.
YAY, LULU! LULU, LULU, LULU!!! (That's, um, our battle cry. <g>)
: Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear. I would not advocate that a creator
: listen to everything every fan says. Obviously, creation by committee
: almost never, ever works, and since we all know that making everyone
: happy all the time is impossible it's a moot point anyway.
Cool. We agree on all this.
: Incidently, I'm not sure that the actual creators should be corresponding
: directly with fans anyway, if we're talking about company-owned
: properties.
I don't think it's a bad thing for creators to correspond with fans. I
think it's a great way to get feedback. I also think the creators should
take everything the individual fans say with a grain of salt. :)
: I think the editor, as the person hired to oversee the
: creation of the book, should be the one listening to and considering fan
: feedback.
I don't know if I agree. I think the editor's job is to put together the
best book he or she can. To that end, he or she usually trusts the
creators to do the job of creation. For after-the-fact feedback, well,
that's up to the individual editors, I guess. To take the example of
editors at DC, I believe that their agreement to come online and chat with
fans is indicative of their willingness to solicit opinions.
: > Who are you to say the creator HAS to act on your feedback?
: Well, since my specific feedback is based on logic and reason...
YOUR logic and reason. With which anyone else may disagree, based on what
THEY feel are logic and reason.
: > : The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
: > : the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
: > : panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
: > : answer to both questions is "yes."
: >
: > Examples, please.
: I thought you read comics.
Oh, come on, be nice. :)
: LSH #290-300, New Teen Titans #1-36, Uncanny
: X-Men #112-142, American Flagg! #1-24, Peter David's first several years
: on the Incredible Hulk, both of the Michelenie (whose name I always
: misspell) and Layton runs on Invincible Iron Man, Byrne's run on
: Fantastic Four, particularly the first couple years, etc. etc. etc. I
: could go on all day.
These are examples of what? Of creators listening to fans?? Or of
creators doing good work?
: > : So the artist should think about it (and I say do it).
: >
: > And you are, again...?
: The customer.
The consumer of the end-product, not a part of the creative process.
: > So you say, "Do this." And Jason Fliegel, whom I also respect, comes
: > along and says "No, do that." Then Rob Jensen, whom I also respect, says
: > "No no no, that's not how I read this continuity, you have to remember to
: > do that." Are you starting to see a pattern here, Chris?
: Not really. You act as if a satisfactory solution to the above situation
: were impossible, and of course it is not.
Not if the creator follows his or her own instincts on what constitutes a
good story. These instincts may or may not include listening to what fans
have to say.
: Let's take, as an example, the
: Jeckie/Snake situation in LSH (for those who don't know, in the reboot
: LSH continuity an old character was brought back, only now she's a giant
: alien snake). What would I do as an editor? I most likely wouldn't've
: let the creators do it...
I like Sneckie. I don't have a problem with her. Why is my opinion less
logical and reasonable than yours?
: If I decide that I really don't want to
: change Sneckie or reveal that she's really human or whatever, then I'd
: find another concession or two to make for my loyal and faithful longtime
: fans.
Why? They'll stay there anyway. :) No seriously, there are MORE than
enough "concessions" in the Legion books as is. I'm more interested in
new stories. If I want older ones, I'll do pretty much what I'm doing
now, reading older Legion books.
: It scans like
: this: Creators (or editors) are free to ignore (unhappy) fans. This may
: result in said fans deciding not to buy the books of said creators.
Or it might result in fans compromising what they thought they wanted if
what they're getting is a good story anyway. :)
: When
: I speak of fans, it is the storytelling which makes them happy or
: unhappy.
And yet, you're giving examples of specific plotlines and direction, NOT
overall storytelling.
: > Sadly, more and more today, it's neither that's important in terms of
: > successful sales-- it's just plain dumb luck and being in the right place
: > at the right time.
: That's a cop out, and not true.
Of course it's true. Look at all the wonderful stories not selling for
shit. And I didn't mean it as a copout, just a footnote to what we've
been saying.
: Right or wrong, I think that American comic books live and die with the
: super hero...
Didn't used to. In fact, the Golden Age died in part when superheroes
became predominant, because all those people not necessarily interested in
such a narrow subgenre left. I think American comics will die if the
superhero subgenre is allowed to continue to predominate, especially
during a time when the core audience for such comics (teenaged boys)
aren't reading for the most part.
Sorry I didn't respond to every one of your points, but this was a really
long post and I guess I got kind of beat. :)
Brian H. Bailie
> Not one customer. But LSH, for instance, has lost many thousands of
> readers over the years. I guarantee you that *ANY* other business would
> take losing 50 percent of it's consumer base with alarm.
Here's another thought...
Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen was a book that was once considered lame in
terms of sales, and it sold 300,000 per issue.
Today, in a country that has increased its population by 150% since that
time, a book that sells 30,000 to the direct market is considered a
winner.
I keep flashing to that scene in Animal House, when people are stampeding
to leave the scene of the mayhem, and Kevin Bacon does a wonderful
impression of the comic industry saying, "No need to panic! All is well!"
Brian
(no, this is *not* another Kevin Bacon thread!)
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Brandon Blatcher
>eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
>Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:22:18 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>Please point to an example where the mentor-pupil relationship between two
>>males in American comics is in some way homosexual.
>
>Men in tights? Climbing buildings? Nipples on the costumes?
>
>What do you need, a flashlight?
Say.....you're right. Besides what was all that stuff that Spidey kept
shooting out? What's really ups with Green Arrow and those long arrows.
With points on them no less? And all those neat gagdets Batman had stored
in that belt, wonder what's behind that idea? Maybe Captain America and
those wings *were* just a little to obvious. Iron Man, the Hulk? Don't get
me started....
Perhaps the whole young ward idea was a way for young boys (since that's
where Superhero's were aimed) to become involved in stories.
>We're talking homoerotic here, right? Well, I know a bungload of gay
>men who get off on it, and that's all the proof I need. If you see
>the erotic potential in Catwoman or Gen13 or Cheeks, the Toy Wonder,
>you've gotta be able to turn yourself around and check out Supes.
Don't read Catwoman or Gen13. They look incredibly cheesy from previews. I
don't reads Cheeks, however I am fond of them.
>Inverse, reverse, and perverse;
>
>Lemming
>writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
>http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
>"Bread is made for laughter,
> and wine gladdens life,
> and money answers everything."
> -- Ecclesiastes 10:19
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
Brandon Blatcher
>eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
>Sun, 28 Dec 1997 03:32:29 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <34A5F1...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>>Carl Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
>>(Andrew Black) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
>>>> >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
>>>> >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
>
>I don't know if you've ever been in a comic company, so I'll tell you
>a little secret --
>
>They're dirty and perverted folks, them staffers. I wsa the most
>innocent person for cubicles and cubicles, and I sat through Meet the
>Feebles without flinching. Everything I know about straight porn I
>learned working on comics (and I know a lot these days, a lot too
>much). All my experience with gay porn comes from working on films,
>though. Strangely enough, straight porn is a lot more repulsive.
>
>>>Well,it certainly gives one insight into the artist's mental landscape
>>>if the only photo-reference for women he uses is porn. And commercial
>>>porn, at that.
>
>Yes, the underground independent porn is soooooo much more thought
>provoking.
It sure it provokes some people some how.
>>>It
>>>leaves one to wonder whether he's familiar with 3-dimensional
>>>nekkid women.
>
>Can't he be a bad artist without us questioning his sex life too?
That wouldn't be very American now would it?
>>>
>>>Which leaves me to wonder--how come the male superheroes are never
>>>sexualized as blatantly as the female characters? Let's see the
>>>JLA, X-Men, and Legion rosters drawn from,say, BlueBoy, ManHole, and
>>>Inches, and see how the fanboys like it for a change.
>>>
>>>Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
>>>males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
>>>sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
>>>have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
>>>superheroes without thinking twice.
>
>Huh? Are you saying women can't?
>
>Interesting....
>
>I, personally, can identify with Bootsie Collins, Kurtz, and Oddjob.
>Which is odd, because I look like the Encyclopedia Britannica kid
>("Hi, remember me? I'm the kid who had the report due on space.
>Please kill me").
>
>>>Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
>>>of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
>>>said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
>>>safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
>>>Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
>>>homo-erotic content in superheroes.
>
>>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>
>It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
Only Giffien's reboot. I must have missed something.
>>(After years of DC being humorless
>>>about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>>>turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>>>Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>>>fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>>>it, you humorless proles".
>
>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>
>Never.
Shoot, I better get this thing outta my mouth then.
Brandon
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo
Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
> Because the sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining.
Sophist.
The sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining as the writer
(Gerard Jones) burnt out visibly and obviously month-by-month.
A while back, Steven Grant made the argument that Fate/Book of Fate was a
reasonable tack to take instead of restoring the classic Dr. Fate because
the classic Dr. Fate had never sold.
You know why he had never sold? He had *never had a chance to sell*.
The first Dr. Fate book *ever*[1] revamped the entire character.
Claiming that Hal Jordan couldn't sell the book any more is an argument
built on the same bed of sand and is just as inane.
--
"See, that's the trouble with modern comics as opposed to the golden and
silver age comics. Back then, you could dress a monkey up like the Pope and
have him breathe fire on people. Nowadays you have to have a *reason* for it.
`God, shmod, I want my fire-breathing Pope monkey!' "--thad a doria
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
[1] Exception: First Issue Special, mid-1970s. Sufficiently different not
to count, I think, although some may quibble.
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo
> : Hal Jordan become a slobbering power-mad idiot, or having the Metal Men
> : turn out to actually be human beings, is a pretty lame idea.
>
> Well, lots of people who bought the books in which those stories appear
> apparently *didn't* think they were lame ideas, no matter what you and I
> might think.
Definition of terms: "Lots of people" are *not* buying GL and didn't buy
Metal Men, simply because there are only about ten books in the entire
comics marketplace in NorAm that are bought by "lots of people".
One can argue that GL is bought by "lots of people" relative to other
books, but that doesn't answer Chris's argument, which is essentially that
books like Emerald Twilight are precisely *why* "lots of people" aren't
buying comics *at all*.
