Showing posts with label links. Show all posts
Showing posts with label links. Show all posts

Thursday, June 2, 2011

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.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Is It Wednesday Yet?

Things have been really weird on the personal side lately and I haven't been reading a lot of comics. Half my pull from last week is still piled up on my desk unread. These things happen. I'm sure I'll get back into it soon.

*

I have two unfinished posts in my drafts folder and I'm beginning to think they may never see the light of day. One is about the lack of strong female characters in Thor (the movie) and the other is about the consternatingly bad Alpha Flight #0.5, a comic that takes place in Canada on election day but has nothing to do with the recent Canadian elections. Hopefully I'll get around to finishing that post sometime this week. I think I've more or less given up on the one about Thor, though. The movie gets less and less relevant as we move into summer and the theatres are about to get flooded with a bunch of other super-hero movies. All of which, by the way, I intend to see. So maybe I'll revisit the idea for the post later this summer as a comparison with the other big movies.

*

DC Women Kicking Ass has a post about what improvements DC have made in diversity since they announced a commitment to it five years ago. I haven't read it yet, because I'm afraid it's going to be too depressing. I didn't even know DC had made this commitment and as far as I can tell there is little to no evidence that they've made any real efforts in that department.

*

I'm going through one of my phases where my blogs seem to multiply faster than my readers do. Right now I could 6 active ones and 3 dormant ones. I won't mention all of them here, but here are a few that might be of interest to you:

  • I Have Thoughts and Feelings: Where I write about music. There is only one post so far and it's a detailed song-by-song review of Nirvana's In Utero. It was originally going to be "a blog about Phil Collins and Queen," as the header says. I know that seems inexplicably random and weird, and that was sort of the point. I was about halfway through a very long rambling introduction explaining the concept, but I decided to trash it and just review whatever. I'm sure I'll get to Phil Collins and Queen eventually.
  • Melt Into Whiteness: A Tumblr where I dump YouTube videos of songs I like. There's no concept here. Just a straightforward (though very eclectic) collection of music.
  • I Understand and I Wish to Continue: This is going to be my "personal" blog where I write about anything that isn't music or comics. Some of it is likely to be very personal and not all that interesting for anyone else but me, but I also plan to use it to dump ideas and rants about issues like social justice, feminism, queer politics, etc.
As an added bonus, I will also link to my Flick photostream, only because I just bought a new digital camera and I hope to get back into the habit of posting pictures regularly. It'll probably mostly be boring pictures of myself and my cat, since I don't have anything else to take pictures of.

*

New comics this week!

Flashpoint kicks into full speed this week with not only the second issue of the main series but also the first batch of minis:
  • Flashpoint #2 (of 5) 
  • Flashpoint: Abin Sur: The Green Lantern #1 (of 3)
  • Flashpoint: Batman: Knight of Vengeance #1 (of 3)
  • Flashpoint: Secret Seven #1 (of 3)
  • Flashpoint: The World of Flashpoint #1 (of 3)
You'll find previews for each of those on DC's The Source. For now, I'm going to stick to my plan of only buying the main series, although I will admit that both the Batman and Secret Seven ones look better than I anticipated. As a blogger/reviewer, I really wish I could afford to cover all of Flashpoint. But as a fan/consumer, it's pretty hard to justify spending that much money on it.

Other stuff on my pull list:
  • Hellboy: The Fury #1 (of 3) (Dark Horse)
  • Static Shock Special (one-shot) (DC)
  • Superboy #8 (DC)
  • Sweet Tooth #22 (Vertigo)
  • Amazing Spider-Man #663 (Marvel)
  • 50 Girls 50 #1 (Image)

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Freaking out about The Comics Journal archives!

If you pay any attention to the comics blogosphere, you probably know that there's been a recent shake-up at The Comics Journal's website, and it goes way beyond a mere cosmetic facelift. New editorial team and format, regular updates from a wealth of contributors, a totally rad new Cartoonist's Diary by Pascal Girard, and lots of good reading material.

But what I'm most excited about are the archived back issues of the print journal, going as far back as 1970s when it was launched. These are getting scanned and uploaded gradually and are currently available to read for free on the website. It's an amazing resource for anyone who's interested about the history of comics and of comics criticism/journalism, something that you could spends weeks or months exploring.

The only catch is that they will only be available for a limited time unless you get a subscription to the print journal. Any moment, now, these will get locked behind a pay wall.

It's tempting to go nuts and try to devour as much as possible while the archives are freely available, but it's completely overwhelming. I look at it and I don't know where to start. It's kind of giving me a panic attack.

I'm sure the current journal, which has now been reformatted as an annual book-sized publication, is worth reading, so I'm considering buying a subscription. But on the other hand, I can't even keep up with all the comics-related writing that gets posted on blogs for free every week, so I don't know how much sense it makes for me to start buying large books filled with more writing about comics. I spend much more time reading about comics that I spend reading comics or writing about them myself, and I feel like this is a bit of a problem. I should be reading the comics themselves and developing my own ideas about them and maybe even working toward creating some comics myself, or at least having some kind of intelligent, critical discourse with them. The more time I spend absorbing what others have to say about comics, the less confident I become about my own ability to find my own voice and contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, I always feel like I'm at a disadvantage because I'm fairly new to comics and I have much to learn about the history of the medium and of the discourse surrounding it.

