SOMETHING IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN

Hey, everyone. I haven't updated this blog in about 20 months. But I'm preparing a comeback. And it's going to be... amazing.

The obligatory "Before Watchmen" reaction post

Might as well get this one out of the way.

The story is splattered all over the internet this morning, including on DC's official blog, The Source, (which appears to be unable to deal with the heavy traffic as I write this), various mainstream entertainment news sites and the usual suspects in the comics web. But in case you haven't heard, it boils down to this: DC is releasing a series of miniseries collectively called "Before Watchmen" (I guess they couldn't come up with anything better than an obvious working title) by various writers and artists. Each series focuses on a different character from the original series/graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Among the creators involved are Brian Azzarello, J. Michael Straczynski, Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner.

Here's a quote from the announcement on The Source:

“It’s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant,” said DC Entertainment Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee. “After twenty five years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. We sought out the best writers and artists in the industry to build on the complex mythology of the original.”

It's times like these that I'm so happy I decided to name this blog "Irrelevant Comics." I'm so glad that DiDio and Lee hired JMS to make this classic work "relevant" again. Remember when he was hired to make Superman relevant? That was the time Superman went on a long, boring walk across America where nothing happened and nobody gave a shit. Not even JMS, apparently, since he couldn't be bothered to finish it.

Yeah, it's pretty depressing that JMS is considered one of the "best writers in the industry," but it's not like it makes a big difference to me in the end, since I wasn't planning on reading these books anyway.

What I find more upsetting about the announcement is the confirmation of Darwyn Cooke's involvement in the project. Other than Amanda Connor, he's the only creator involved I really give a shit about, and sadly I am going to find it incredibly difficult to take him seriously after this. Remember this video?

In it, Cooke talks about how he doesn't plan to return to superhero comics "in any big way" (what could be bigger than a Watchmen prequel?!), at least not until the industry stops "catering to the perverted needs of 45-year-old men."

I remember when this video was first posted, a lot of people were upset about his comment on lesbian heroes. It bothered me too, but I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt at the time because I still had respect for him as a creator and thought his point was mostly about superhero comics not being for kids anymore. (Who says lesbian characters can't be for kids? But let's not get into that right now.)

But now that we know he's a hypocrite and a profiteer? I'm not feeling so generous. Watchmen (along with Frank Miller's Batman work in the 1980s) is one of the seminal works responsible for the "maturing" of superhero comics' content. It features graphic violence, foul language, sex and even rape - all the things Cooke claims have no place in superhero comics. So what the fuck?

That DC would eventually go back to milk the Watchmen cash cow seemed like an inevitability. The question was when it and how it would happen. And with or without Alan Moore's blessings. There's a lot of history here, and I'm not sure there's much point in me going over it again. In a nutshell, relations between Moore and DC have been bad ever since he stopped working for them, and a lot of it was directly related who owns the rights to these characters.

My friend and fellow blogger Alan David Doane has written a very persuasive short piece on why DC's decision to go ahead with the Watchmen prequels despite Alan Moore's objections is (in his opinion) unethical. You can read it here, and if you agree with it you can also sign the petition.

I agree with a lot of what that petition says, and that's why I'm sharing it here and encouraging people to read it and decide for themselves. Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about it to add my name to the list. I think the prequels are in very poor taste. I think Alan Moore got the shitty end of the stick. But it's also not that different from the way Marvel treated Kirby, or the way DC treated Siegel and Shuster. I'm not saying that two or three wrongs make a right, or that we should ignore one injustice because there are other injustices out there. It's just that I've realized and more or less come to terms with the fact that DC and Marvel are big, ugly, profit-driven corporations, which is pretty much synonymous with unethical behaviour. What they're doing here is ugly, but so is everything else they do. And if I'm going to start signing petitions over this case, then I might as well stop supporting them completely and never buy another one of their books, or else I'm going to feel like a total hypocrite.

That's just my take on it. I think being a fan of (or consumer of) any mass entertainment necessarily involves a certain amount of cognitive dissonance and ethical negotiations with oneself. I feel the same way about television and Hollywood and video games. Hell, I feel that way about EVERYTHING I spend my money on, since it's all part of a giant system I am generally opposed to. (Call it capitalism, I suppose.) Again, I'm not saying the way to deal with these concerns is to shove them at the bottom of your psyche and ignore them. It's important to be aware of these things that make us uncomfortable, and to think and write and talk about them, and whenever possible try to fight them. And if you decide that the best way to do this is for you to sign the petition, then sign it. For me, it isn't.