> : > : The artist may want to ask himself, "Can I relay to the readers
> : > : the information and characterization I wish to impart in fewer static
> : > : panels? Can I add more action to this book?" History shows us the
> : > : answer to both questions is "yes."
> : >
> : > Examples, please.
>
> : LSH #290-300, New Teen Titans #1-36, Uncanny
> : X-Men #112-142, American Flagg! #1-24, Peter David's first several years
> : on the Incredible Hulk, both of the Michelenie (whose name I always
> : misspell) and Layton runs on Invincible Iron Man, Byrne's run on
> : Fantastic Four, particularly the first couple years, etc. etc. etc.
>
> These are examples of what? Of creators listening to fans?? Or of
> creators doing good work?
Look, Elayne, you're a friend and all, but you're being *really* obtuse
here. Obviously, these are examples of books that Chris thinks have
information and characterization imparted in fewer static panels with more
action. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IN THAT PARAGRAPH. Sheesh.
> : Let's take, as an example, the
> : Jeckie/Snake situation in LSH (for those who don't know, in the reboot
> : LSH continuity an old character was brought back, only now she's a giant
> : alien snake). What would I do as an editor? I most likely wouldn't've
> : let the creators do it...
>
> I like Sneckie. I don't have a problem with her. Why is my opinion less
> logical and reasonable than yours?
Because you would have liked Sneckie *even if she weren't Princess
Projectra*.
--
all funding has gone physics graduate
scramble to the business world the job market awaits you
leaving science dead "you want fries with that?"
--Jeff Mackey --anonymous
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
deck_the_tals_with_babs_&_holly
In article <ELzuq...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net says...
>
>eep. Deck the Tals with Babs & Holly. klordny. 28 Dec 1997 19:45:47
>-0800. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <34A6A8...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com says...
>
>>>Alecto,
>>>Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
>>>particular idea.
>
>>Yes, we're all crouching behind the sofa in morbid terror of this topic that's
>>been rehashed more times than Elayne plonks publicly.
>
>> But I do enjoy the way you get off on your own evilness. ;)
>
>Er, he's a man, ain't he?
That hasn't been proven.
>And you're getting off, Talon?
Bustin' Big Time, my friend.
Talon T M
ale...@juno.com
Deck, the, Tals, with, Babs, &, Holly wrote:
>
> In article <34A6A8...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com says...
>
> >Alecto,
> >Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
> >particular idea.
>
> Yes, we're all crouching behind the sofa in morbid terror of this topic that's
> been rehashed more times than Elayne plonks publicly.
>
> But I do enjoy the way you get off on your own evilness. ;)
>
Way to talk, anti-papist.
Alecto
ale...@juno.com
Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>
> In article <34A6A8...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >Brandon Blatcher wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <34A5F1...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Carl Henderson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <34a594b4...@news.melbpc.org.au>, abl...@melbpc.org.au
> >> (Andrew Black) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >P.S. Which is more intriguing... That Jim Balent got caught using porn
> >> >> >books for his Catwoman pin-ups or the fact his co-workers were
> >> >> >familiar enough with them to pick the swipes?
> >> >>
> >> >>than yet another comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do post (I've been guilty
> >> >>of of the comics-are-dying-what-can-we-do posts, myself).
> >> >>
> >> >> But the anecdote raises some questions?
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Is it true?
> >> >
> >> >is often in poses that would be lewd/rude/crude if she wasn't painted
> >> >purple.
> >> >
> >> >> 2) If so, what's wrong with that?
> >> >
> >> >if the only photo-reference for women he uses is porn. And commercial
> >> >porn, at that.
> >> >
> >> >>function of a artist's popularity and repuation?
> >> >
> >> >A homage is deliberately done and is considered a professional "tip of
> >> >the hat". Affection and respect are often the reasons behind it. A swipe
> >> >is also deliberately done, but laziness, deadline pressures, or
> >> >inability to actually draw is more often the motivation.
> >> >
> >> >Frankly, Balent draws some damn weird-shaped women. Cat Woman's breasts
> >> >look like she's smuggling sofa cushions. She has to be at least a 50 EE
> >> >cup. When a woman has breasts that size, doing *anything* acrobatic is
> >> >close to impossible. She'd be constantly straining her lower back. And
> >> >her hips certainly don't counter balance that amorphous mass that passes
> >> >for her bust. And that skin-tight off-purple jumpsuit is just plain
> >> >ugly-insulting. Although that's not as bad as the drawing of Purgatori I
> >> >saw where Balent had her leg apparently growing out of her chest. It
> >> >leaves one to wonder whether he's familiar with 3-dimensional
> >> >nekkid women.
> >> >
> >> >sexualized as blatantly as the female characters? Let's see the
> >> >JLA, X-Men, and Legion rosters drawn from,say, BlueBoy, ManHole, and
> >> >Inches, and see how the fanboys like it for a change.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, that would offend and scare-off the male readers. Then again,
> >> >males are such oblivious creatures, anyway. They're certainly not as
> >> >sensitive to the body ideals as women in this culture. Men can still
> >> >have guts hanging over their belts and still "identify" with ultra-buff
> >> >superheroes without thinking twice.
> >>
> >> herione of the cover of many romance books?
> >>
> >> >Is that a sexist statement? Yup. But comics are steeped in sexism, most
> >> >of it on the adolescent subliminated fear-attraction level. When all is
> >> >said and done, its a medium where a good chunk of the readership can be
> >> >safely assumed to be less than sophisicated when it comes to Vive le
> >> >Difference. And god forbid anyone should point out the blatant
> >> >homo-erotic content in superheroes.
> >>
> >> Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros,
> >>but I guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
> >>
> >
> >> (After years of DC being humorless
> >> >about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
> >> >turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
> >> >Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both >
> "Choke on
> >> >it, you humorless proles".
> >>
> >> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> >
>
> Well, if that's what you want to see....
>
> >> Brandon
> >> has never seen a homo erotic cigar
> >
> >Yeah. Right.
>
> No. Really. I have seen a homoerotic telephone pole though. And pencils,
> woo hoo, talk about blatant! That's why I stick to keyboards these days.
>
> >Alecto,
> >Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
> >particular idea.
>
>
> Brandon
> talking with a wall?
Hey, subtext exists, whether y'likes it or not. Or recognize it.
I guess you're going to insist Wonder Woman doesn't have any possiblee
lesbian subtext, either.
Alecto2
ale...@juno.com
Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>
> >My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
>
> Yep. But not for the reason you think.
>
> >Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re
> >Die
> >Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
> >behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
> >Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
> >Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
> >shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
> >discussing.
>
> Is it sexism or homophobic? I want to know who I'm supposed to be
>predjuice against.
New Flash! Homophobia is a *subsection* of Sexism. "Sexism" doesn't
automatically & solely mean "misogyny", although it often does. And, to
wit, Sexism is a *subsection* of Bigotry, which is genetically simialr
to, but not necessarily identical to, Racism.
> Please point to an example where the mentor-pupil relationship between
>two males in American comics is in some way homosexual.
No. I'd rather let anal-retentive fanboys work themselves into a lather
trying to disprove it.
> >Alecto
> >"The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
> >For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
>
> Its time for your medication dear.
>
> Brandon
> in the living room, not the closet
> -----------------------------------------------------
> delete the spamblock to send email
>
> Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
The above sig, alone, says more than I ever could.
Alecto
ale...@juno.com
bryan young wrote:
> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy) The instutional awe/fear
of the tallywacker in Western Culture is hardly a New & Daring Concept.
Still, the ability of women to look at other women and access their
physical charms,etc. is so commonas to not raise an eyebrow. For
example: a woman can look at,say, a picture of Sharon Stone and say:
"she's beautiful" or "she's really sexy" and not mean it in any sort of
sexual context, but as an acknowledgement of fact on the order of saying
"she's a mammal". However, most straight men would rather have a nail
driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
queer!).
> See how easy it is to say ANYTHING and then claim righteous
>indignation when people challenge your claim. To prove your point you
>need to give examples. What issue? What page? ANyone can say
>anything. To make it plausible you need
> facts to back up your claim.
You've never seen any of the Golden Age comics, have you? The one's were
Robin or Bucky or Sandy or Toro or whoever are splayed across torture
racks, hairless chests barred, while leering villains preapre to
brand them.
> And no I don't really care about anyone's sexuallity.
Hence the lesbian dig.
But that brings up Wonder Woman--
(Odd that men don't seem to be as threatened by lesbians as they domale
homosexuals. I guess its that old prurient interest thing.)
> I'm just trying >to prove a point.
Yep, that I was right, apparently.
Alecto
Lemming
eep. bryan young <bbmmyyoo...@naalu.net>. klordny. Tue, 30 Dec
1997 09:27:56 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you disagree
>all you have done is prove my point.
>See how easy it is to say ANYTHING and then claim righteous indignation when
>people challenge your claim. To prove your point you need to give examples.
>What issue? What page? ANyone can say anything. To make it plausible you need
>facts to back up your claim.
>And no I don't really care about anyone's sexuallity. I'm just trying to prove
>a point.
In order to prove a point you must first MAKE SENSE.
Gonnnng!
Lemming
eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:05:07 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <ELzuo...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>>>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>>
>>It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
>Only Giffen's reboot. I must have missed something.
Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
Ayla and Vi were lovers?
>>>(After years of DC being humorless
>>>>about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>>>>turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>>>>Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>>>>fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>>>>it, you humorless proles".
>>
>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>
>>Never.
>Shoot, I better get this thing outta my mouth then.
Er....
JohannaLD
From: Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
>Comic book publishers couldn't *keep* the people who were reading >comic books
*before* the boom!
Comic book publishers have always expected to lose their audiences,
though. That whole four-year-turnover.
>when a current-creative-regime apologist like Johanna or Elayne
Tee hee. What's a "current creative regime"?
>comes along and says that the creators
>should ignore fan feedback
Should? No. I've been trying to explain 1) that they do and 2) why
they do.
>How many excuses can you come up with before you have to acknowledge
>that, simply, they ain't publishing comics that the American public
>wants to buy?
I don't think the American public wants to buy comics, period. Forget
"if they brought back the Multiverse, or the "real" Superman, or comics
like the ones I read as a kid". Americans just aren't interested in
22-page pamphlets once a month or four times a year.