Aargh!

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Another follow-up on the Essex County/Canada Reads mini-controversy

You may remember my post about Jeff Lemire's Essex County getting voted off the Canada Reads competition on the first round a little over a month ago. Well, Nymeth at Things Mean a Lot used it as a "point of departure for an analysis of common attitudes towards reading", a great post which itself generated quite a lot of discussion in the comments.

Here's an excerpt from Nymeth's post:

The thing that made these judges who are supposedly trying to encourage literacy so uncomfortable was the fact that the book was quick and easy to read. To me, this is the most interesting thing about the whole situation: the fact that the judges’ arguments rely on the idea that reading should be hard, that it should take work, that it should be a somewhat arduous process. And if isn’t, it can’t have Meaning or Relevance. It doesn’t make you think of “things other than things”.

Of course, I also don’t buy the opposite argument, which is that anything that isn’t easy must be worthless or pretentious. Dense texts are fine; I love many of them. But what they have to say, what about them encourages people to “think about things other than things”, is not necessarily determined by the difficulty of prose in itself. If you take an author of moderate difficulty – someone like, say, Virginia Woolf – you can argue that their experimentation with form can’t be separated from their content, and it’s a crucial part of what makes them so extraordinary. This is a fair enough point, but at the same time, I have trouble seeing form as a thing to be revered in itself, quite separately from any sort of meaning. What bothers me about the assumptions behind the Canada Reads judges’ arguments is the idea that complex ideas are defined by a complex form of delivery: that you cannot possibly communicate anything worthwhile or convey nuanced emotions using accessible language (or even - horror of horrors - pictures).
 Read the rest of it here.

Friday, March 25, 2011

A couple of posts about sexism in comics

Some months ago, I wrote a post called "Sexism in The Walking Dead: An Ongoing Discussion" which to this day remains the most popular post on this blog, still getting hits every week and the occasional comment. Which makes me very happy, because that's exactly what I intended when I titled it "an ongoing discussion." I never felt that I'd come to any definite conclusion or verdict in terms of the sexism found in both the comic and the TV adaptation. I do feel pretty confident that there is sexism in the work(s), but dismissing all of it as sexist without further analysis doesn't really do it justice either.

A comment from earlier this week by Missus Goodveggie does a pretty good job of highlighting how complex the work is when it comes to gender issues. I'm going to quote her comment here, unedited:

Ok I know this is really late in the day but I was so excited to come across this post. I was given the walking dead comics (not seen the show yet) by my brother-in-law and have since had some very interesting debates with him over this sexism issue. I thought the two scenes you mentioned (the laundry and the voting) were appalling precisely for that reason that it's kind of the writer going "this isn't sexist...because it's totally true mwah ha ha ha". I also want to point out that Michonne can hardly be used as a 'strong' female character because about 3/4 of the way through we discover that her uncompromising violence has been under the influence (real or imaginary) of her dead boyfriend - if you then go back to the scenes where she's talking with him you can see that Michonne herself is arguing against violence. I'm not saying violence is right, but it's overwhelmingly portrayed as the 'strong male' role here and therefore the woman can only engage in it under the control of some ethereal, omnipresent male. That she's unable to resist his influence even after he's passed on is troubling. Even her revenge on the Governer for raping her is actually her 'boyfriend', so the rape of the woman is more his issue than hers? Andrea I'll give you, I could nitpick (would Dale have been shown happily shacking up with her if she were the elder, physically dependent partner) but that's all it would be.

However, if you examine the portrayal of masculinity in the book it's not actually much more positive. It could be argued that Rick is equally constrained by the hyper-masculine role he takes on. He's the white, straight alpha male, aggressive and decisive, perceived as the natural leader by all the 'lesser' (ethnic minority/old/young/disabled) men as well as the women. And he perceives himself that way. Rick's biggest tragedy is not just that he's actually s**t at leading, but that this role is so ingrained into his and everyone else's minds that nobody (including him) will accept the fact. They follow his inane, off the cuff, moral hypocrisy through death after needless death. They question his leadership, but they vote him onto the leadership council. He is tormented by self-doubt, but is convinced by his own and others' misconceptions. The only time Rick's effective as a leader and sympathetic as a character are the moments when he's engaged in the ostentatiously 'feminine' art of relationship building and nurturing. Given that one of the key themes of the series seems to be that the morally ambiguous, post apocalyptic dystopia they're living in is more the result of the survivors' own behaviour than that of the zombies, you could see the whole thing as a damming indictment of what a world regressed to traditional gender roles would look like.
I thought this was a really great comment and it has made me want to revisit the comic and continue thinking about how these issues operate within it. For more discussion on the topic, check the original post and the rest of the comments.

*

Meanwhile, over at The Beat, I got involved in a discussion about a different kind of sexism - the one that affects real people in the comics industry, including both creators and fans. The post was about the lack of visible female presence at Mark Millar's Kapow! comics convention, and his response to that criticism, although the discussion that followed got a bit derailed into a semantics-heavy argument about whether or not Millar can be called a sexist because of it (which, frankly, is besides the point).

