Review: Superman/Wonder Woman #1

This post was adapted and expanded from some tweets I tweeted earlier. It is also getting cross-posted to Tumblr.

There was a guy at the comic book shop this evening when I went to pick up my comics. He's often there. He's kinda cool. I like him. We talked. He convinced me to buy a comic book that I would never in a million years have picked up otherwise. Superman/Wonder Woman #1. 

Disclaimer #1: This is the first DC book I've bought in forever. I can't even remember the last time I bought a DC book. 

Disclaimer #2: I have zero interest in Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple. The idea does nothing for me. In fact, when it was first announced, I found it kind of revolting and it left a bad taste in my mouth. 

Disclaimer #3: I hate Tony Daniel's art. 

Disclaimer #4: I expected to hate this in every way imaginable. But the dude was so enthusiastic about it. He said it was his favourite single issue of the year and he's a huge Wonder Woman fan and he was skeptical about the whole super-couple thing, too, and as far as I can tell, he's a discerning comic reader with a fine taste. So I thought, sure, why not?

Anyway, I read it. And it was... kinda meh? The art is exactly as bad as I expected it to be, but I kind of enjoyed the characters voices. Both of them. I think Charles Soule is a good writer and he has a pretty good grasp of these characters. As much as I can tell from a first issue anyway. He makes the super-couple idea work better than thought possible. I could almost buy the idea if I tried to forget that it's so completely unnecessary.

But where it fell apart for me was the panels where Superman and Wonder Woman kinda almost but not really have sex in silhouette with the red background, superimposed on the fight with Doomsday. There are at least three things wrong with just those two pages:

1. The silhouette thing is just cheesy and awful, not to mention that Tony Daniel apparently doesn't understand how silhouettes work. Like, he doesn't get the concept of characters being lit from behind? It would have been easy enough to set the scene in front of a window or by candle light or something, but no, they're actually lying on the bed and they're wearing clothes and the clothes are lit normally but their skin is pitch black for some reason? I don't even know if I'm explaining this properly but it makes NO SENSE.

2. It's just unnecessary. Like, yeah, we get it. They're a couple. They're dating. That implies that they're probably being intimate with each other in one way or another. If they had given us some gratuitous money shot, that would've been something. It would have been an awful thing, but still at thing. But this tacky softcore mildly suggestive interrupted coitus scene just adds nothing.

3. The whole cutting back and forth between violence and a (non-)sex scene... I've seen it before and I'm tired of it.

Aside from that, it was an okay issue with some decent writing and some mediocre-to-bad art. Also, Dooomsday, who is the most boring villain ever. 

Something I had forgotten about DC Comics that I really dislike: Those colour-coded captions for the interior monologues with the character logos. Like, yeah, I get it, it's Superman's thoughts. You didn't have to make it that obvious, I could've figured it out on my own. 

Also, I guess people still hate the Justice League in the New 52. Like civilians, I mean. Normal people inside the fictional universe. They hate super-heroes. Probably because super-heroes in the New 52 are jerks. That was something I really hated about the reboot but I figured it would have changed by now. Apparently not.

The more I think about this, the more I regret buying this comic. I also realize now that some part of me was genuinely (and almost secretly) hoping that this comic would surprise me and win me over. I really miss these characters. I haven't touched DC's books for ages but I wanted to read this and find out that I'd been missing something. I wanted DC to prove me wrong. But no, not reading DC comics was absolutely the right decision to make.

In a way, the fact that this comic book didn't turn out that bad in spite of everything is almost worst. If it had been a truly horrible comic with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I'd just be like, whatever, DC sucks. But this was almost halfway decent. I could at least see that there was some potential there, but that just ends up being a total bummer because it's dragged down by the sheer DC-ness of it, by which I mean everything that I've come to associate with DC Comics since the New 52, like what a grim and depressing world it is and how awful and unhappy all the characters seem to be and the shitty Jim Lee clone art that's so dreary it makes you want to never look at a comic book again.

Ugh. Don't read the New 52, kids. It's depressing.

I'm reading comics again! // Reviews: Daredevil, Batman, Wonder Woman

Operation Catch-up on Comics has officially begun, since I FINALLY finished reading A Clash of Kings yesterday. This morning on the way to work, I read three comics.