Johanna
ale...@juno.com
Gabe DeLang wrote:
> > Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
> > behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
> > Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
> > Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
> > shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
> > discussing.
> The key word here is "was". Maybe the mentor-pupil thing did
>originally come from some spartan/lover thing.
What do mean "maybe"? Haven't they covered this in school?
> This has absolutely nothing to do with Batman or Captain America or
>any other super hero that has a sidekick.
Right. Ancient Hellenic Culture has had no effect on the evolution of
Western thinking and literature, up to and including comics. Nothing in
the past ever affects the future or is reflected in it.
> Again, these characters have never been portrayed as
> homo-erotic, therefor they are not homo erotic.
If you mean, Batman's never been depicted as shoving his veiny cock up
Robin puckered little pooter, no they have not (at least not by their
copyright holders).
>If the spartans of ancient Greece were written as lovers, then fine,
>they were lovers.
"If"? "Were written as"? Do they not teach history in schools any more?
Hey, not only were they gay to the point of their women-folk having to
repopulate with the slaves, they were the roughest, toughest bunch of
gays in history. Much of the rigorous training US Marines undergo in
boot-camp originates from Spartan training disciplines. (Although I
don't think the recruits are expected to let foxes chew their vitals
anymore.)
>If I wrote a Batman comic using Robin and someone told me it was homo
>erotic, I would laugh.
Nervously.
> If the writer (who is like god to a comic character)
> decides a character is not gay then the character is not gay. That's
>it and that's all.
Except that subtext exists,whether you like it (or see it)or not.
Indeed, the more repressed the creator, the more blatant the subtext
becomes. And how do you know *none* of the previous writers,
artists,editors on all your favorite funnybook characters weren't or
aren't gay? Hell, most of you out there don't even know what color
their skin is, much less which way their johnson (or lady jane) waves in
a stiff breeze.
> > Alecto
> > "The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
> > For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
>
> No, I'm not homophobic. Got no problem with gays. Don't even care if
> they are in comics. If Batman was gay I wouldn't care (although Robin
> being under aged would bug me). I simply don't agree with you on your
> assessment of alleged "homo erotic" in super hero comics. Read the
> comics will you? They are not about gay men.
And MOBY DICK is just about a guy really pissed at a white whale that
bit his leg off, ULYSSES is about a guy trying to get home, and
FRANKENSTEIN is about a big scary monster made from dead people.
Subtext, I tells ya. Inference. Reading between the lines.
*sigh*--From my original post everyone hopped on the gay thing, proving
my fanboy gag-reflex theory, while no one felt any real need to comment
on how women are portrayed. Typical.
Yeah, go fight crime with your tits hanging out and a thong flossing the
crack of your ass, ladies. Doesn't anyone remember the response of the
women in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN when they're informed that they have to
play pro ball in *short skirts*? And the results?
I guess for a fanboy to grasp how insulting the contemporary typical
superheroine/bad girl costume is to ask them to picture,say, their
favorite adolescent power fantasy role model standing proudly on the
cover with one nut hanging out of his Italian bun-hugger tights. Or
maybe the head of his dick peeping out the leg of his shorts.
Yup. Comics just aren't for kids any more. They're for arrested
adolescents.
Alecto
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo (mor...@riph5.rice.edu) wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:: > Chris Maka (cm...@io.com) wrote:
: > : but I bet they could tell you that having
: > : Hal Jordan become a slobbering power-mad idiot, or having the Metal Men
: > : turn out to actually be human beings, is a pretty lame idea.
: >
: > Well, lots of people who bought the books in which those stories appear
: > apparently *didn't* think they were lame ideas, no matter what you and I
: > might think.
: Definition of terms: "Lots of people" are *not* buying GL...
More are than were before. Therefore, DC's strategy seems to have worked.
: and didn't buy
: Metal Men, simply because there are only about ten books in the entire
: comics marketplace in NorAm that are bought by "lots of people".
Elmo, I hate playing semantics with you. You know what I meant. Enoughpeople are buying the book now that DC is satisfied with the way it's
going.
: One can argue that GL is bought by "lots of people" relative to other
: books, but that doesn't answer Chris's argument, which is essentially that
: books like Emerald Twilight are precisely *why* "lots of people" aren't
: buying comics *at all*.
I don't think this specific plotline has that much to do with why people
aren't buying comics. I think the reasons why people aren't buying comics
are many and varied, but I do not believe specific plotlines are among
those main reasons. I'm sure they are for a few people, but not for most
of the ones no longer purchasing. I believe this is so because the fans
most likely to care about specific plotlines tend to be the most
enthusiastic about superhero comics in general, and thus the likeliest to
stick around in the hobby even through plotlines they don't like.
: Look, Elayne, you're a friend and all, but you're being *really* obtuse
: here.
I admitted that. That's why I asked Chris to clarify.
: Obviously, these are examples of books that Chris thinks have
: information and characterization imparted in fewer static panels with
: more action.
But because the writers and artists are good, right? I'm sorry, I really
am being obtuse as to how this particular section fits in with everything
else Chris and I are saying to each other. I think the length of the
posts have taken their toll on my attention span. I agree with you
completely that I'm just not getting this part. My bad.
: > : Let's take, as an example, the
: > : Jeckie/Snake situation in LSH (for those who don't know, in the reboot
: > : LSH continuity an old character was brought back, only now she's a giant
: > : alien snake). What would I do as an editor? I most likely wouldn't've
: > : let the creators do it...
: >
: > I like Sneckie. I don't have a problem with her. Why is my opinion less
: > logical and reasonable than yours?
: Because you would have liked Sneckie *even if she weren't Princess
: Projectra*.
Because I think the storytelling's good. And this is what I'm saying. I
think it's more important for the storytelling to be good than for the
writers to try to please the fans regarding specific plot points. Because
there's no pleasing the fans. There's certainly no pleasing Usenet
posters these past couple days, no matter how many qualifiers I use. :)
So I'm SUNK if I try to write to please fans as meticulous as y'all.
Lemming
eep. Chris M. <cm...@io.com>. klordny. Tue, 30 Dec 1997 10:41:17
-0600. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <688kak$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>
>> Hold it right there. The question of whether creators should let fans
>> write their stories for them-- and I admit I've come down on the side of
>> "no, they shouldn't"--
>I'm not saying they should let fans write their stories, I'm saying they
>should be willing to listen to fans and acknowledge when fans may be
>right.
Since when is creative content a democracy?
Thank you, no. If you don't like it, read something else. Comics
written by committee have a distressing tendency to read like comics
written by a committee. How many people do you want to chew your food
before you?
>> Creators are the people people nowadays most likely to get
>> readers interested in the comics.
>Wrong. Other readers have been and always will be the people most likely
>to get readers interested in comics.
Huh? I would think comics are the most likely thing to get people
into comics. Readers without creators are a sorry lot, much like Star
Trek fans.
>There are, I bet, less than half a
>dozen creators anymore whose presence can, in and of itself, lead to a
>signficacant increase in sales.
You're talking about big names, which we ain't. Or at least I ain't.
I don't think Cerebus would sell anywhere near as well without Dave
Sim, regardless of where he comes in in the fan polls.
>Incidently, I'm not sure that the actual creators should be corresponding
>directly with fans anyway, if we're talking about company-owned
>properties. I think the editor, as the person hired to oversee the
>creation of the book, should be the one listening to and considering fan
>feedback. If I'm hired to write "Warpo the Super Gorilla" (TM) or
>whatever, I shouldn't have to be thinking about things like sales or the
>fact that half my readership wants Warpo's sister, Nebulo-lo, to be gay
>or that the fans don't like Warpo's costume. If I hear about these
>things I would go to my editor and say, "Hey, Bob, I hear some of the
>fans don't like Warpo's threads, you want me to change 'em?" If I have
>an opinion on that or any creative issue I'll make my case with the
>editor and let him make the call.
Yes, as a writer I have no need to know what my audience wants. I
think I should hire an editor to track their responses and tell me
what to do. We all know what great reputations editors have.
>Now if you're talking about creator-owned properties, or if you don't
>have strong editorial leadership, then as a creator you might find
>yourself in a position, I suppose, where you feel like you have to, or
>maybe you just want to, interact with the fans. Now you get to decide
>what to listen to and what to ignore and how to deal with it. What
>should your criteria be?
No matter who owns the copyright, when you're creating it's your
character. The only person who should be in a position to dictate
actions is you.
>I think it's here where the Dynamic Duo, Logic and Reason, swing into
>play. People want to pretend that art, or any act of creation, is some
>sort of magical process for which their are no rules, and that's not
>true. While it's true that any creator of any art can do whatever he
>wishes, it is also true that there are certain concepts, like form and
>structure and theme and etc., that make for consistently emotionally
>satisfying art. And since we're talking about an art form which is
>cranked out on (one hopes) a monthly basis and is allegedly intended to
>appeal to a vast number of people, I as a fan am completely justified in
>making appeals to logically valid artistic criticism and saying that the
>creators or the editors oughta listen (and by extension, one would hope
>that people who recognize that an argument is valid would act upon it
>unless they have a logically valid reason not to do so).
But most comic books suck. Massively. That's one reason why.
>> I think the creator should always stick as close to his or her vision as
>> possible. Otherwise you get comics by committee, and I think we can agree
>> there are far too many comics like that already.
>This is where editorial leadership comes in. For example, TMK on Legion
>of Super Heroes. The editor on that book should have listened to what
>the fans were saying and, based on either raw sales or the validity of
>the arguments posed (both for and against), decided upon what direction
>the book should take and what the creators should be allowed to do. The
>creators, then, can decide if what the editor wants is close enough to
>their artistic vision to roll with it or if it's so different that they
>have to leave the book. That's not creation by committee, that's
>creation with strong editorial leadership.
And then my favorite comic books of all time would have guest-starred
Lobo every issue. And Brin Londo would have been brought back by mass
popular appeal, and they would have used their code names, and it
would have sucked, terribly. Thanks but no thanks. You're welcome
not to like the TMK Legion -- I'm sure I hate things that you cherish
too. But you want to reduce my favorite series to marketplace Jello?
Couldn't you just not buy it?