(Whoa! Did I ever get side-tracked, there!)

I'm not going to buy any of these Watchmen prequels, and I feel this is the best way to send a message to DC. A few hundred names on a petition is not going to do much. The only thing that's going to make a difference at the end of the day is whether the books sell well or not.

And here comes the depressing part: Of course they're going to sell well. They're going to be at the top of the charts and (like the New 52) they will be deemed a success. Before the books come out, Dan DiDio is going to be quoted saying he's puzzled that fans are reacting negatively without having read the books. Guaranteed. And then after the books have come out, if anybody points out that they sucked (after having read them), he's going to point out that they were best-sellers, so obviously the opinion of that reader doesn't matter.

Notice the catch-22 here? Our opinion doesn't matter until we've bought and read the book. And once we've bought and read the book, our opinion doesn't matter because we've already paid for it.

Is It Wednesday Yet?

I'm glad I managed to write some comics reviews last week and I hope I can keep the momentum going. But as always, there are things happening in live that could possibly get in the way.

Plus, I thought I'd have lots of time to read comics after finishing A Clash of Kings, but I couldn't help it and bought A Storm of Swords and started reading it this morning on the way to work. I'm sorry.

Anyway. Some new comics this week:

• Animal Man #6 (DC)
• Swamp Thing #6 (DC)
• Sweet Tooth #30 (DC)
• Alpha Girl #1 (Image)
• Fatale #2 (Image)
• Amazing Spider-Man #679 (Marvel)
• Punisher #8 (Marvel)
• Winter Soldier #1 (Marvel)

I've fallen behind on both of those DC titles, so I hope they haven't started sucking and I'm not even aware of it. I'll try to catch up on them before Wednesday and let you know what I think.

Sweet Tooth is back on track now after a brief flashback story about the origins of the plague, which was illustrated (quite nicely) by Matt Kindt. That flashback made me a little uncomfortable for reasons that I still want to write about someday, but probably not today. (Hint: cultural appropriation.) But I'm not letting that turn me off too much, because other than that one thing, Sweet Tooth is still my favourite comic.

I've put Alpha Girl on the list even though I'm not totally convinced that I'm going to get it myself, but it's a new series from Image so it's probably at least worth flipping through at the store. Something to do with zombies, unfortunately. I'm a bit tired of zombies and vampires.

Fatale #1 was great, so I'm really looking forward to the second issue.

And Winter Soldier... Blargh. I'm about 90% sure I'm not going to buy that, unless I get a sudden urge to spend more money than I should. which happens a lot, so it's not completely out of the question.

PS: Follow me on Twitter and/or on Tumblr.

Reviews: Amazing Spider-Man, Scarlet Spider, The Ray, Punisher

The Amazing Spider-Man #678
Written by Dan Slott; pencils by Humberto Ramos; inks by Victor Olazaba; colours by Edgar Delgado; Marvel

Instead of writing a review I think I'll just show you this image:

Is this Spider-Man or Mr. Freaking Fantastic? Because that does not look like a human body to me. I think Ramos' art is a little too cartoony (in the sense that he distorts figures, proportions, faces, etc. for effect) for my tastes.

Otherwise, I'm still sort of enjoying this book, but it's hard to forget that it's $4 and twice a month. That's a lot of money for something that I'm only kind of enjoying. Consider it on probation.

Scarlet Spider #1
Written by Christopher Yost; pencils by Ryan Stegman; inks by Michael Babinski; colours by Marte Gracia; Marvel

I bought this out of curiosity (I like to try #1s to see if new series show any promise) and because I have fond memories of Chris Yost's Red Robin (before Fabian Nicieza took over and fucked it all up).

Scarlet Spider (aka Kaine) is apparently a clone of Spider-Man who turned evil, then died to save Peter, then was resurrected in the recent Spider Island event, and is now trying to decide whether he just wants to enjoy his new life or be a hero. That's a lot of backstory, which can be a bit of a turn off for me when I'm not super-invested in the characters, but Yost seems to deal with it swiftly in the first issue so he can tell a good story going forward.