Anyway, I won't quote anything from that one, but feel free to head over there and read the discussion. There are a few good points being made (and not just by me, haha), and it manages to remain fairly civil, so it's worth a read.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Morning links

Over the last couple of weeks, I fell behind on my RSS feeds and yesterday realized that I had over 9000 over 1000 unread items in Google Reader. I knew that trying to catch up on all the blogs I normally follow would be an agonizing and fruitless effort, so I took a deep breath and hit "Mark all as read." Blank slate. Fresh start.

So this morning I actually had a manageable number of new posts to read and enjoyed going through them leisurely while drinking my morning coffee. And it seemed like the perfect time to start a regular linkblogging feature on Irrelevant Comics. Here we go.

  • Savage Critics: Abhay interviews Mark Sable about the first five issues of Secret Avengers. Which starts with: "So, Mark Sable, speaking on behalf of all comic creators, everywhere, ever: what’s with you people and the fucking assassination teams?" This is a long and fascinating discussion, which ends up being less about just one particular comic and more about the current state of Marvel comics. 
  • Robot 6: DC and Marvel editors are still arguing over whether or not Marvel "lied" about dropping prices when they were conveniently "misquoted", just hours after DC announced they were going to hold the line at $2.99, that they were more or less doing the same thing. (Then, as Bleeding Cool points out, CB Cebulski  tweets about a certain unnamed editor who "further cements his reputation and legacy as 'The Worst Editor in Comics'" with his "idiotic antics and ignorant statements at C2E2." Gee, I wonder who he's talking about!) The thing is, though, Marvel did blatantly lie about cutting down prices, and the only thing that came out of that promise was their nonsensical "point one initiative," which comes off more as a way to sucker current readers into buying an extra issue than an affordable "jumping-on point" for new readers. But I wish DC editors would just let it go and not fall into this petty back-and-forth. It's like when Mom and Dad are fighting. The only people enjoying it are the gossip columnists. 
  • DC Women Kicking Ass comments on Dean Trippe's pitch to DC for a Lois Lane young adult series. According to Trippe (whose post about it you can read here), DC is not interested. I share Sue's perplexed reaction: "DC and Warner Bros. know their business much better than I, but when I see pitches like this and Ben Caldwell's passed over, I wonder whether that business really does think about getting young girls into comics. [...] Expanding readership into new demographics with beloved characters in new mediums. You'd think that would be a mandate when [your] business is shrinking. You'd think."
  • Bleeding Cool: This one's older, but worth commenting on. Comics creators, fans and bloggers all over the internet are outraged that "Chip Kidd hates the All Star Superman cover." How dare he! To be honest, I think the reactions are a bit silly. Kidd is looking at it from a designer's point of view - not from a fan's point of view. Sure, I disagree with him when it comes to Frank Quitely's gorgeous cover art, but I can also see how it clashes with the design he had in mind for the series. The only really offensive part of that video is hearing the ignorant audience laugh when Quitely's art appears on the screen. These are not comic book fans and they apparently fail to grasp what Quitely and Morrison were going for with this unique interpretation of the character. But whatever. Get over it people. Who cares what Chip Kidd thinks of Frank Quitely's art?
Check back this evening for Comic Book Carnage!

    Tuesday, February 1, 2011

    Looks like I'm not the only one thinking about Tim Drake's beginnings

    Brian Cronin has some thoughts on Tim Drake's origin over at Comics Should Be Good, which leads to a 73-comments-and-counting thread.

    Discussions about which Robin is better usually bore me to tears - the correct answer is: they're all awesome! - but a lot of the comments here are very insightful. It works as an interesting companion piece to my Tim Drake from the Beginning series.

    Tuesday, January 11, 2011

    Random links

    Paul DeBenedetto on the death of the superhero film

    Comics (...) don’t need bad superhero action flicks giving them a bad name. The superhero movie is an awful trend and, if 2011 pans out the way I think it will, it’s also a dying one.
    He claims there hasn't been a good super-hero movie since 2008 (the year The Dark Knight was released) and sees this as evidence that the genre is soon going to be extinct. Movie audiences won't have the patience to put up with crappy super-hero movies for much longer, and once they lose interest, that only leaves the fans of the comics. And there simply aren't enough of us to make those movies profitable.

    The argument seems to make sense, but I'm not sure the death of the super-hero movie is upon us just yet. For one thing, crappy movies make a shit-ton of money at the box office all the time. This is pretty much the norm at Hollywood. I haven't really studied the box office returns of super-hero movies in the past two or three years, so I don't know how well they've been doing, but in any case I think we ought to wait and see how Thor, Captain America and Green Lantern fair in 2011 before passing judgement.

    In other words, this will probably be a crucial year for the future of super-hero movies, as the success or failure of these three big blockbusters will determine what happens next.

    Graeme McMillan on IDW's Infestation crossover event
    There are all manner of reasons why IDW’s Infestation shouldn’t work for me. For one thing, it’s all about zombies, and I really don’t like zombies with the obvious exceptions. For another, it’s a crossover. So why am I eagerly anticipating the whole thing, having read the first issue?
    I was definitely planning on skipping this whole thing, because (a) this seems a bit derivative of recent big events at Marvel and DC, (b) I'm getting kind of sick of zombies, and (c) I don't follow any of the franchises involved (Transformers, Ghostbusters, Star Trek and GI Joe). But this is the second positive review of the first issue of the mini-series that I read, and I have to admit that my curiosity has been piqued a little.