Daredevil #8
Written by Mark Waid; art by Kano; colours by Javier Rodriguez; Marvel

This is part 2 of a two-part crossover with Amazing Spider-Man. Waid wrote the ASM issues as well, so the two really flow together as one two-part story, despite the different art team on the books. I've been enjoying Daredevil since this volume began, due as much to Waid's dialogue as to the great art by his collaborators. Here, the art by Kano is nowhere near the level of either Paolo Rivera or Marcus Martin, but Javier Rodriguez's colours help give it a similar feel.

I was pretty turned off by a few awful examples of stupid-looking sexualized poses for Black Cat, though. That's the kind of shit that takes me right out of a story, unfortunately. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the way the character is written either. (SPOILERS:) She's being very flirty with Daredevil throughout this issue, and at the end you find out that she was paid to seduce him in order to steal something from him. Hmm. A female character in a comic book having to resort to her sexuality in order to achieve something. Where have I seen that before? (Um, maybe in a million other sexist comics out there?)

It's kind of sad, really, because up to this point there wasn't really anything I didn't like about this series. Even the fact that this was a crossover didn't bother me, in part because I happen to be reading both series, but also because it's a crossover that makes sense. I love the way the two characters interact and Mark Waid's Spider-Man is even funnier than Dan Slott's. (Not to knock Dan Slott's writing. I'm enjoying ASM a lot, in spite of the mostly terrible art.)

So, yeah, that was kind of a bummer, but I enjoyed the story otherwise.

Batman #5
Written by Scott Snyder; pencils by Greg Capullo; inks by Jonathan Glapion; colours by FCO; DC

I loved Scott Snyder's run on Detective Comics just before the relaunch, but so far his run on Batman hasn't grabbed me to the same level. Is it because of the art? Maybe. Greg Capullo is a fine artist, but he's no Francesco Fancavilla. But mostly I think it's the story. And maybe also the fact that I'm kind of over Bruce Wayne as a character.

This issue's doing the whole Batman being drugged up and people screwing with his mind thing. It's not the first time we've seen something like this. It ends with a moment that might have been kinda shocking if it weren't on the freaking cover. There's also a neat trick with the layouts changing direction halfway through the book, forcing you to physically turn the book upside down as Batman spirals deeper into the labyrinth. It's kinda neat.

I'm not hating this. It's a solid Batman comic. I just think I'm at a point where "solid Batman comic" doesn't really cut it anymore. Or maybe it's just a phase. Or maybe the story's about to get really good and blow my mind. We'll see.

Wonder Woman #5
Written by Brian Azzarello; art by Tony Akins; colours by Matthew Wilson; DC

This was definitely the most underwhelming issue of Wonder Woman since the relaunch. And I don't think it's just because Cliff Chiang didn't draw it, though that certainly has a huge impact. Tony Akins' art is actually quite nice, but Cliff Chiang's been absolutely killing it for the past four issues, so it's a tough sell. I'm also getting really tired of Brian Azzarello's dialogue, I think. I don't know, it just sounds too scripted or something, like it's simultaneously trying too hard and not hard enough. It's hard to put my finger on it, but it's bugging me.

On the other hand, I kinda like the way this book is turning into a soap opera involving Greek gods. I have no idea why they described this as a horror book. It's totally a soap.

Women in the New 52: Catwoman, Starfire, Wonder Woman

First, a confession.

I did not read Catwoman #1 or Red Hood and the Outlaws #1. I didn't read them because I didn't buy them. I didn't buy them because I didn't think they'd be any good. And based on the reactions I've seen online and on the several scanned pages from both books that have been circulating on blogs, I think I was right.

I don't need to have read the books to see some of the problems with them. But since I didn't read them, I won't review them. And rather than offer a big rant about them, I will just link to two very excellent and well-argued pieces about them:

• The Big Sexy Problem with Superheroines and Their 'Liberated Sexuality,' by Laura Hudson, at Comics Alliance
• 52 Problems, by Andrew Wheeler, at Bleeding Cool

Read them both.