I think I'm going to stick with this one for a few more issues. The art is nice and I like the character. The plot revolves around a case of human trafficking, which, is it just me or are super-hero comics obsessed with human trafficking? I feel like it shows up in Batman comics a lot, and lately it was in that awful Huntress mini-series. Anyway. I'm not too thrilled about that aspect of it, but it's not a major turn off or anything.

I have a feeling this series is going to be short-lived, which seems to be the fate of most solo books for non A-list characters at Marvel these days, but I'll take the risk.

The Ray #2 (of 6)
Written by Justin Gray and Jimmy Palmiotti; pencils by Jamal Igle; inks by Rich Perrotta; colours by Guy Major; DC

I like the narration in this comic. The way the protagonist is talking directly to the reader. It's a little bit meta, but not in a high-concept kind of way. It reminds me of TV shows, like Malcolm in the Middle or something. (Was that a bad comparison? Sorry.) The point is, it's a good way to give the character a voice and a personality. Which, I'm assuming, most readers need at this point, since they're not familiar with this guy.

It's not really clear to me how the Ray's light-based powers work. I think he absorbs light and then can use that energy to fly around and do other things, but then it eventually runs out. He can also manipulate how the light reflects off his body, which allows him to change his appearance.

The plot revolves around his troubles with his girlfriend and her parents, and by the end of the issue the situation has turned into a classic save the girl scenario, after these weird insect-like creatures who talk like Daleks randomly fall from the sky.

There's nothing really mind-blowing about this, but the writing is pretty sharp. Jamal Igle's art is unremarkable, but not a turn off. I'll give it another issue at least and see where it goes.

The Punisher #7
Written by Greg Rucka; pencils by Michael Lark; inks by Stefano Gaudiano; colours by Matt Hollingworth; Marvel

I just love the fact that Marvel editors have enough faith in what Greg Rucka is doing with this series that they're willing to let him write an entire issue of The Punisher in which The Punisher doesn't appear. It's great pacing for the series as a whole, giving us a little interlude after the carnage in the previous action-packed issue, and it also works perfectly as a stand-alone issue. It even functions as a pretty good jumping-on point for new readers, as the cops investigating the case kind of sum up everything that's happened so far.

The art team is also fantastic, giving the book a great pulp noir look that matches Rucka's writing style. I really don't care much about The Punisher as a character. I gave this series a try purely because of Rucka. It doesn't disappoint.

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.

Is It Wednesday Yet? // What's wrong with her spine?

Ever since I started following this awesome tumblr called Eschergirls, I've been asking myself a couple of questions: How did this kind of art become so popular, and how come nobody has put a stop to it yet?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, just click the link about. You'll immediately recognize the type of pose I mean. It's the one where a female character twists her body around in ways that are anatomically impossible in order to showcase both her ass and her boobs for the reader.

I'm serious. I don't understand why that kind of art can be so popular in professionally made comic books by major publishers. The obvious answer is that dumb straight males get turned on by gratuitous shots of tits and asses, and publishers assume that dumb straight males are their primary and most profitable demographic, so they pander to them. I supposed there's a little bit of truth to that. But that answer doesn't really satisfy me, because I actually find it incredibly difficult to be believe that there are that many straight guys who actually find those images sexually appealing.

Let's put aside all the feminist concerns about whether these images are offensive or harmful for a second and just look at them as pure images devoid of any moral or political charge, designed specifically for the purpose of giving dudes a hard-on. (Yeah, I know this is a weird thought experiment and there's no such thing as amoral/apolitical images, but just go with it for the sake of argument.) Let's go even further and pretend for a moment that straight males are the ONLY people reading comics (which is completely false) and that they DEMAND that these comics include sexy images of hot chicks. (I know. Crazy, right?)

Okay. If you can somehow accept the over-the-top premise of the previous paragraph, I say that still doesn't justify these awful poses. You're telling me that's the best, most sexy depictions of women these artists can come up with? You're telling me horny straight virgin dudes are happy with that? They wouldn't prefer to see sexy images of women that, oh, I don't know, at least look human?

I don't understand it at all. I don't understand how artists can produce those images and not be ashamed of them - not because they are overly sexualized but because they are SHITTY ART. I don't understand how editors don't shoot those images down and demand that those pages get redrawn - again, simply on the basis that they don't meet their basic requirements for quality. And I don't understand why readers put up with it.