    Ryan Fisher on comic books aimed at women
    I don’t even understand the whole notion that companies need to pander to the female demographic at all. They don’t need “special books” to get into the hobby, they just need to feel like it’s not a boys club.
    Yes. This is the same argument that I keep reading from female bloggers as well. Kelly Thompson, in particular, has often said that only a small adjustment would be needed in order to make DC and Marvel's comics more appealing to women. You don't need to completely change the formula or make books specifically for women. Just, you know, make a little effort not to piss them off by treating them like second-rate customers.

    (And speaking of Kelly Thompson, there's a new episode of 3 Chicks Review Comics.)

    From some official DC document
    ...the now-retired Wally West...
    Uh...

    Brian Wood on Northlanders
    This is the book I increasingly feel I was born to write, and is so completely tied into my identity as a creator. And based solely on the incredible range and diversity of the artists we’ve had on the series, there is nothing else like it out there.
    I'm so glad that this book exists and that I've started following it. (I need to catch up on the trades, as well.) I agree completely that it is completely unlike anything else.

    David Hine, asked how many Muslim characters there are in super-hero comics
    Probably not as many as there should be. I mean, America is a very diverse culture, as is France, as is this country, and we try to reflect that in the diversity of our characters. It’s not a political statement.
    I was glad to read David Hine's clear-headed responses to some of the truly outrageous and idiotic criticism his "Muslim Batman" story has elicited.

    Curt Purcell on the link between violent rhetoric and violent actions
    When I was very young, on a family vacation to visit Grandma Millie (in Arizona, as it happens), we went to a rodeo. I had no interest whatsoever in a rodeo, and amused myself during the bull-riding part by cheering for the bull to get someone. I'm sure you can guess where this is going--the bull did get someone. He trampled a clown. Now, obviously, there was no "link" between my "rhetoric" and what happened. Nobody blamed me. I didn't think saying it aloud magically made it happen, or blame myself in any other way. But here's the thing: there didn't need to be any such "link" for me to feel ashamed--appropriately--for my foolish words. It was enough for me to see what it looked like when what I'd been cheering for actually happened.
    That's a powerful analogy and it perfectly illustrates my own feelings about the issue in a way that I haven't seen expressed quite so succinctly or convincingly anywhere else in the deluge of internet commentary since the terrible tragedy in Arizona.

    (A few of these links were found at Comics Worth Reading.)

    Wednesday, January 5, 2011

    A.k.a., reasons why super-hero comics (often) suck!

    Sonia Harris on why Chris Ware's Acme Novelty Library #20: Lint - and not some super-hero comic by DC or Marvel - ended up in the number one spot on CBR's Top 100 Comics of 2010:

    This is a book written and drawn by one man, at his own pace, published on the most beautiful quality paper. Simply as a physical object, we rarely see superhero books which reach this level of quality, this book is aimed at the whole world. No one buying this book complained that it was $3.99 and not $2.99, it was created as an expensive object of desire. No publisher canceled this book half way through, no publisher pushed the author to put it out every month, regardless of quality, in case some kid forgot to buy it when it was a month late. There are so many reasons that this book is a better comic book than many corporately owned superhero comic books. This book had advantages over superhero comic books, not just because it was more popular with a larger demographic of the general public, but because it wasn’t hobbled by an industry treating it like the content didn’t matter.

    Neonomicon is starting to make sense

    I've complained before about Rick Johnston's hyping the shock value aspect of Alan Moore's Neonomicon on his blog, Bleeding Cool, which I find puerile and distracting. Thankfully, though, he's also interested in some of the more insightful interpretations of the comic.

    (Spoiler warning: Don't click the next link if you haven't already read issues 1-3 of Neonomicon.)

    In this post, he quotes from several contributors on his message board who are not only deciphering some of the more difficult language in the comic but also starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together, illustrated with some pretty convincing evidence going all the way back to the very first page of the first issue.

    In retrospect, it's all so obvious I can't believe I missed it. Looking forward to the final issue!

    Tuesday, January 4, 2011

    Flex Mentallo deluxe edition coming this fall


    This is great news!

    From iFanboy:
    With few details and no art, Vertigo has announced that the long out-of-print and disputed Flex Mentallo will come to shelves in deluxe hardcover form this fall.  The 4 issue mini-series, written by Grant Morrison and drawn by Frank Quitely, was published in 1996, as a spin-off from the character's appearance in Doom Patrol

    The core of the conflict had to do with Mentallo's similarity to Charles Atlas, the sand-kicking workout hero from classic comic book ads.  The Charles Atlas company filed a lawsuit, which was dismissed, but DC still haven't reprinted the series. Until now.

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010

    Links!