Meanwhile, at Newsarama, Judd Winnick defends the sex scene in Catwoman #1 with this:

This is a Catwoman for 2011, and my approach to her character and actions reflect someone who lives in our times. And wears a cat suit. And steals. It’s a tale that is part crime story, part mystery and part romance.  In that, you will find action, suspense and passion. Each of those qualities, at times, play to their extremes.  Catwoman is a character with a rich comic book history, and my hope is that readers will continue to join us as the adventure continues.

Well, I hope they don't. Ugh.

But seriously, I'm baffled by how tone-deaf this writer can be about the character. It's weird, because when I first started following comics closely about two years ago, I kept hearing about this writer that people online really seemed to hate. I hadn't read any of Winnick's books, but the constant complaint about him on message boards was that he was using comics as a soapbox, constantly writing about gay or HIV-positive characters, and pushing his annoying liberal agenda down readers' throats. Those complaints made me really uncomfortable. It was the first time I started to realize just how conservative and bigoted comics fandom can be. There was something creepy about how much hate this guy was getting for writing about gay characters.

Now, two years later, I feel like his bad rep was largely unjustified. I haven't read a lot of his work, but he just seems like an average writer who sometimes gets it right and sometimes gets it wrong. Or at least that was my impression before this whole Catwoman debacle happened. From the early interviews in his whole take on the character boiled down to "sexy sexy sexy," to the awful pages I've seen from the actual comic, to his add-insult-to-injury response quoted above, I'm starting to think maybe he's just a terrible writer who doesn't know how to write female characters. And this is a guy known for his liberal politics?

I guess this serves as a useful reminder that even liberals can be sexist. (Or, if that sounds too much like an ad hominem attack, at least say or do or write sexist bullshit.)

Another thing that bothers me about this controversy is the way people who don't see the problem respond to it by caricaturing the criticism and reducing it to prudishness. I've seen dozens of comments in response to blog posts that go like this: "What's the big deal? They're two consenting adults. What's wrong with them having sex?"

There's nothing wrong with Catwoman and Batman having sex. None of the criticism I've seen has been anti-sex. It's about how this was portrayed, not the fact that it happened. It's about characters masquerading as "strong female characters" when they are actually male fantasies. It's about pandering to the lowest-common-denominator male fanbase, when this relaunch is supposed to be about attracting new (and potentially non-straight-male) readership.

While I was commenting on some of these issues on Twitter this week, someone told me I was basing my rants on two comics only and that, in fact, this doesn't reflect any widespread problem in DC's New 52. But, first of all, no, it's not just two comics. Do I need to remind you of Harley Quinn's new costume in Suicide Squad? Or Amanda Waller's sexy new supermodel look? I'm not saying every single book DC has put out this month has treated women like sex objects, but there's enough of a pattern here for us to really call them out on their shit and ask how that much-touted commitment to diversity somehow resulted in this.

Still. It's worth remembering that DC is also putting out some good books this month, including quite a few that feature really good female characters. I'm pretty sure that Batwoman is one of those books, but unfortunately I wasn't able to get my hands on a copy of the first issue. I had mistakenly left it off my pull list and it sold out within hours before I could make it to the store. I've ordered the reprint.

I did, however, get a copy of Wonder Woman #1, written by Brian Azzarello with art by Cliff Chiang, and I thought it was fantastic. I've seen some complaints about the level of gore and violence in the book, but I personally didn't have a problem with it. It's too bad that there isn't an all-ages Wonder Woman book that people can give to their kids and I agree that DC should publish such a book. But just because that book doesn't exist doesn't mean there's anything wrong with this one. It's violent and creepy and weird, and I loved it. The opening issue sets up some interesting villains while firmly establishing Wonder Woman's character, and Cliff Chiang's art is absolutely phenomenal. This might very well turn out to be the best looking book out of this month's 52 first issues.

So DC is getting it right some of the time. And I'm very thankful for that. Those books that I enjoy are all going on my pull list and I will continue to support them. But I'm not going to stop criticizing them when they fail. (And, no, the fact that "Marvel's not going any better" is no excuse either. I'm not "singling them out" by pointing out DC's failings. I'm just concentrating on what I know. How well Marvel is doing has nothing to do with it.) If we want DC to finally get the message and stop putting out books that alienate their (real and/or potential) female readership, we have to stay vocal about it.