>For example, the Green Lantern issue. Some fans hate Kyle, some love
>him. Some want Hal back, some don't. What's an editor to do? Well
>there's a pretty obvious happy medium there, which many, many fans are
>already clamoring for. Keep Kyle on Earth, keep him in the JLA, let him
>be the main Green Lantern. Bring Hal back and let him go off into deep
>space to either assemble a new Corps or to plum the Guardians' Secrets of
>the Universe or whatever. The people who don't like Kyle have Hal back,
>and the the Kyle fans who don't like Hal can just ignore him. Now, why
>on Earth would any editor or creator ignore feedback like that,
>especially when there may be a buck to be made?
Because it would make a bad story worse?
The irate fans don't -have- to have Green Lantern. If they get angry
enough they'll read something else. Ron Marz can take his remaining
fan base and tell the best stories he's capable of telling.
>....I'd bring Sun Boy back, have Karate Kid join, and probably would
>not let the creators kill off another old character (like Colossal Boy)
>for quite a while, and of course I'd have more action and less standing
>around and talking in the book. Look at the good will engendered by
>something as simple as letting Lar Gand be M'onel...
This is what happens when you like the characters, not the creators,
people. You read the writers and the artists, not Sun Boy and
M'ononucleosis. Mike Mignola could take the Thing and make him a
hyperdepressed piece of wallpaper and I'd probably still like it,
because Mignola is a GOOD CREATOR and he probably wouldn't do that
unless he had a damn good reason. Then Ron Marz could combine the
Question, the Scarecrow, and chocolate, call it Ultra-Lemming, and pay
me twenty dollars. Know what? It would still suck.
>I believe any situation can be handled with artistically satisfying
>compromise and judicious concession. In fact, I think it's one of the
>things that should be fun about working in comics.
The fact that you have no control over your work?
>All true, and actually not the argument that was made. It scans like
>this: Creators (or editors) are free to ignore (unhappy) fans. This may
>result in said fans deciding not to buy the books of said creators. When
>I speak of fans, it is the storytelling which makes them happy or
>unhappy.
Thank god for capitalism.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
ale...@juno.com wrote:
[Brandon's entire post reproed]
: Hey, subtext exists, whether y'likes it or not. Or recognize it.
: I guess you're going to insist Wonder Woman doesn't have any possiblee
: lesbian subtext, either.
Alecto, you're new here, but it's not considered good "netiquette" to
repro someone's entire post and only add a few lines of your own. Please
trim posts in the future, if you can, so you're only quoting the relevaant
portions of their posts. For more information please see the posts in
news.announce.newusers and the FAQs posted regularly in this group.
Thanks!
That said, yeah, there's subtext all over, but a lot of it is often what
the reader chooses to see. One *can* go overboard; sometimes a cigar IS
just a cigar and a train chasing a hot dog through a tunnel is... erm,
um, where was I? Oh yeah, you can see this stuff if you want to, but that
doesn't always mean it was intended. As I said during my JLA #5 soapbox
rant, I don't think Morrison meant to portray Tomorrow Woman at all in the
way I was interpreting the character, but it was an interesting exercise
for me to talk about it in terms of sexist context & stuff anyway.
Long as you realize a lot of this subtext stuff is your personal soapbox
and baggage too, 'kay? Just like a lot of my interpretations come from my
personal soapbox and baggage.
Keith Counsell
In article <68b6r0$l...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>Misleading analogy. Your food store is analagous to your comics retailer.
>If your retailer didn't provide you with a book that was available at
>other stores, you'd have every right to complain. The crouton company is
>analagous to the comic book publisher. If the company stopped making the
>stuff and you complained that you wanted them back, unless a LOT more
>people voiced the same complaint the company would pretty much shrug.
New Coke! New Coke!
--
Please remove lake-pork-be-gone from my email address to reply.
My opinions in no way reflect those of my employer.
SPAM BAIT by neal Masri (abbreviated): abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
> Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo (mor...@riph5.rice.edu) wrote:
> : Definition of terms: "Lots of people" are *not* buying GL...
>
> More are than were before. Therefore, DC's strategy seems to have worked.
As has been demonstrated, Kyle now is selling about a third of what GL
Corps was canceled on in 1987, and about even with what GL (v3) was selling
when it started in 1990.
> : and didn't buy
> : Metal Men, simply because there are only about ten books in the entire
> : comics marketplace in NorAm that are bought by "lots of people".
>
> Elmo, I hate playing semantics with you. You know what I meant. Enough
> people are buying the book now that DC is satisfied with the way it's
> going.
And I'm telling you that "what you meant" is *what's wrong*. DC
*shouldn't* be satisfied with GL because it's selling small potatoes on any
absolute scale.
> : One can argue that GL is bought by "lots of people" relative to other
> : books, but that doesn't answer Chris's argument, which is essentially that
> : books like Emerald Twilight are precisely *why* "lots of people" aren't
> : buying comics *at all*.
>
> I don't think this specific plotline has that much to do with why people
> aren't buying comics. I think the reasons why people aren't buying comics
> are many and varied, but I do not believe specific plotlines are among
> those main reasons.
Uh-huh. That's what I said "books like Emerald Twilight". ET represents a
general trend in comics of the early 1990s. Chris's thesis, and one I
agree with, is that that trend drove away regular readers.
> : Obviously, these are examples of books that Chris thinks have
> : information and characterization imparted in fewer static panels with
> : more action.
>
> But because the writers and artists are good, right?
No. Chris is saying that it was a question of conscious choice, not of
skill or talent, that the writers deliberately chose to fit
characterizaiton and exposition into the action.
> : Because you would have liked Sneckie *even if she weren't Princess
> : Projectra*.
>
> Because I think the storytelling's good.
Yes, but simply because you weren't a preboot Legion fan, you have no basis
to answer the argument of us ROTs about Jeka's preboot antecedents. It's
that simple. I wouldn't ask a Jew to explain Islamic law to me, y'know.
> And this is what I'm saying. I
> think it's more important for the storytelling to be good than for the
> writers to try to please the fans regarding specific plot points.
And we're saying that we have additional criteria that say that the
storytelling isn't good.
--
"When even one American--who has done nothing wrong--is forced by fear to shut
his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."--Harry S Truman
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
W. Allen Montgomery
Chris M. <cm...@io.com> wrote:
>I bet that literally millions of people who hadn't read a comic book
>since they were kids, or hadn't read a comic book ever, picked up and
>looked at comics in the early '90's.
..
>They flipped through comics. It may or
>may not be a shame that there weren't more non-super hero titles on those
>shelves,
Right there. You said it.
>but if the Big Two, at least, were publishing quality super hero
>comics that young and old would enjoy, at least some of those people
>would've stuck around and would've eventually found the quality non-super
>hero titles (as well as continuing to buy the super hero fare). And the
>people who were already reading comics wouldn't've left.
But then you floundered. I'm trying to find the article (can't
remember where it was published) that states, the relevance of the superhero
to our society — past the prepubescent stage young men go through — is
limited to times of war.
Think about it. The first major superhero (Superman) was based on a
novel (Philip Wylie's Gladiator) that clearly states the superhuman is merely
a monster in human form, has no place in our world and must therefore die.
Every subsequent superhero comic book has been based upon the work of Siegel &
Schuster, whether directly or indirectly. The whole superhero-dominated
industry is based on a misinterpretation of a very simple lesson, and
perpetuated by those who are too stupid to figure it out. As more and more
people come to the realization that the superhero ideal was bogus from the
start, the comics mainstream (and those who would emulate the comics
mainstream) loses its audience.
You want to read the last word on superheroes? Bill Mayer's
SuperFolks. It was published in 1978, I believe.
"Enough has been said," as Stan Lee lacked the intelligence to
articulate.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo
lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) writes:
> Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
> Ayla and Vi were lovers?
Er, um, *where*? Not that I ever saw!
--
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
"Specialization is for insects."--Robert A. Heinlein
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Jason Fliegel
In article <EM0tz...@news2.new-york.net>,
Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
>Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:05:07 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <ELzuo...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>
>>>>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>>>>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>>>
>>>It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
>
>>Only Giffen's reboot. I must have missed something.
>
>Ayla and Vi were lovers?
>
No they didn't. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about their run on
the Legion, even among those who enjoyed it, is that they danced around
the issue, but never had so much as a hug or an "I love you."
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
deck_the_tals_with_babs_&_holly
In article <34A95B...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com says...
>
>Deck, the, Tals, with, Babs, &, Holly wrote:
>>
>> In article <34A6A8...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com says...
>>
>> >Alecto,
>> >Who seems to have struck fear in the hearts of fanboys with this
>> >particular idea.
>>
>> been rehashed more times than Elayne plonks publicly.
>>
>> But I do enjoy the way you get off on your own evilness. ;)
>>
>> Talon T M
>
>Way to talk, anti-papist.
That was the best you could do? I'm touched. ;)
Talon T M
Anti-Papist Smear
Paul O'Brien
In article <34A962...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com writes
>However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'.
Possibly because Pierce Brosnan is a twat, and David Duchovny is
average at best.
Noah Wyle is more my type, actually.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
"A terrifically important film" - Independent on Sunday
Lemming
eep. mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo).
klordny. 30 Dec 97 17:30:35 -0600. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) writes:
>> Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
>> Ayla and Vi were lovers?
>Er, um, *where*? Not that I ever saw!
It was always in the lettercols. They never put it into the mag
itself, for obvious reasons. Someday I'll look up the actual issues,
but I think it was the one where Vi got her blue leg.
Kevin J. Maroney
mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo) wrote:
>The sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining as the writer
>(Gerard Jones) burnt out visibly and obviously month-by-month.
Burnt out by constant battles with his editor who had a completely
different "vision" for the book than did Jones.
Declining, as well, from a lackluster start after DC squandered
whatever momentum the Green Lantern franchise had by postponing the GL
relaunch until after the inevitable failure of _Action Comics Weekly_
and then flooding the market with more Green Lantern titles than
anyone wanted.
With rare exceptions, series loose readers. Jones's _Green Lantern_
was not one of the exceptions.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Mike Chary
JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
>>joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
>>> Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
>>
>>Pretentious much?
>
>No, but please, show me more about how to be so.