    Tom Spurgeon at The Comics Reporter has started posting a series of lengthy interviews with comics creators. (The first one is with Joe Casey, the second with Karl Stevens, and the third with Matt Seneca.) This is apparently a yearly tradition around the holidays. I've only had time to read the first interview, but if the others are as good as that one was, then I've got a lot of great reading ahead of me. And so do you! Here's Joe Casey on Wildstorm:

    The loss of Wildstorm and what it meant within the overall DC brand could -- and probably should -- be seen as a cautionary tale. When Wildstorm was making some cutting edge comics, they were vital. They were important. They were alive. They helped make DC a lot cooler than they would be without them. But, as they say... when you snooze, you lose. When Wildstorm stopped being cutting edge, they were instantly a millstone around DC's neck. They brought nothing to the table, creatively. The fact that their videogame tie-in comic was reportedly DC's biggest seller didn't even register, because what does that have to do with Wildstorm as a brand? Now go even wider and consider Warners in general. They just had that shake-up at the highest levels of management. A big-time studio head is basically pushed out, and it's been suggested that it was possibly in part because he couldn't get his shit together when it came to exploiting DC properties in the wider mediaspace, where billions of dollars in profits are at stake. When you don't know what to do with the assets you've got, when it comes across like you're too paralyzed to take action (for whatever reason), it's time to step aside and let the adults take the wheel. Or, in the case of Wildstorm, it's time to be taken back behind the barn and be put out of your misery.
    Brutal!

    Meanwhile, at Comics Alliance, Laura Hudson interviews Mark Waid, and he's got some things to say about digital comics.

    Kelly Thompson at She Has No Head! writes about her 20 favourite female creators of 2010 (part one, part two). And speaking of Kelly Thompson, you should really be listening to her podcast 3 Chicks Review Comics, in which the other two chicks are Sue from DC Women Kicking Ass and Maddy from When Fangirls Attack. These are three of the smartest comics bloggers I read and it's always fun to hear them each bring their own unique perspective on the comics they discuss in the podcast. There are four episodes so far and the podcast is on hiatus until after the holidays, so that should give you enough time to catch up.

    Finally, my pal Mike Muller shares his five favourite Eightball covers over at his blog, It's a Bit of a Shame. Check it out.

    Sunday, December 19, 2010

    Does DC see controversy as more profitable than diversity?

    If you've read the DC solicitations for January, then you know there's a Steel one-shot coming up. For all intents and purposes, when it was first announced, this seemed like a somewhat unimportant book, written by DC newcomer Steve Lyons, featuring a character who isn't appearing in any other books these days, and not tying into any bigger event. But it seems now that most of the info in the original solicitation has changed.

    Back in November, DC announced an upcoming event called The Reign of Doomsday, which kickstarts with the Steel one-shot and will continue in the pages of Outsiders, JLA, Superboy and beyond. The villain changed from Metallo to Doomsday, and the artist changed from Sean Chen to Ed Benes.

    In an interview at Newsarama last week, Lyons explains that he'd originally pitched the story as a stand-alone issue, but that editorial later decided to change the villain and tie it into a larger event. Sean T. Collins at Robot 6 wrote an interesting piece about the interview and the status of the character in the DC Universe.
    Steel is one of the most undervalued characters and designs in DC’s pantheon. Iron Man’s powers, Thor’s hammer, Superman’s cape, and an African-American folk hero’s name? That’s pure gold. And seriously, what a great design: The Alex Garner cover to the issue — itself part of DC’s genuinely awesome iconic-cover line-up for the month of January — is practically payoff enough. Plus, in a genre often (and accurately) decried for its lack of strong non-white heroes, John Henry Irons is an armor-clad, hammer-wielding, ‘S’-shield-wearing super-genius whose role in Metropolis’s scientific and business community is basically “the anti-Lex.” Tough to top that.
    Okay. But Sean and others have also picked up on the rather ominous way in which Lyons avoids talking about the future of the character after the one-shot. From the interview at Newsarama:
    Nrama: Will Steel's role in the story continue into the other issues involved in the story? Or is he pretty much relegated to this one issue?
    Lyons: Um. that would be telling, I think.
    DC has a long-standing tradition of starting big events by killing off a character, to show how serious they are. (Ugh!) The death of Ted Kord (Blue Beetle) launched Infinite Crisis, the death of Metron launched Final Crisis, and most recently the death of Ryan Choi (Atom) launched the new direction of Titans. So I wouldn't put it past them to pull something like this off again. But considering how much controversy there's been this past year about the whitewashing of the DC Universe and the death of minority characters, could they really be planning to kill yet another one of their increasingly rare non-white heroes?

    I realize this is a lot of speculation based on what is essentially a writer refusing to tell us how his story ends. But on the other hand, considering the precedents, it's not entirely crazy to jump to that conclusion. I just find it difficult to believe that after all the criticism DC could still be so stubbornly unwilling to admit that there is in fact a staggering lack of diversity in their books to the point that they would continue to make it worse, instead of doing even the slightest effort to remedy the problem.

    At this point, killing off another non-white hero could only be interpreted as a provocation. The cynic in me is even tempted to suggest that the line from the interview may have been deliberately planted to stir up exactly this kind of speculation and discussion about the title, to generate interest and (presumably) drive up sales. I'll confess that I wasn't all that interested in the one-shot when it was first solicited. Not because I dislike the character or don't support books featuring non-white heroes, but mostly because I'm not familiar with the writer's previous work and lately I haven't had much luck with one-shots from DC. But now my curiosity has definitely been piqued. I don't know if it'll be enough to get me to buy the book, but I'm definitely paying more attention than I was before.

    We'll have to wait and see, of course. Maybe this time it really is a tempest in a teapot.

    The Steel one-shot hits stores January 5.

    Monday, November 1, 2010

    Sexism in The Walking Dead: An Ongoing Discussion

    (I apologize in advance for the somewhat hodgepodge nature of this post. I've tried to summarize as best as I could the various arguments for and against sexism in The Walking Dead, which I've encountered over the past 48 hours or so. I hope this is somewhat readable and coherent, but I offer no guarantee that it is.)