Finally, check out this alternative take on Batman and Catwoman's relationship, by Mike Hawthorne. I like it a hell of a lot more than those last few pages of Judd Winnick's book.

J. Michael Straczynski confirms he never gave a shit about Superman or Wonder Woman

On Facebook, in response to the announcement that DC is rebooting it's entire line of comics in September:

When Dan DiDio comes out to the West Coast, we tend to get a bite for dinner to discuss projects, ideas, books and just hang. Dan is a great guy and an energetic speaker, chockful of ideas and aspirations for DC. As part of that, he shared repeatedly on and off for really more than a year his dream of rebooting the DCU and starting over.

So I felt confident that it was coming soon (which is one reason why I felt there wouldn't be a problem in the long run leaving the monthly books, since most of the things done in Superman and Wonder Woman would be erased by the reboot anyway, so ultimately it didn't matter whether I stayed or left. I just couldn't say anything at the time because I wanted to respect Dan's privacy and his desire to do what he thought was right when he thought it was right to do it.

(Sorry, he left that parenthesis open, not me.)

What I take from this is that he's confirming what most people already suspected when he announced he was quitting both books mid-story: that he never really gave a shit about them in the first place. This explains both why they weren't very good to begin with and why he could unceremoniously give up before even reaching their conclusions.

I think it's actually pretty shocking that he admits it so openly. Many people suspected it, but writers usually at least pretend that they care about the stories they write. I don't know he can expet to be taken seriously by fans again after this big "fuck you" to everyone who bought the books.

I always feel that when a fan starts picking up a book, especially at the beginning of a run by a new creative team, it's like signing an unwritten contract with the writer: "I agree to actually pay money for this book with the understanding that everyone involved is trying their best to tell a good story." The contract doesn't guarantee that I as a reader will like it, but it should guarantee that the writer will at least give it their best shot.

When a writer admits that none of it mattered, that he couldn't be bothered to finish what he started because he knew it would all be erased in less than a year, it violates that implicit arrangement. It's cynical. I know that the comic book companies are in the business of selling comics and their job is to do everything they can to boost sales, not to be honest with the fans. But that's the publishers. I expect more from writers. I expect them to at least believe in the stories they are telling. Even if it "doesn't matter" (come on, none of it ever really matters) they're still getting paid to tell a good story.

JMS knew the reboot was coming. Fans didn't. The books were promoted as bold new directions for the two characters. Nobody said: "Here, give us your money in exchange for this half-assed story we're going to erase from continuity as soon as it ends."

This is the kind of thing that really makes it hard to be enthusiastic about anything DC announces. It took less than a year for them to give up on the bold new direction in a Superman and Wonder Woman and start planning something else that would make it all irrelevant. What guarantee is there that the same won't be true for this new reboot? If six months into this line-wide relaunch, everyone involved starts looking forward to the next big thing and stops caring about the stories they're telling, it's going to suck. And the fans will get burned. Again.

A quote that changed my understanding of Wonder Woman

Here's a quote about Wonder Woman from Ragnell at her blog, Written World:

Because they don't get Wonder Woman. They don't understand how women can withdraw from men and not spend all of their time thinking about men, holding a grudge against men, and plotting to come out and hurt/maim/kill men. They don't get that women might spend their lives away from men and be perfectly happy and not obsessed with men in some way.

They don't get that the point of Wonder Woman is that sexism in our society was holding women back, and that Diana is what a woman who had never suffered institutionalized sexism can be. Instead, Wonder Woman only makes sense if she's lopping off heads and ranting about how terrible men are.

(emphasis mine)

I don't really have anything to add, except that it kind of blew my mind. I haven't read a lot of Wonder Woman, but I like the character and have always sided with the fans who are upset when she's portrayed as a raging anti-man "feminist." But until I read this, I'm not sure I really grasped exactly why this was so wrong, how it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the character and not just something that happens to offend my sensibilities.

It's such a simple yet profound idea, and I'd never seen it expressed so succinctly and eloquently before.

Review: Wonder Woman #600 (+ some closing thoughts on the other two anniversary isues)

WONDER WOMAN #600

So with all the media fanfare and blogosphere kerfuffle this past week about Wonder Woman's costume redesign and origins overhaul, I feel like there's nothing left for me to say about this anniversary issue that hasn't already been said a hundred times. But I'm going to try anyway.