Actually, Johanna's right. She wasn't pretending to do anything. She
really thinks this way. That's called "arrogance." Pretention is
something else entirely.
>Ritual exchange of insults out of the way, I think you've missed some
>of the context of this discussion. It began with the premise that most
No, no, really, he's very familiar with it. We've been discussing it
right the way along. He just thinks you are incorrect.
>(all?) people around here (online) aren't typical comic readers. So I'm
>not saying you don't understand the lettercol; I'm saying the "average"
>fan (who may or may not exist, but is generally constructed to be a
>preteen (8-14 year old) male who reads a few of the hottest titles
>(Spawn, X-Men, JLA) ) doesn't. No need to feel insulted; you were
>excluded from the group several posts back.
And, Johanna, we're insulted because we used to be males, aged 8-14 who
read a few of the hottest titles like X-men and JLA and LSH and New Teen
Titans and TMNT (the Spawn of the early 1980's :)) and we knew *exactly*
what a lettercolumn was. Get it?
>>Nevertheless, most letter columns will, and do, publish negative letters.
>
>Yes -- so they can either say "hey, look for the next issue, where that's
>changing" or they can point out what the person misunderstood. Or they
>can better define who they want their audience to be by defining who
>it's not (Roo on JLA, anyone?). All ways of further promoting the
>product.
>
>Oh, I should probably also clarify that I'm talking about mainstream
>letter columns, not indy.
Or they can just hand out a bunch of meaningless p[ap like they usually
do :):)
>>It is not unreasonable for a fan ... who dislikes something in a comic
>>book he currently reads to write to the editor or creators of that
>>book and hope that his letter might be published in the letter column
>>and that the editor/creators will read it and consider it.
>
>And, of course, they're still read, even if they're not printed.
>
>I'm not saying that "only positive letters get printed". I'm simply
>saying that the purpose of the lettercol is to sell the book, just as
>the purpose of every other page is (by presenting good art and
>story). I have seen any number of people that consider the lettercol
>page, however, "theirs" and think that there's some kind of right to
>be published. There's not.
But what you were originally saying is that fans couldn't figure out
where to send the bloody things?
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"You've got some nerve calling yourself blind." - Louis DePalma
"I bought the Star Trek chess set and the Civil War chess set. Now, I
have the South fight the Klingons." -- David Spensely
Tom Vincent
>bryan young wrote:
>
>> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
>>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
>
>Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
>naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
>talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy)
So you're saying you've never seen a Dali painting? Or a Gauguin? Or
Warhol's stuff?
> However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
>sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
>acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
>whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
>queer!).
Ummmm.... Pierce Brosnan is an incredibly handsome man. Wrong for James
Bond (too pretty and not big enough. Dalton was better, and Connery was the
best) but he is very good looking. I can't see the sexiness in Duchovney,
although I can in Mel Gibson, Jimmy Smits and Harrison Ford. I also think
that Stallone's physique in Rocky III probably exemplified the "perfect"
male form in the classic Greek sense.
But I'm quite hetero, I assure you, and have no fears of anyone thinking
otherwise. To be honest, it appears you are the one having difficulty with
your sexuality.
Just relax... go get boinked, and enjoy it.
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Ryan A. Barhorst
here's:
>>>Nevertheless, most letter columns will, and do, publish negative letters.
and...
>>I'm not saying that "only positive letters get printed".
if you dont mind me interjecting a little point....
i wouldnt waste my time writing a letter to a column of a particular comic
telling him/her/they that it sucked. i just wouldnt buy it.
am i wrong in assuming that 90% of the letters they get are naturally, then,
going to be positive (" you are SOOOOOOO cool!" type) letters? thus, they cant
publish stuff they dont get.
but then... im sure there are people out there whith that sort of spare
time....
Alex
Lemming
eep. jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel). klordny. Tue, 30
Dec 1997 23:44:41 GMT. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <EM0tz...@news2.new-york.net>,
>Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>>eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
>>Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:05:07 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>>
>>>In article <ELzuo...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>>
>>>>>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>>>>>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
>>
>>>Only Giffen's reboot. I must have missed something.
>>
>>Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
>>Ayla and Vi were lovers?
>>
>No they didn't. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about their run on
>the Legion, even among those who enjoyed it, is that they danced around
>the issue, but never had so much as a hug or an "I love you."
I read it, specifically, in a lettercol. Specifically in the sense
that their intention was unmistakable, not specifically in the sense
that, "Vi and Ayla bump uglies," was a direct quote. There will be
no peace until I find the actual quote, will there?
Ah, I'm not that bored. Believe me or don't.
Lemming
eep. tom...@capital.net (Tom Vincent). klordny. Wed, 31 Dec 1997
01:02:49 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>In article <34A962...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>>bryan young wrote:
>>
>>> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
>>>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
>>
>>Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
>>naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
>>talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy)
>So you're saying you've never seen a Dali painting? Or a Gauguin? Or
>Warhol's stuff?
Interesting...interesting....
Posting with Burrough's cut-up technique, are we?
>> However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>>driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>>good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
>>sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
>>acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
>>whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
>>queer!).
>Ummmm.... Pierce Brosnan is an incredibly handsome man. Wrong for James
>Bond (too pretty and not big enough. Dalton was better, and Connery was the
>best) but he is very good looking. I can't see the sexiness in Duchovney,
>although I can in Mel Gibson, Jimmy Smits and Harrison Ford. I also think
>that Stallone's physique in Rocky III probably exemplified the "perfect"
>male form in the classic Greek sense.
I really don't see you swilling Heinekin with your pals, Tom, yellin'
"Check out the buns on that linebacker!" You and I and everyone may
think these things, but men very rarely -say- them.
James Corcoran
> : Chris Maka wrote:
> : Well, since my specific feedback is based on logic and reason...
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> YOUR logic and reason. With which anyone else may disagree, based on
what
> THEY feel are logic and reason.
While one person logic and reason may be flawed in individual
circumstances, when a group of fans (or the majority) are consistent in
their feedback then a creator is stupid not to listen to it.
> The consumer of the end-product, not a part of the creative process.
And the bottom line if the comic has any future. If the creator doesn't
listen to the "customer" then he/she will probably find themselves not
creating that comic anymore.
> Not if the creator follows his or her own instincts on what constitutes a
> good story. These instincts may or may not include listening to what
fans
> have to say.
That's if the creator's own opinion, instincts, whatever are attractive to
the fans. What that individual creator sees as good storytelling, the
majority may see as drek. Through feedback, the creator can gauge if his
story is having any success or not. I understand if a creator may not want
to change his vision to satisfy fans (he may see it as a cop-out for
example), but if he not willing to be flexible then maybe comics aren't the
proper medium for his vision.
James Corcoran
Mikel Midnight
> >If I wrote a Batman comic using Robin and someone told me it was homo
> >erotic, I would laugh.
>
> Nervously.
Hell, I would take it as a compliment!
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Robin
In article <$NL5VkAX...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But what do you mean by "theft"? It can't be just reusing another
>person's work, since "reference" and "homage" do that as well. To
>me, the morally reprehensible element of swiping is that you're passing
>the work off as your own - so I think a prerequisite is that the swipe
>isn't reasonably recognisable.
Okay let's use a concrete example of "swipe". One where I know, and am
friends with both parties involved. Guess who I mean? :)
Shock horror announcement: Bryan Hitch used to swipe from Alan Davis.
*gasp*
"NO", I hear you cry, "it cannot be, I'd never noticed that". Well actually
I'm pretty sure you had noticed it, along with everyone else. The thing is,
Bryan will freely admit that he used to swipe from Alan. That's how he
learned to draw in a mainstream style and unlike most artists he got work
early and did his learning in public. He was not "referencing", he was not
"homaging" he was swiping and it was very recognisable.
The ongoing dispute is that Alan considers it to be theft and thinks Bryan
is still doing it. Bryan can see his point but contends that he no longer
does it and any similarities are simply parts of Alan's technique that have
become part of his own through repeated use.
Swipes have to be recognisable or there wouldn't be any problem with them.
If it's not recognisable then it's just a poor copy that nobody cares
about. Just about everyone has swiped at one time or another. Even Neal
Adams (one of the most swiped artists in history) apparently swiped Dan
DeCarlo in order to get a job with Archie when he was starting out.
Robin.
Robin
In article <1997Dec3...@riph7.rice.edu>,
mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo) wrote:
>Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) writes:
>> Because the sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining.
>
>Sophist.
Charmer.
>The sales of the book when Hal was the star were declining as the writer
>(Gerard Jones) burnt out visibly and obviously month-by-month.
This is patently obvoious to you as an outside observer isn't it? What has
that got to do with the reason for DC making the change?
>Claiming that Hal Jordan couldn't sell the book any more is an argument
>built on the same bed of sand and is just as inane.
Inanity aside, that appears to be the reason that DC made the decision and
based on the impact on sales, they see no reason to change it.
As I said, Greg, I'd much rather have Hal as GL. I'm not arguing against
it. I'm just pointing out what I see as the real world reasons for why
things are being done rather than the fan's wish fulfilment view of how
things ought to be.
You're not arguing with me on this one, you're arguing with DC, so cut out
the name calling.
Robin.
Robin
In article <1997Dec3...@riph7.rice.edu>,
mor...@riph5.rice.edu (Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo) wrote:
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>> Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo (mor...@riph5.rice.edu) wrote:
>> : Definition of terms: "Lots of people" are *not* buying GL...
>>
>> More are than were before. Therefore, DC's strategy seems to have worked.
>
>As has been demonstrated, Kyle now is selling about a third of what GL
>Corps was canceled on in 1987, and about even with what GL (v3) was selling
>when it started in 1990.
As you well know, sales are down about two-thirds accross the board on a
few years ago. Selling as well as a title did in 1990 is actually
acceptable at the moment. You can tell how happy DC was with the sales by
how many books Kyle cropped up in a while back. For a while he was doing
more guest shots than Wolverine. They don't do that with what they consider
to be unpopular characters.
Robin.
Tom Vincent
>eep. tom...@capital.net (Tom Vincent). klordny. Wed, 31 Dec 1997
>01:02:49 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <34A962...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
>>>naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
>>>talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy)
>
>>So you're saying you've never seen a Dali painting? Or a Gauguin? Or
>>Warhol's stuff?