    Over the past couple of months, I've read through the first 50-some issues of The Walking Dead, and this weekend, I also watched the first episode of the AMC television series based on it, which premiered on Sunday. Throughout all this, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the sexist and anti-progressive undertones in both the comics and the first episode of the television series. And since yesterday, I've been involved in a few discussions about it.

    My intention, at first, was to write a very long and detailed review of the comics, focusing on what I think is a very problematic representation of gender relations and gender roles. As it turns out, though, I found a few reviews online that already do a pretty good job at listing some of the problems I've noticed in the books.

    A few different takes on the comic books

    Darren's reviews of the first and second hardcover volumes at The M0vie Blog do a pretty good job at highlighting some of the more problematic scenes dealing with gender roles. When I complained on Tumblr that I hadn't seen a lot of discussion of those issues online, someone pointed me in the direction of this excellent post by Jennifer at Fantastic Fangirls. Here's an excerpt:

    One of the biggest concerns for me with The Walking Dead has been the troubling gender issues. The book is structured around zombie apocalypse survivor Rick Grimes, a man who takes charge of a group of fellow survivors and expects everyone else to fall in line behind him. While I find Rick to be an obnoxious character, and I get annoyed when his stupid or immoral decisions are validated by his swooning followers, his wife in particular, I understand that this is mainly a function of protagonist privilege. The book revolves around Rick, and even if he does contribute to the long tradition of straight white males at the center of Western narratives, that in itself isn't the problem.

    The problem comes up when issues of gender inequality are present, questioned within the text, and then summarily dismissed. This happens in the first volume, when the women of the group are expected to take care of laundry and childcare while the men do the hunting and gathering. One female character is frustrated by this stereotypical division of labor and wonders, when the zombies are gone, if women will even be allowed to vote. But the other women in the scene laugh off her fears. They know nothing about guns, after all, and shouldn't they do what they're good at? The characters continue doing laundry, the matter settled.

    Later, when the group elects a committee of leaders to mitigate Rick's single-handed dictatorship, the elected group is entirely male. When Rick points out this imbalance ("No women?"), the other men assure him that the women wanted this team to be all male, because they don't feel they're cut out for leadership. Rick accepts this reasoning, and the leadership committee settles into its role.
    Those are pretty much exactly the same issues I had with the comics.

    Meanwhile, Kelly Thompson has a different take on the series, praising its "fantastic female characters" in this week's edition of her column, She Has No Head, on Comics Should Be Good. I was surprised that she doesn't put as much weight on the sexism or larger problems with gender roles in the comics as I would have expected. But even though her take on the series is mostly positive, Kelly is still critical of some of the characters. For example, about Donna, she writes:
    She's totally unlikable for the majority of her screen time and is by far the most stereotypical and cliche of Kirkman's early characters. The feminist in me likes that she asks the question of why it's three women doing the laundry while the men folk do the huntin' and protectin' and I wonder if found in the same situation if I'd be asking the same question.  However Kirkman pulls from the worst feminist stereotypes and she comes off as humorless, cold, bitchy, judgmental woman jealous of others younger and prettier than she. Donna is also rendered to be the least "traditionally attractive" of the ladies. I'm not sure what's a lazier stereotype than the "ugly humorless feminist" but that's mostly all Donna brings to the table for the bulk of her page time.
    Kelly's post is worth reading all the way through. Although I'm inclined to be tougher on Kirkman overall, her interpretation is very nuanced and it's clear that she's thought about these characters a lot. Without being apologetic, she points out quite a few redeeming qualities of the various female characters that are easy to overlook or simply ignore because they don't fit into a simplistic interpretation of the book as sexist and misogynist.

    My biggest problem with the comics is the general trend toward an essentialist view of gender roles. Kirkman seems to think that men and women are fundamentally different in ways that go beyond the physical/anatomical, and those differences include men being generally more action-oriented, better leaders, and more rational, while the women are more passive, emotional, and better at domestic tasks (cooking, laundry, sewing clothes, taking care of children). There are of course a few exceptions. Amy is a good shooter, while Tyreese can’t shoot to save his life. But these are just that: exceptions.

    The feeling I get from the books is that men are meant to be leaders while the women are meant to be in the kitchen. And the fact that Kirkman keeps saying "I'm only being realistic in terms of what I think would happen in a zombie apocalypse" suggests that this is what he sees as the natural order of things, rather than just social constructs. If you push the logic of the comics far enough, you could argue that all the social advances in women's rights are what's artificial - all it's gonna take is a cataclysmic event like a zombie apocalypse to return things to the way they were always meant to be.

    The first episode: equally sexist, but in different ways

    I was pretty appalled by the blatant display of sexism in the pilot of the series, and after watching it, I made a few comments about it on Tumblr. A few people were surprised by my reaction. "The women only appear in it for like five minutes, so what was blatantly sexist about it?" they asked.