"Valedictorian"
by Gail Simone and George Perez.

By far the highlight of the issue, the first story is a veritable tour-de-force. The sheer number of panels is enough to give you an idea of how jam-packed with awesome this story is: Excluding the opening splash page, I counted a total of 65 panels on 6 pages!

The story starts with an epic battle featuring about 20 female super-heroes against an army of cyber-sirens who have the power to turn men into slobbering idiots. The art is simply flabbergasting. Every page is bursting with detailed action. Amidst all this chaos, Simone manages to showcase several qualities that have made Wonder Woman an icon: she's a leader, a fierce warrior, and an inspiration to her peers, which is reflected in the different ways the other characters respond to her.

The story ends with a more intimate moment between Diana and Vanessa. Unfortunately, with my limited exposure to Wonder Woman stories up to now, I don't think that final scene resonated with me to the extent that it was supposed to, but for anyone familiar with the back story, I'm sure it packs a much stronger emotional punch.

"Fuzzy Logic"
by Amanda Conner.

The next story is a team-up with Power Girl and Batgirl. It's a lot lighter in tone, and features jokes about tentacle porn and several awesome shots of Power Girl's cat. I enjoyed it.

"Firepower"
by Louise Simonson and Eduardo Pansica.

Next is a team up with Superman against some guy called Nikos Aegeus, a "terrorist organization of one, driven by green, not ideology." I have no idea where this character came from, but he doesn't really make sense to me. I just don't get why someone powerful enough to steal lightning bolts from Zeus would then waste his power shooting airplanes out of the sky and asking the U.S. government for a hundred million dollars. Why does this guy need money?

I felt pretty indifferent about this story, but there's one thing about it that really surprised the hell out of me. Check it out:



A thought balloon! I spotted at least three of them! I thought those were extinct, at least from mainstream super-hero comics, as this somewhat recent piece by Joe McCulloch at Comic Comics pointed out.

I guess DC can make an exception for Louise Simonson, because she's old school.

The last two stories + extras
by Geoff Johns, Scott Kolins, JMS, Don Kramer, and a bunch of other people

The last two stories kind of bleed into one another, ushering in J. Michael Straczynski's re-imagining of the character and featuring Jim Lee's ugly-ass retro 1990s costume redesign. I don't really have anything to say except: thumbs down.

In addition to these five stories, there's a cool introduction by Linda Carter and a bunch of pin-ups by various artists, most of which are pretty cool and generally better than the collection of rejected covers thrown together for Batman #700. One pin-up stands out as a total head-scratcher. Apparently I'm the only person on the internet who has absolutely no clue what the hell is going on in this image by Guillem March:



Anyway...

A few closing words about the three big anniversary issues that DC released last month… In my opinion, all three were kind of underwhelming. I enjoyed each of them to various degrees, but they didn't seem all that special to me the way I would expect an anniversary issue to be.

Batman #700 was probably the most epic and "significant" as far as the story goes, in the sense that it not only stands on its own quite well, but also fits into Morrison's greater arc, which we are smack in the middle of right now. However, the thrown-together feel of the art was a disappointment, especially with Frank Quitely unable to finish his section and the jarring shift to another artist in the middle of it, ruining the whole one-artist-per-time-period thing they were going for. Could they not have given him more time to finish his part? It's not like they didn't see it coming.

In contrast, both Superman and Wonder Woman relied on shorter stories by different writers. Lots of cameos, some tying up of loose ends and some foreshadowing of new stories to come. On the surface, they seemed designed to appeal to anybody interested in the characters, from older fans to curious new readers. But the way they were used to launch new arcs by super-star writer JMS made them feel more like promotional material than celebrations of iconic characters.

I felt that the 5$ cover price wasn't really justified for either of them. Yeah, I get that there was a larger page count (either because of pinup galleries or actual story pages), but so what? Part of the celebration of such landmark issues should be to give a little something back to the fans who have supported the characters and their books for all these years. Would it have killed DC to throw us a bone without jacking up the price for it? I've already said this several times, but it bears repeating: You can't really call it "bonus" material if you're charging extra for it.