>
>Interesting...interesting....
>
>Posting with Burrough's cut-up technique, are we?
No, posting in a style which closely resembles my conversational style, we are.
Remember- cigars.
>
>>> However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>>>driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>>>good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
>>>sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
>>>acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
>>>whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
>>>queer!).
>
>>Ummmm.... Pierce Brosnan is an incredibly handsome man. Wrong for James
>>Bond (too pretty and not big enough. Dalton was better, and Connery was the
>>best) but he is very good looking. I can't see the sexiness in Duchovney,
>>although I can in Mel Gibson, Jimmy Smits and Harrison Ford. I also think
>>that Stallone's physique in Rocky III probably exemplified the "perfect"
>>male form in the classic Greek sense.
>
>I really don't see you swilling Heinekin with your pals, Tom, yellin'
>"Check out the buns on that linebacker!" You and I and everyone may
>think these things, but men very rarely -say- them.
Actually, you won't see me swillin' heinies with my pals yellin' "Check out
the cans on that cheerleader!" either.
It's just not my style.
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open and the links have gone through update #3.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Tom Vincent
In article <34a786b7...@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com (B. P.
Uecker) wrote:
>Tom Vincent wrote:
>
>>I use photo refrence all the time. All thos painted backgrounds in The
>>Thanos Quest? Photo refrenced from astronomy books. The skies? photo
>>refrenced from photos I had taken. (Yes, I have a large collection of
>>photographs of cloudscapes) Amusingly, when my wife saw one of the
>>cloudscapes I had painted in the sequence where Thanos is playing the chess
>>game for the mind gem, she said "That sky looks fake. You'd better change
>>it." So i whipped out the photos I had taken the week before in a hayfeild
>>near our house, and loa and behold, there was the very same sky. her
>>comment did prompt me to stip the backing off the photographic paper and
>>paste the picture up into a small background, though- just to prove that it
>>was real.
>
>I was taught during my brief stay in art school that working from
>photographs was a bad habit due to photography's limitations. Certainly
>in the case of drawing the human form I think this is very true, but I
>don't know whether such a rule would apply to landscapes.
I think that the main point being made in this instance (and I also make
the same point myself constantly) is that when _learning_ to draw, it's
_always_ a bad idea to work from photographs.
Having said that- I know a lot of professional illustrators, and the only
one who doesn't work with photo refrence as a matter of course is my buddy
the medical ilustrator. (it can be quite unnerving to the uninitiated to go
to his studio and see human bones lying about), but even he will use
refrence when illustrating surgical procedures, taking photographs of hands
holding instruments for certain aspects of certain procedures, for
instance).
Photo refrence is a tremendous time saver, and also allows for saving
particular things (i.e.cloudscapes) that may or may not occur frequently.
For instance- the particular cloud formation in my example above was
altocumulus clouds. Where I live, I might go weeks without seeing that
particular formation, clearly an unrealistic option when dealing with a
deadline yet still striving for a degree of realism and believability.
> Drawing from
>one's own photographs, at least, sets aside the issue of whether or not
>the artist is unfairly borrowing the compositional aspects of the
>photographer's work (just as serious a charge as swiping from another
>artist, I would think).
>
>Of course with an artistic work you need something that suits the
>composition, not necessarily something drawn exactly from life. It is
>not difficult to imagine a cloudscape that, though real, detracted from
>the overall work in some way and lent to it an air of artificiality.
>Perhaps this was the point your wife was hitting on.
Actually, in this instance it was the formation of the clouds themselves
which threw her off- sort of like seeing a really spectacular sunset and
thinking how it is so spectacular and unusual that it almost looks
artificial. I've been seeing a lot of sunrises like that here lately due to
the atmospheric conditions inthis part of the country at this time of year.
A couple of mornings it actually looked like the sky was filled with fire-
absolutely incredible.
But, back to the Thanos instance, the reason for choosing the altocumulus
formation was because the setting of the sequence was a chess game between
Thanos and Grand Master for control of the mind gem. I wanted to establish
a surreal setting, while echoing the motif of the chessboard using the
clouds in the sky. Design wise, I think it was quite successful.
---Tom Vincent
The gallery is now open.
http://www.capital.net/~tom127/index.html
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Keith Counsell (kei...@accord.lake-pork-be-gone.caltech.edu) wrote:
: In article <68b6r0$l...@panix3.panix.com> fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
: >Misleading analogy. Your food store is analagous to your comics retailer.
: >If your retailer didn't provide you with a book that was available at
: >other stores, you'd have every right to complain. The crouton company is
: >analagous to the comic book publisher. If the company stopped making the
: >stuff and you complained that you wanted them back, unless a LOT more
: >people voiced the same complaint the company would pretty much shrug.
: New Coke! New Coke!
Isn't New Coke still in existence?
And yes, we're talking about a situation wherein a LOT of people were
dissatisfied with a product. But guess what? Old Coke was brought back
when New Coke *didn't sell* like Coke wanted it to. Similarly, changes
are made by comics publishers when current comics *don't sell* like the
publishers want them to.
Jason Fliegel
In article <EM1oo...@news2.new-york.net>,
Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>eep. jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel). klordny. Tue, 30
>Dec 1997 23:44:41 GMT. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <EM0tz...@news2.new-york.net>,
>>Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
>>>Ayla and Vi were lovers?
>>>
>
>>No they didn't. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about their run on
>>the Legion, even among those who enjoyed it, is that they danced around
>>the issue, but never had so much as a hug or an "I love you."
>
>I read it, specifically, in a lettercol. Specifically in the sense
>that their intention was unmistakable, not specifically in the sense
>that, "Vi and Ayla bump uglies," was a direct quote. There will be
>no peace until I find the actual quote, will there?
You probably read it in a "DC Universe" Column (the predecessor to "Watch
This Space"), where one of the Legion's many editors (Michael Eury, I
think, but I could be wrong) mentioned Ayla and Vi as an example of "See!
DC has lots of gay characters!" I'm fairly certain that the column was
the only DC-published acknowledgment that those two characters were gay.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
ale...@juno.com wrote:
: *sigh*--From my original post everyone hopped on the gay thing, proving
: my fanboy gag-reflex theory, while no one felt any real need to comment
: on how women are portrayed. Typical.
*sigh*
Alecto, you're new here. First of all, please try to keep responses
within the same thread instead of starting new ones, it makes them easier
to read if they're all in the same place. Secondly, we've had LOTS of
threads on how women are portrayed in comics. We don't happen to have any
going NOW, but trust me, this subject crops up every couple months or so,
stick around long enough and I guarantee you'll see it again. It is a
common assumption by newbies that they're the first to raise certain
subjects if they don't currently see discussion going on about them.
While I certainly wouldn't *discourage* you starting posts on sexism and
such in comics, I can assure you we HAVE discussed the topic on many
occasions prior to your arrival. :)
: Yeah, go fight crime with your tits hanging out and a thong flossing the
: crack of your ass, ladies.
You forgot "and in high heels." And, if you're Ginger Rogers,
"backwards." :)
: I guess for a fanboy to grasp how insulting the contemporary typical
: superheroine/bad girl costume is...
I think lots of fanboys grasp that. Some don't care. Typical arguments
run along the lines of "It's *fantasy*, specifically a fantasy geared
towards my hormonal tastes, so why should I complain?", and "Hey, men are
just as exaggerated" (but of course men aren't sexualized in their
exaggeration).
: Yup. Comics just aren't for kids any more. They're for arrested
: adolescents.
Some are, sure. Many aren't.
JohannaLD
From: barho...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan A. Barhorst)
>am i wrong in assuming that 90% of the letters they get are naturally,
>then, going to be positive (" you are SOOOOOOO cool!" type) letters?
I don't know that I'd guess a ratio that high. And there are also mixed
letters that are hard to clarify. But I would guess that a higher
proportion of negative letters aren't printed, not because of what
they say, but because of how they say it. That is, to be considered
for printing, a letter should be well-written, have some content
beyond "I like" or "I dislike" (such as supporting reasons), not use
epithets or inappropriate language, and the like.
Johanna
Brandon Blatcher
In article <34A95E...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>Brandon Blatcher wrote:
>>
>
>> >My. Struck a sore nerve with that one, eh?
>>
>> Yep. But not for the reason you think.
>>
>> >Since I'm hardly the first & only person to make this observation re
>> >Die
>> >Fliedermaus & Chirp, and you don't seem to be aware of the irony
>> >behind bringing up the mentor-pupil ideal (which was based on the
>> >Spartan lover/warriors of Ancient Greece--don't they make students read
>> >Mary Renault anymore?), I find your post (and the other one) to a
>> >shining example (dare i say "hard" evidence?) of the sexism I was
>> >discussing.
>>
>> Is it sexism or homophobic? I want to know who I'm supposed to be
>>predjuice against.
>
>New Flash! Homophobia is a *subsection* of Sexism. "Sexism" doesn't
>automatically & solely mean "misogyny", although it often does. And, to
>wit, Sexism is a *subsection* of Bigotry, which is genetically simialr
>to, but not necessarily identical to, Racism.
News Update! According to the Websters sexism is predjudice or
dicrimination based on sex (not who you're having sex with)
>> Please point to an example where the mentor-pupil relationship between
>>two males in American comics is in some way homosexual.
>
>No. I'd rather let anal-retentive fanboys work themselves into a lather
>trying to disprove it.
Get down off your high horse and say that!
>> >Alecto
>> >"The Shadow of the Erect Penis Shall Strike Terror Into their Hearts,
>> >For They Are An Insecure, Homophobic Lot."
>>
>> Its time for your medication dear.
>>
>> Brandon
>> in the living room, not the closet
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> delete the spamblock to send email
>>
>> Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
>
>
>The above sig, alone, says more than I ever could.
Seek and ye shall find.
Brandon
admittedly amused
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.
Brandon Blatcher
>
>*sigh*--From my original post everyone hopped on the gay thing, proving
>my fanboy gag-reflex theory, while no one felt any real need to comment
>on how women are portrayed. Typical.
Well, we are homophobic, ya know.
>Yeah, go fight crime with your tits hanging out and a thong flossing the
>crack of your ass, ladies.