    Well, for one thing, when you have a one-hour pilot episode that only allots about five minutes of screen time to female character, that's already a pretty good clue that the show is primarily concerned with a male perspective. Which is not necessarily sexist, but it's certainly one of the first steps in that direction. But it gets a lot more obviously sexist once you start looking at the specifics of those scenes that either feature or mention women:

    1. One woman at the camp near the end of the episode, whose character is only onscreen for this one scene,  is so stupid and useless, she doesn't know that in order to respond to someone on a CB radio, you have the push the button. Seriously. I'm pretty sure most people have seen enough of those things on television, whether they've actually used them or not themselves, to understand this simple concept. And if they didn't, why wouldn't someone at the camp teach them how to use it?

    2. Lori, Rick's wife, has already been established as a bad mother in the incredibly, blatantly, offensively sexist opening dialogue, where Rick and Shane talk about "the difference between men and women" (in which we learn, among other things, that women are responsible for global warming, because they don't know how to use a light switch). When we finally meet her, we see that her being a bad mother isn't just Rick's opinion, but is in fact true. (This is demonstrated by he way that she walks away from her son, which Shane then scolds her for in the tent.) And not only is she a bad mother, but she's also a bad wife, because she's cheating on her husband, whom she left in a coma back at the hospital.

    3. The only interaction between men and women in the entire episode (not counting a few encounters with female zombies) is in that one scene at the camp. In includes: a man taking the CB away from the silly woman who can't figure out how to use simple technology; Lori trying to express herself and show some leadership, but being immediately put in her proper place by a man who knows better; Shane treating her like shit, insulting her, telling her she's a bad mother, and bullying her into admitting that he's right - all of which we could dismiss as characterization of him as an asshole and not necessarily representative of the views of the producers of the show, except that, of course, her reaction to all this is to make out with him, because that's apparently what turns women on.

    4. In an earlier scene between Rick and Morgan, the guy who's staying at his neighbour's house, Rick points out that all the photo albums are missing from his place, which is evidence that Lori was alive when she left, as a burglar wouldn't have stolen these. Morgan laughs and says his wife did the same thing. "I'm out there packing stuff for survival and she's gathering photo albums." Silly women!

    That pretty much sums up the show's take on men and women: men are rational, practical, survivors; while women are stupid, inefficient and sentimental.

    Of course, as several people have pointed out to me, this is only the first episode. The scene between Lori and Shane could very well be setting her up as a strong character who has her own reasons for putting up with his bullying and who will eventually assert herself later in the show. I guess this is not impossible. But given how close the characterization seems to be to the books, I find that highly unlikely, since in the comics she's never really developed as a strong character.

    A few things I didn't hate about the first episode of The Walking Dead

    I've been debating with myself whether I'm going to continue watching the series, because as much as I hate the sexism and find it inexcusable and impossible to ignore, the show is also really exciting and well made. I want to give it a chance and I want to enjoy it.

    Here are a few things that I didn't hate about the first episode:
    • The expanded sequence with Morgan and Duane. I thought it was very smart of the producers of the show to spend more time with these characters and expand on their story a little bit, compared to their brief appearance at the start of the series. Those who have read the comics know that these characters will be seen again eventually, but in terms of the TV series, I would bet that probably won't be before the second or third season. I would love if they actually spent more time with these characters and gave us their story in parallel to what happens to Rick and his companions. Maybe not spend as much time with them, but at least visit them once in a while to give us an update. I don't think they're actually going to do that, but it would be cool if they did.
    • The special effects, the level of gore, and the action sequences. Absolutely amazing and impressive on every level. They didn't hold back at all on the gore or violence, but at the same time none of it feels gratuitous or distasteful. And the special effects are impressive. This must have cost a fortune.
    • The physical likeness between the actors and the characters in the book. Every character that was introduced was instantly recognizable from the comic. Very cool.
    • The acting. There wasn't a bad performance in the episode. The only area of concern there for future episodes would be with Carl, since he's the youngest character and we all know how hit-or-miss child actors can be. He didn't do or say much in this episode, so that remains to be seen.
    • And finally, the overall aesthetic and cinematography. No complaints there either.
    Really, there's a lot to like there, and I understand why all the fans are so impressed and excited and delighted by it. It's just that none of this makes the sexism any less present or more excusable. If anything, it kind of makes it all the more disappointing, because this show had the potential to be just brilliant, but it's already been tainted by this very strong negative aspect that I can't ignore.

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010

    The problem with time travel

    Last week, Greg Burgas at Comics Should Be Good mentioned his difficulty getting past the way time travel is being portrayed in The Return of Bruce Wayne.

    So in this issue, Dick and Damian investigate the weirdo coffin in which Bruce was trapped and the Justice League checks out the cape that they found in the cave, and the God of All Comics is pulling it all together decently. But here's the thing: while Diana and the rest of the League and Dick and Damian are talking about all of this stuff, I can't get over the fact that the past and the present simply can't exist at the same time. It bothers the hell out of me that, in comics, a person in the "present" can be talking about events that happened in the past, and those events are being shown, not as if they're happening in a different time, but as if they're just happening at a different place in the world and at the same time. I can't get past that, I'm sorry.


    Meanwhile, several fans have pointed out the obvious blunder in the art on page 15 of issue #3, which shows Green Lantern Hal Jordan sitting at the JLA table, even though he is supposed to be with Superman and the others hunting for Bruce. J. Caleb Mozzocco illustrates the mistake on his blog with some added dialogue.



    Personally, what I can't wrap my head around is why when people travel to a different time they would then be absent for an extended period in the present. It doesn't matter if they go on a year-long journey, they could still return to the moment immediately following their departure. That's what the time machine is for! Why keep everyone else waiting for weeks?