*

Anyway. Here are some new comics I'll be buying this week:

• American Vampire #23 (Vertigo)
• Bulletproof Coffin: Disinterred #1 (of 6) (Image)

Wow. It's a very light week. But, oh, man, I'm really excited about that Bulletproof Coffin sequel.

Is It Wednesday Yet? // Huntress, Batgirl, the New 52

If you've been paying attention to the comics blogs and news sites (and since you are reading this, I'm going to assume that you have), then you probably know that DC has announced a second wave of "New 52" titles along with other changes to their line, including some cancellations. As you might expect, some of the announcements were rather baffling. It was no big surprise that Hawk & Dove was cancelled, since it was undoubtedly one of DC's worst books and the sales were very low, but how could this possibly lead to artist Rob Liefeld being given not one but THREE books in exchange? It's really hard to understand how DC arrives at those types of decisions. I'm not going to waste any time speculating about it. The good news here is that the books Liefeld will be drawing are not books I would ever in a million years be tempted to read, so it's not like this has any effect on me at all.

Another bit of news had to do with the character of Huntress, who is currently starring in an eponymous mini-series written by Paul Levitz, and who will soon co-star with Power Girl in a new title by the same writer called World's Finest. What we learned about her is that she's not Helena Bertinelli, the character most fans are familiar with since she's been appearing in DC comics for the past 20 years, but Helena Wayne, her somewhat more obscure pre-Crisis equivalent. (Just read this post from DC Women Kicking Ass if you're confused.)

Why does this matter? As some people have pointed out, in the reboot, all characters have been changed, so this was never going to be the pre-New 52 Huntress, regardless of her name. That may be true, but clearly some characters are changing more than others. Bruce Wayne may technically be a few years younger than he was, and a few details from his early years as Batman may have changed, but if you're reading Scott Snyder's Batman, you know that he's pretty much writing him exactly the same way he would have written him in pre-52 continuity.

The point is, while there are a few New 52 books that I think are really good, almost all of them would have worked just as well in pre-New 52 continuity: Animal Man, Swamp Thing, Batwoman, Batman, Batman and Robin. The books and characters that have been changed the most - Teen Titans, Birds of Prey, Batgirl, Superman, Justice League - are of no interest to me, because they all feel like inferior versions of their predecessors. (The only exception is Wonder Woman.)

So now we have Huntress in her own mini-series, wearing essentially the same costume as in her pre-New 52 appearances, drawn gorgeously by Marcus To, going on an international mission to Italy where we find out that she's fluent in Italian. I hope you'll forgive me for assuming that this was Helena Bertinelli. And I was reading it in spite of the fact that the story is a freaking bore and some of it is vaguely racist, simply because this is one of the only female characters I liked from pre-New 52 DCU who survived unchanged and got her own book, so damn right I'm going to support it.

But, hey! What an idiot! I can't believe I fell for it. Of course she's not who I thought she was. She's Helena Wayne. A character I've never read before and don't really care about.

Why the change? Is it because she's more interesting if she's linked to Bruce Wayne? Is it because DC is more concerned with appealing to old men who used to read comics and maybe might be interested in reading them again if they feature characters they recognize?

I don't know. But I lost interest. I'm not even going to finish the mini-series. I'm done with that one.

*

Incidentally, I'm also done with Batgirl. I read this interview with Gail Simone and it annoyed me for a few different reasons I don't even really want to get into. But the short version is that I have no desire to read this book anymore. I was very much against the idea of Barbara Gordon not being Oracle anymore and the only reason I decided to read the new series was to give Gail Simone a chance to prove me wrong. I think five issues is more than a fair chance, and at this point I have read absolutely nothing that in any way justifies what they've done to the character. The story they are telling is not terrible. But it's just not worth what was lost. Not even close. I miss Oracle. I miss Stephanie Brown. And I miss Bryan Q. Miller.

The worst part is that Gail Simone keeps mentioning that Batgirl is the top-selling female solo book on the market, which I suppose is one way to measure it's success, and I feel like a goddamn tool for having contributed to that success. I bought the first five issues was so that I could judge it for myself and nobody could tell me I was bashing a book I hadn’t even read. Well, I read it, and I hereby judge it to be bad. If I could go back in time and un-buy those five issues, I would.

*

Oh, well. Here are some comics I will buy this week:

• Batman #5
• Wonder Woman #5
• Amazing Spider-Man #678
• Daredevil #8
• Superior #7