Vampirella is kewl!
>Doesn't anyone remember the response of the
>women in A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN when they're informed that they have to
>play pro ball in *short skirts*? And the results?
>
>I guess for a fanboy to grasp how insulting the contemporary typical
>superheroine/bad girl costume is to ask them to picture,say, their
>favorite adolescent power fantasy role model standing proudly on the
>cover with one nut hanging out of his Italian bun-hugger tights. Or
>maybe the head of his dick peeping out the leg of his shorts.
Now there's a cover image.
>Yup. Comics just aren't for kids any more. They're for arrested
>adolescents.
Arrested for what?
Brandon
arrested homophobic adolescent. in high heels. AND a thong.
John McMahon
> JohannaLD <joha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >From: Chris M. <cm...@io.com>
> >>joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) wrote:
> >>> Most don't understand that the lettercol is another hype page.
> >>
> >>Pretentious much?
> >
> >No, but please, show me more about how to be so.
>
I probably fall into the 'average' reader mould - I read stuff
published by Wildstorm/Top Cow/Vertigo/DC and the odd
Marvel book. Nothing too taxing on the brain there.
From what I've seen, the standard letter col really is just
another hype page. There are exceptions - Garth Ennis,
for exampls, uses the Preacher lettercol to track down old
war comics.
What really bugs me is when they _do_ publish a negative
letter, the editor responds with 'ah but in 5 issues that will
have changed'.
Best example of the hype lettercol this month was Divine
Right #3 from Wildstorm - read it for proof (the lettercol,
not the comic, it's not worth the cash).
Just an average readers opinion,
John
Brandon Blatcher
In article <34A95C...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
(lots and lots of stuff snipped)
>
>Hey, subtext exists, whether y'likes it or not. Or recognize it.
Or paint it on with imagination?
>I guess you're going to insist Wonder Woman doesn't have any possiblee
>lesbian subtext, either.
I've actually never read Wonder Woman. She always struck me as cheesy and
uninteresting.
However, I can see where some people might see a lesbian subtext. But is it
really there?
Brandon
suddenly interested
W. Allen Montgomery
Ryan A. Barhorst wrote:
>if you dont mind me interjecting a little point....
>i wouldnt waste my time writing a letter to a column of a particular comic
>telling him/her/they that it sucked. i just wouldnt buy it.
>publish stuff they dont get.
>
>but then... im sure there are people out there whith that sort of spare
>time....
Back when Faust first started, when it was still at Northstar, there
was an article on it in Comics Scene (of all places!). Tim Vigil came off as
very sincere to me in that article (despite the depravity of his imagery), and
it was because of that sincerity I first picked up Faust. And... I didn't
like it. So I then wrote a concise letter eplaining exactly what I didn't
like about it (but not what I wanted them to change), and sent the letter in.
They must've put me on some mailing list or something, because about a
year later I received a promotional Faust poster in the mail. At first I
scoffed, "Oh, this shitty comic again?" Then I looked more closely at the
art, and compared it to the art in the issue I'd bought earlier. Vigil had
gotten much, much better.
So then I went out and bought the latest issue and a few others that
I'd missed, and I loved it! Now, I'm not suggesting Quinn and Vigil took my
displeasured commentary to heart or anything — I'm sure they got better just
because that's what mature artists do — but if you buy somebody's work and
don't like it, you've got to let them know, and know why.
Just don't make the mistake of dictating a remedy, as so many fanboys
often try to do. Most artists tend to have this real itchy problem with
authority.
--
Later,
W. Allen Montgomery
Brandon Blatcher
>bryan young wrote:
>
>> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
>>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
>
>Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
>naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
>talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy) The instutional awe/fear
>of the tallywacker in Western Culture is hardly a New & Daring Concept.
>Still, the ability of women to look at other women and access their
>physical charms,etc. is so commonas to not raise an eyebrow. For
>example: a woman can look at,say, a picture of Sharon Stone and say:
>"she's beautiful" or "she's really sexy" and not mean it in any sort of
>sexual context, but as an acknowledgement of fact on the order of saying
>"she's a mammal". However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
>sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
>acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
>whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
>queer!).
You've got valid points here.
>> See how easy it is to say ANYTHING and then claim righteous
>>indignation when people challenge your claim. To prove your point you
>>need to give examples. What issue? What page? ANyone can say
>>anything. To make it plausible you need
>> facts to back up your claim.
>
>You've never seen any of the Golden Age comics, have you? The one's were
>Robin or Bucky or Sandy or Toro or whoever are splayed across torture
>racks, hairless chests barred, while leering villains preapre to
>brand them.
No wonder it was called the Golden Age. Or is that a homoerotic reference too?
>> And no I don't really care about anyone's sexuallity.
>
>Hence the lesbian dig.
>But that brings up Wonder Woman--
>(Odd that men don't seem to be as threatened by lesbians as they domale
>homosexuals. I guess its that old prurient interest thing.)
I was on the pier one day when a group of lesbians came to the end where I
was. They wanted a picture with all of them in it and asked me to take it.
Judging from the looks of some, I thought it wise to snap the picture.
Brandon
Brandon Blatcher
>eep. nomadicS...@mindspring.com (Brandon Blatcher). klordny.
>Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:05:07 -0500. fwoo. fwoo. FWOO.
>
>>In article <ELzuo...@news2.new-york.net>, lemm...@cybernex.net wrote:
>
>>>>Interesting. I've never seen the homo-erotic content in superheros, but I
>>>>guess its all in what you see, now isn't it?
>>>
>>>It's there. Oh god, it's there. Ever read LSH?
>
>>Only Giffen's reboot. I must have missed something.
>
>Suuure did. Are you aware that T&M specifically told the world that
>Ayla and Vi were lovers?
That's lesiban, not homosexual (which both homosexuals and lesbians I've
known have claimed is different). Second yes, it was obvious what Ayla and
Vi were, but DC never has the balls to really say it. Third was that just
during the whole run or has it been and ongoing and continueing thing?
>
>>>>(After years of DC being humorless
>>>>>about jokes re Batman & Robin's "relationship", Warners' decision to
>>>>>turn around and hand the last two films in the franchise to one of
>>>>>Hollywood's most outrageous & openly gay directors is both baffling--and
>>>>>fucking hilarious.) To quote the late Dr. Clayton Forester: "Choke on
>>>>>it, you humorless proles".
>>>
>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>
>>>Never.
>
>>Shoot, I better get this thing outta my mouth then.
>
>Er....
heehee
W. Allen Montgomery
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>Keith Counsell wrote:
>> New Coke! New Coke!
>
>Isn't New Coke still in existence?
>
>And yes, we're talking about a situation wherein a LOT of people were
>dissatisfied with a product. But guess what? Old Coke was brought back
>when New Coke *didn't sell* like Coke wanted it to. Similarly, changes
>are made by comics publishers when current comics *don't sell* like the
>publishers want them to.
I actually used to work in the beverage industry (manufacturing
equipment for it, but the execs were in the plant all the time) at the time of
the switch back to "Coca-Cola Classic." As I understood the hearsay — and it
is just that — the switch to New Coke was a ploy to garner more attention to
the trade name Coca-Cola, and the switch back to the original formula was
planned well in advance.
Remember the John Belushi SNL skits where he says, "No Pepsi, Coke."
Or was it the other way around? See? The two trade names had become
interchangeable, and few people really cared which one they got at a fast food
restaurant. RC Cola even had a fair market standing at the time. But look at
the market now. I've actually had people give me a dirty looks and even
threaten mild displays of violence when they asked for a Coke and all I had to
offer them was Pepsi. Me, I can't tell the difference between the two and
just buy whatever's on sale.
But how analagous is this to the change-ups in mainstream comics? Was
DC Comics terribly sly, or just terribly desparate, when they put Superman in
a new costume (yet again)? When I first saw Blueperman, the first question to
cross my mind was, "Okay, when's he getting his old costume back?" It's
inevitable, sure, they have to maintain the trademark. But do they have a
preset amount of time alloted for this experiment, as the Coca-Cola
Corporation allegedly had for theirs? Or are they just following the
month-to-month sales figures, hand-to-mouth as it were, and keeping their
fingers crossed?
Joe Christ
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <34A962...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >bryan young wrote:
> >
> >> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
> >>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
> >
> >Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
> >naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
> >talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy)
>
> Warhol's stuff?
Hey, if its hanging in a museum, its Museum Quality. And I've seen `em
all (of the above) in museums or galleries that were so fucking
expensive they might as well be museums.
> > However, most straight men would rather have a nail
> >driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
> >good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
> >sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
> >acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
> >whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
> >queer!).
>
> Ummmm.... Pierce Brosnan is an incredibly handsome man. Wrong for James
> Bond (too pretty and not big enough. Dalton was better, and Connery was the
> best) but he is very good looking. I can't see the sexiness in Duchovney,
> although I can in Mel Gibson, Jimmy Smits and Harrison Ford. I also think
> that Stallone's physique in Rocky III probably exemplified the "perfect"
> male form in the classic Greek sense.
>
> But I'm quite hetero, I assure you, and have no fears of anyone thinking
> otherwise. To be honest, it appears you are the one having difficulty with
> your sexuality.
Hey, I just want dicks on superheroes. If their distaff versions have to
be saddled with monstrous melons and wasp waists and the hips of young
boys, its only fair that they have armadillos in their trousers.
> Just relax... go get boinked, and enjoy it.
Hey, calm down, boy. No need to get so riled just because you draw these
smooth fuckers. And, as an artist living in Grovers Corners, you can't
tell me that you haven't had to suffer the slings and arrows of
a community that might perceive anything besides chopping down trees and
working on cars as an "unmanly" profession.
I'm just asking for equal time, and I'm giving it all the serious
thought ideas concerning the anatomy of non-existant funnybook
characters deserve.
For example, lets do an informal "Mr. Blacks Best & Worst Dressed List",
except angle it towards the amount of nude-ness re each character.
Femalecahracters are markedwith an "*", males with a "~". (This is not
definitive, by any stretch of the imagination)
Lets see...