    Similarly, in issue #1, Superman and company showed up just moments after Bruce Wayne had disappeared from prehistoric times. Their reaction: "Oh, no. We just missed him. We have to keep chasing him through time." No, you don't! You know he was there 5 minutes ago, so just use your time machine and go back in time!"

    It doesn't make any sense. But that's the thing with stories involving time travel - they almost never do. So I'm trying not to let this spoil my enjoyment of the series, which is really quite a lot of fun in many other ways. I'm just a little bit disappointed that Grant Morrison wouldn't treat time travel more intelligently.

    Tuesday, June 15, 2010

    Apple censorship updates - part 2

    Check out this interview with Rob Berry, co-creator of the Ulysses "Seen" comic, about dealing with Apple's censorship on the iPad. As I noted in my previous post, Apple has reversed its decision to censor the comic for nudity.

    Apple censorship updates

    A couple of noteworthy developments following the widely reported cases of Apple censoring comics on the iPad/iPhone, which I mentioned earlier this month.

    First, it seems that the accusations of Steve Jobs calling Pullizer Prize-winner Mike Fiore a liar were based on a partial transcript of the interview. Now a full transcript is available, and it's clear that he wasn't referring to him at all when he talked about people lying to the press.

    Second, it seems that Apple has reversed its decision to censor the much-publicized adaptations of Oscar Wild and James Joyce's works. They say they "made a mistake" and are allowing the creators to resubmit their apps uncensored. Good news for them, of course, though I have to wonder if Apple would consider these "mistakes" had it not been for all the bad press they got as a result of the rejections.

    Friday, June 4, 2010

    Apple censorship on the iPhone and iPad

    I've read a few stories in recent months about Apple's new self-appointed role as a censor and preserver of morality. Apparently Steve Jobs believes they have a "moral responsibility" to keep porn off the iPhone, which in itself is pretty fucked up, but gets even more problematic when you take a look at the type of apps that are being rejected because of "objectionable content."

    First, there's Mark Fiore's political cartoons. Following Apple's rejection of his app on grounds that it "ridicules public figures," Fiore went on to win a Pulitzer, which brought some well-deserved attention to the issue. Steve Job's attempt at damage control, instead of apologizing for the unfair rejection, was to call Fiore a liar.

    Last week, Brigid Alverson at Robot 6 pointed out several rather questionable decisions by Apple about which comics to distribute. Of particular concern to me is the way that the rules seem to be stricter when it comes to gay content.

    Tom Bouden's adaptaton of The Importance of Being Earnest was rejected from the app store on the basis of half a dozen images, all showing two men kissing or embracing but not having sex, and none depicting full frontal nudity. Apple finally allowed the comic with big black rectangles over the "offending" images.

    Alverson concludes that Apple's double standard may have more to do with large publisher vs. small press than with homophobia, but that doesn't really reassure me.

    Yesterday, she reported on another case of Apple censorship, this time involving an app for the webcomic Ulysses "Seen," an adaptation of James Joyce's novel. This time, the objectionable content was the visual depiction of a flaccid penis. Here, the creators of the comic managed to get around Apple's content restrictions by altering the offending image, giving us a close-up of the character that moves the objectionable body part off-panel. They reason that users can click on links to the website where the unaltered image is still available.

    I guess this seems like a good compromise when you're a struggling artist trying to get your work distributed on a popular platform and you need all the exposure you can get. But to me this is even sadder than the Oscar Wilde comic, because by altering their comic they've hidden more than a penis – they've also hidden Apple's censorship. I would opt instead for drawing attention to it: put a big black box over panel with a note: "This comic has been censored by Apple. The device you purchased doesn't allow you to view original art as it was intended to be seen."

    People are quick to point out that you can still access porn or these comics on the iPad by simply opening the websites in the internet browser, but that's completely besides the point. The way people access content is changing and Apple's app store is an important player in these changes. People say it's a sound business decision for them to want to control which apps are available on their hardware, because it helps them control their brand's image, but when you start talking about the "moral implications" of porn, censoring nudity, and discriminating against gay content, it's no longer just a business issue. It's political.

    And it's dangerous, especially because not enough people are aware of it. Americans are obsessed with the idea of free speech and defending the First Amendment. And yet this kind of sneaky censorship is considered business as usual. That's the double standard that I can't wrap my mind around.

    UPDATE: See also this post by Rich Johnston over at Bleeding Cool.

    Sunday, May 23, 2010

    60 good comics from the last decade

    This dates back to February, but it's worth checking out. Ed Howard made a list of what he considers the 60 best comics of the past decade. These types of lists are generally useless if you think of them as absolutes, but this one serves as a very useful list of recommendations. The list leans heavily toward the non-super-hero genre, but the selections cover a wide variety of genres and types of comics, ranging from self-published to indie to "big two". It also doesn't ignore manga.

    I've only read a handful of books from the list, but the ones I have read are among my favourites (especially Pluto and Skyscrapers of the Midwest).

    Of the titles I didn't read, I was familiar with about half of them, while the other half are completely new to me. I've just added at least a dozen new books on my to-read list.

    Check it out here (60-41), here (40-21) and here (20-1).

      © Blogger template 'Isolation' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

    Back to TOP