Cahracters with Cleavage Only:
The Wasp *
Fly Girl (Major Bummer)*
Original Plastic Man (depending on colorist)~
Characters With Bare Torsos:
Turok (w/pectoral)~
The Hulk ~
Threshold (DV8?)~
Grunge (Gen13)~
Werewolf By Night~
Hawkman (w/harness)~
Evil Ernie~
Cutter (w/fur vest,Elfquest)~
Lobo (w/leather vest)~
Major Bummer~
Son of Satan/Hellstrom (w/cape)~
Igrat (Satanika)*
Characters with Bare Arms:
Supreme~
Thor~
Marshal Law (w/barbed wire)~
Fat Freddy (Freak Bros.)~
Freewheelin' Franklin' (Freak Bros.)~
Lusiphur (Poison Elves)~
Painkiller Jane*
Original Green Arrow (short sleeves)~
Original Speedy (short sleeves)~
Wolverine ~
Gorgon (short sleeves, The Inhumans)~
Characters with Bare Legs:
Original Terra (Teen Titans)*
Fairchild (Gen13)*
Super Girl*
Warrior Nun Areala (slit skirt)*
Mary Marvel*
Spice (Fighting American)*
Characters with Bare Limbs (Arms & Legs):
Original Robin (w/short sleeves)~
Original Cyborg (Teen Titans)~
Groo~
Miraclewoman*
Madame Medusa (Inhumans)*
Colossus (XMen)~
Original Aqualad~
Characters with Bare Torso & Limbs:
Tarzan~
Conan~
Martian Manhunter (w/harness)~
The SubMariner~
Ka-Zar~
The Thing~
The Beast (Avengers era)~
the Creeper (?)~
Jaguar God~
The Spectre (?)~
Igrat (Satanika)*
Hercules (Marvel version)~
Characters With Cleavage & Exposed Shoulders & Arms
Ghost*
Rose & Thorn*
Wonder Girl(Teen Titans)*
Death (Sandman)*
Characters with Cleavage w/Exposed Limbs
Monster Girl (Young Heroes in Love)*
She-Hulk*
Silver-Age Scarlet Witch*
Wonder Woman*
Xena*
Black Queen (wears lingerie in public)*
White Queen (wears lingeries in public)*
Silk Spectre I (Watchmen)*
Elektra (Daredevil)*
Characters with Cleavage & Leg
Raven (Teen Titans)*
Dragon Lady (Terry & The Pirates)*
P'Gell (The Spirit)*
Original Plastic Man (depending on colorist)~
Characters with Cleavage w/Bare Limbs & Exposed Midrift
Starfire (Teen Titans)*
Tigra (wears bikini in public, Avengers)*
Witchblade *
Original Storm (X-Men)*
Lum (wears bikini in public, Those Annoying Aliens)*
Characters With Heavy Cleavage (38D +) w/Bare Limbs, Midrift & Exposed
Ass-Cheeks:
Lady Death*
Purgatori*
Chastity*
Shi*
Panthea*
Ms. Fortune (Image)*
Darkchylde*
Luxura (Vamperotica)*
Mercy*
Donna Mia*
Widow*
Cahracters with Cleavage to Crotch:
Lillith (Tomb of Dracula)*
Deadman ~
Cahracters with Cleavage with (Partially) Exposed Torso:
Satana*
Cahracters with See-Thru Costume W/O Under-Roos:
Dawn (Cry For Dawn)*
Babylon Crush*
Cahracters with Cleavage-to-Crotch & Bare Ass-Cheeks:
Nira *
Hari Kari*
Sinthia*
Vampirella*
Cahracters with Cleavage-To-Crotch & Exposed Upper Thigh
Scarlet Crush (Awesome)*
Cahracters with Cleavage & Exposed Midrift & Upper Thigh
Razor*
Characters Who Are Totally Nude:
Concrete~
Swamp Thing~
Man-Thing~
Woodgod~
Despair (Sandman)*
Satanika*
G.O.T.H.~
Robotman~
Dr. Manhattan (Watchmen)~
Silver Surfer~
Fully Dressed Characters:
The Atom~
Ash~
Aquaman~
Batman~
Batgirl*
Badger~
Blue Beetle~
Black panther~
Blue Beetle~
Bucky~
Captain America~
Captain Marvel (Shazam)~
John Constantine~
Cyclops~
The Crow~
Dr. fate~/*
Doctor Tommorrow~
Dr.Strange~
Daredevil~
E-Man~
Reuben Flagg (American Flagg)~
Fighting American~
Flaming Carrot~
The Flash~
Green lantern~
Grifter~
Hawkwoman*
Iron Man~
Impulse~
Invisible Woman*
Madman~
The Mark~
Miracleman~
Kevin Matchstick (Mage)~
Mr. Fantastic~
Phantom Stranger~
The Punisher~
The Question~
Quantum & Woody~
Rocketeer~
Resurrection Man~
Rorschach~
The Shadow~
Superman~
Steel~
Spawn~
Spiderman~
Spiderwoman~
Shaft (Youngblood)~
The Spirit~
Shade the Changing Man~
Saturn Girl~
The Tick~
XOManowar~
So--when do we get to see The Flash's bare ass-cheeks in action?
Alecto2
Tom Vincent
>Tom Vincent wrote:
>>
>> In article <34A962...@juno.com>, ale...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>> >bryan young wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK fine, then all women who read comic books are lesbians. and if you
>> >>disagree all you have done is prove my point.
>> >
>> >Hey, women have been taught by cultural exposure to be able to look at
>> >naked women or nearly so) in art and see ART, not a sex object. (I'm
>> >talking Museum quality art here, not Playboy)
>>
>> So you're saying you've never seen a Dali painting? Or a Gauguin? Or
>> Warhol's stuff?
>
>Hey, if its hanging in a museum, its Museum Quality. And I've seen `em
>all (of the above) in museums or galleries that were so fucking
>expensive they might as well be museums.
Exactly my point. Every one of these artists has also revelled in
protraying the sexuality of women.
>
>> > However, most straight men would rather have a nail
>> >driven through their hand rather than say "Pierce Brosnan is a
>> >good-looking man" or "David Duchovny is sexy'. Now, they might
>> >sublimnate by saying so-and-so is "cool", "macho", or "kicks ass". But
>> >acknowledging their physical handsomeness is perceived,
>> >whether consciously or not, as threatening (someone might think they're
>> >queer!).
>>
>> Ummmm.... Pierce Brosnan is an incredibly handsome man. Wrong for James
>> Bond (too pretty and not big enough. Dalton was better, and Connery was the
>> best) but he is very good looking. I can't see the sexiness in Duchovney,
>> although I can in Mel Gibson, Jimmy Smits and Harrison Ford. I also think
>> that Stallone's physique in Rocky III probably exemplified the "perfect"
>> male form in the classic Greek sense.
>>
>> But I'm quite hetero, I assure you, and have no fears of anyone thinking
>> otherwise. To be honest, it appears you are the one having difficulty with
>> your sexuality.
>
>Hey, I just want dicks on superheroes. If their distaff versions have to
>be saddled with monstrous melons and wasp waists and the hips of young
>boys, its only fair that they have armadillos in their trousers.
Personally, I can't stand looking at the biped insects which allegedly pass
as women in comics. I think all these T&A guys, if they're really that hot
on drawing sexualized women, should learn from the masters how to do it.
That is, look at how artists like Dave Stevens, Alberto Vargas, George
Petty, Virgil Finlay, Olivia, etc., etc. do it. Their work is gorgeous, and
incredibly erotic.
Trust me- when I see these distorted shapes you describe that are supposed
to be women, horny is about the last thing in the world I feel. Insect sex?
Not for me. That is, not unless it's drawn by S. Clay Wilson.
>
>> Just relax... go get boinked, and enjoy it.
>
>Hey, calm down, boy. No need to get so riled just because you draw these
>smooth fuckers.
Actually, I don't. When I draw women, I really want them to look like
women, not insects. And I wasn't riled- honest. To misquote Dylan, I think
everybody must get boned.
> And, as an artist living in Grovers Corners, you can't
>tell me that you haven't had to suffer the slings and arrows of
>a community that might perceive anything besides chopping down trees and
>working on cars as an "unmanly" profession.
heh, heh. I spent years working as a nurse prior to actually earning a
living as an artist. And actually, I used to spend a lot of my party time
hanging out in biker bars shooting the shit and shooting pool. Bikers, as
"macho" as they are, tend to really dig artists because after all, it
artists who put those cool airbrush paintings on their tanks. (The only
time I went into a biker bar with a non biker that got a betrter reception
than an artist was when I brought my lawyer to one. He instantly became the
most popular guy there, with everyone wanting to buy him a beer for some
legal advice. Since my friend doesn't drink, I managed to get a good free
buzz that night.)
>
>I'm just asking for equal time, and I'm giving it all the serious
>thought ideas concerning the anatomy of non-existant funnybook
>characters deserve.
>
>For example, lets do an informal "Mr. Blacks Best & Worst Dressed List",
>except angle it towards the amount of nude-ness re each character.
>Femalecahracters are markedwith an "*", males with a "~". (This is not
>definitive, by any stretch of the imagination)
>
>Lets see...
<snip>
>Characters with Cleavage w/Exposed Limbs
>Monster Girl (Young Heroes in Love)*
>She-Hulk*
>Silver-Age Scarlet Witch*
Actually, the silver age Scarlet Witch had everything but her head
completely covered, and even the, a good part of her head was covered.
<snip>
I'm impressed with your list. no sarcasm there either- I really was. I did
note something there, though which is that with the exception of Vampirella
and Satana, all of the women characters on your list who were really
exloitative were characters created in the past five or so years, and those
that weren't went through their grotesque transformation during that
period. I have no idea what the significance of this is, although I have my
suspicions.
>
>
>So--when do we get to see The Flash's bare ass-cheeks in action?
As soon as you write me a story, I'll draw it for you. That is, assuming
I've read the addess up top correctly.
Adrift in the Dark Seas of Elmo
> few years ago. Selling as well as a title did in 1990 is actually
> acceptable at the moment.
Which is one of the points I've been *hammering* at this entire damn
discussion. *Why* is it acceptable? I claim that it *shouldn't* be
acceptable.
--
"Solutions are not the answer."--Richard Nixon
elmo mor...@physics.rice.edu
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow