Playing catch-up.
Detective 853
I don't think I posted a review of the first part of this 2-parter by Neil Gaiman. That was, as I recall, in an issue of Batman. This was delayed, I guess since I've mostly forgotten the first half which I read right away. It had to do with Batman's funeral. A rather surreal funeral that continues here with all sorts of people talking. Bat foes all claim credit for killing Bats and by the end, I couldn't help wondering what the point was. This seemed to be Bruce reflecting on his life as he is dying, but given what we now know about his death, it makes no sense to me. Andy Kubert's art is nice. But I was expecting more from such a big name writer as Gaiman. Or am I missing something because the only Bat books I've read since returning to comics in the mid-'90s have been BoP, Nightwing, and an occasional Robin, plus the Huntress Year One and Robin Year One minis.
Supergirl 40
Okay, I didn't see that coming. Maybe because I'm not a regular reader of the Superman books other than Supergirl, but really, I was surprised by the big reveal. I will not reveal it here, not even with a spoiler warning. That just wouldn't be fair because it's hard to not see something like that even with a warning. I loved the cover, but I wish it had more closely matched the last panel of the story. Inside, Kara pulls off Superwoman's mask, having figured out who she is. On the cover, a shcoked Kara stares at Superwoman, seen from behind, who reveals herself. The cover is lovely, but I would've prefered an angry or determined Kara yanking off Superwoman's mask on the cover, without revealing her face.
Trinity 47
More of the same, not as good a weekly as 52 was, but as good or sometimes better than Countdown to Crisis was. Almost over now; I hope to see a big finish.
Justice League of America 32
All I can say is, huh? Which beats my first reaction: WTF? A lot of people have recently decried the boobification of DC's covers lately. Oracle is viewed from above, her cleavage on display. And there have been others. But the Oracle cover didn't bother me. The GA/BC cover was simply ugly, which fit nicely with the story inside, so it didn't bother me, either. But I don't get this cover at all, as in Why is Dr. Light on the cover representing the JLA when she's just joined the team and isn't a big name, hardly a selling point. As in Why is she in the grasp of the latest big bad who is biting her neck while she appears to be unconscious. Yeah, that'll pump up sales, among the Love to See Women Victimized crowd. Seriously, sexy women? Not a problem for me. Show some cleavage/skin? Fine as long as it's a grown woman and not a teen girl like Kara. And while showing our heroes in danger is always a good way to hook readers -- the Ooo, how will they get out of that deathtrap? factor -- it is preferable for the good guys/gals to actually be fighting to survive. She tried to fight back in the story, so why not on the cover. Why is she ... uh... out like a light? This annoys me. Not the sexy art (provided it's anatomically correct/possible/doesn't defy the laws of physics/anatomy), but this crap that demeans Dr. Light, while giving no real sense of the group aspect of a group book.
As for the story, half is talking heads talking talkity talk. So nice to hear Supes explain to Dinah why they made her leader and why the JLA needs her and then to see the remainder of the team she disbanded get together to keep it going and talking about Dinah, yadda yadda yadda, so that by the time the actual story starts, we have time for Shadow Thief to resurrect Starbreaker who drains Dr. Light's power or much of it, for himself, and then disappear with her going after him. And now Roy isn't in the book, away on leave, so why am I still reading this? I know people didn't like how Brad Meltzer paced his stories, being that he's a novelist who is used to having time for setup, but McDuffie is a practiced comics writer and his pacing is as bad or worse. At least Brad wrote interesting things happening and his talking heads scenes were on-target characterization.
Even the art by Rags Morales (pencils) and John Dell (inks) was ho-hum. Feh.
Zorro 10-12
This just gets better and better as California history and Spanish politics meets the superhero genre where the good guy wears a mask and a cape and carves a Z as a calling card, sometimes on the face of the enemy. This is a novel in comics that is paced just right.
The Lone Ranger and Tonto 2
This is a standalone followup to the first non-continuity Lone Ranger and Tonto. Not as strong as the Lone Ranger title, but a well told story about a town of monsters. Maybe. A good jumping on point for people curious about this new version of the beloved character.
Jack of Fables 32
Wherein Jack learns something that changes well, everything he knows about himself and puts a new spin on his relationship with the Page sisters. I so love this comic.
Battle for the Cowl: Commissioner Gordon
Always nice to see Gordon, especially when he's on his own, but really, was this actually necessary? It isn't memorable enough for me to be glad I got it, but it wasn't a waste of money, either.
Green Lantern 39
Agent Orange brings another color to the mix. heh I think we're gonna need a color chart before this is done and we're into Blackest Night. Another solid installment from Geoff Johns and Philip Tan's penciled art (inked by Jonathan Glapion) is stunning.
WildCats 8-10
Issue 8 featured Maxine, with fill-in art by Pete Woods whose art I like better on the book than Googe, although Googe does a nice job. I just don't like his style on the book and it seems Woods was aiming to keep to that style as best he could. Maxine isn't my favorite WildCat, but she was quite enjoyable in this story focusing on AIs and robots just trying to survive post-Armageddon. The next two issues continue the story of a lunatic Majestic. I love these characters, even if every carnation of them seems different than the last, and it's nice having them back on a regular basis.
Simon Dark 17-18
There had been no indication that the book was a limited series, so I don't know if this was planned to end here or it was canceled, though probably the latter is the case. In any rate, it all read like a horror novel and it ends in just the right way/place. It wasn't a favorite book, but I did get sucked in and will be sorry to not see it next month.
And that's it, until I read some more. Next up, a couple of issues of Madame Xanadu, and a whole lot more.
Showing posts with label covers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label covers. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Feminist Issues
I'm about to be long-winded. Deal with it, read it, comment, or just move along. ;)
While I was away, a lot of the comics blog posts I read had to do with a certain cover to a certain comic I don't read. Coming right after the MJ statue controversy, it's been a busy time for feminist bloggers, fanboys, and everyone else who enjoys an online ruckus. I would have more to say on the topic if I was more familiar with both Spider-Man comics and Heroes for Hire. But as I have just general knowledge of the former (never read the comics, did sometimes read the newspaper dailies, did see the first movie) and no knowledge of the latter (beyond seeing listings for it in CSN), I'll just post some general observations and opinions.
First, Kalinara linked to a nice defense/explanation of the H4H cover. Well worth reading for how to react to a controversy. The official and unofficial defenses that I read over the last week didn't cut it.
If someone is offended, then a thing is offensive on some level, as Kalinara explained previously. Saying it can't be offensive because no intent to offend existed is to avoid the issue.
Not everyone will be offended by the same things. Same as not everyone will like the same things. If I think Hemingway is a boring, annoying writer (which I do), does that mean he's a boring, annoying writer? Depends on who you ask. Artforms are like that. Sometimes, it's helpful to turn the argument around to something opposite to see how ridiculous some defenses can get.
I think better than saying the work is offensive can be "the work offended." Or that some people found the work offensive. The work exists on its own merits, but because it's an artform, its qualities are subjective. Offense is subjective. The more people who find something offensive, the more offensive it is. The audience ends up defining the work.
Bigotry works like that. Biases are everywhere. Stop a black man on a street for a random check without cause, but not the white men, that's bigotry. Stop the black man because you're looking for a mugger described as a black man wearing similar clothes, there likely isn't bigotry, unless you unnecessarily rough him up. Stop all men, regardless of ethnicity or race, and you probably aren't displaying bigotry, either. Context is usually everything. And no, I tend to not deal in absolutes, because I've learned in my 54 years (and counting), that exceptions can be found for just about everything.
My brand of feminism, as I believe I've stated here before, is about self-determination. It's about equality. Equal rights. Equal opportunities. Equal chances to fail as well as to succeed. Many years ago, I read a wonderful quote (I forget from who, but he was an education official, I think) that had to do with the concept that equality won't be achieved when the top people all have equal opportunities, but when the mediocre ones and those below that do. I agree with him. Equality will be achieved when ethnicity, religion, race, and sex will cease to be factors determining opportunities. Only abilities will.
Exploitation is something else. Is it exploitation when someone willingly allows it? When they control it by going into what's been labeled exploitive situations/jobs? Is someone above the age of consent being exploited or exploitive when they choose to sell their bodies? Is it demeaning if you don't feel demeaned? I would certainly not make the choices others do. Sure, prostitution is an extreme example, but how about something less obvious? Librarianship. The traditional domain of women (straight and gay) and gay men. Where, when I was in library school anyway, straight men were looked at funny when they wanted to be a librarian. Like male nurses. Did I settle for something I was programmed to be or did I become something I truly enjoy being? We all make choices based on upbringing, cultural influences, and our own minds.
What does this have to do with comics? Why am I posting it here instead of on my more political blog? Because the issue is pervasive in comics. And it is that way because comics have long been in the control of men, some of whom get women and some of whom don't. Which isn't to say women creators are all made of the same cloth, either. But in large part, men make the decisions, even if a woman ran DC Comics for a long time prior to Paul Levitz succeeding her. It affects how females are portrayed and how they are viewed.
One more thing before I get to the specifics here. I'm also a believer in Wittgenstein's concept of... well, concepts. That there are core concepts just about everyone will agree to and then nebulous, movable borders to those concepts that are placed differently for each person. So, we all might agree that shooting someone in cold blood is murder, but we might disagree that euthanasia is murder.
So, specifics. The MJ statue. Who hasn't seen a pic of it by now? Is it offensive? I dunno. I wasn't offended by it. I thought it was ridiculous looking and a poor reproduction of the sexy illo it was based on. It looked painful for MJ to be bent over that way. But I also thought it was a poorly executed attempt at a playful poke at a traditional and outmoded image of women, whether or not that was the intent. I don't deny that people were offended and anyone who mocked them for it missed the point.
The Heroes for Hire cover. Again, I didn't see it as offensive. I do agree the expressions made them look fearful, not a positive image, to be sure. I had no problem with the placement of the tentacles. More on that in a bit. Lea Hernandez reworked the cover on her LJ. She also posted this interesting letter from a retailer.
Re: the reworked cover. First, I don't think the middle woman looked all that frightened. More calculated, like she was biding her time before she could act. Anyway, in the reworked version, they look eager. I commented that they looked eager for the tentacles to attack them. Now, I'm a literal-minded person. I take what I'm given. If I infer something, it's got to be really clear. I didn't infer that they were eager to kill the tentacle creature, because that really isn't in the picture. What interested me was the comment my comment that they looked like they were enjoying it got: better to enjoy than to cower in fear... Yeah, right. That's so much better. Gonna rape me? Bring it on! I love being raped! Yeah, that works. NOT.
I don't get the whole tentacle porn/rape imagery in that. I'm a literal-minded person, mostly. I didn't see it, but that doesn't mean others didn't. They did, so on some level, it's there, intended or not. Lea changed hair and such, because it wasn't realistic. Heck, these are comic characters who, I presume have superpowers? Why would they be realistic? But I digress. I would never blame the artist, who worked freelance, I believe, according to specs she was given and her own cultural mores. Marvel bought it. Marvel didn't return it to be reworked. If that's the image Marvel liked, that's where the complaint should lie. And it wasn't nearly as suggestive or exploitive as many other covers on mainstream or non-porn books in comics shops.
Covers (see, I am getting to that) generally fall, as I see it, into one of two major categories: Heroic and Jeopardy. The more dangerous the situation, the more dire, the more eager we readers should be to see how the heroes get out of trouble. And for women (though it would work for men, too), rape is viewed as very dire, indeed. It's sure not on my list of things to experience (<-- Note of sarcasm here.) So, while the expressions could've been improved, I'd have made them look angry.
From another cover in recent months: Star Sapphire ready to stomp Hal/Green Lantern = Hero in jeopardy! Star Sapphire wearing the skimpiest costume in history for her negates the image somewhat because it detracts from her ability to pose a legit threat and therefore is viewed by many to be exploitive. The story rose above it.
Unfortunately, I don't know H4H, so I can't know if my "improvement" for it would make sense. But I would swap out one of the females for a male. Make things more equal.
Where do I sit in this controversy? Probably somewhere in the middle. I'm not all hot and bothered by the art in both the cover issue or the MJ statue. I don't think they're evil or misogynistic, nor do I think they're all that exploitive, though they do cater to a certain audience. But that's how marketing works. Doesn't make it right, not when companies claim they want to expand their audience and definitely not when they want to appeal to more females. Sad, but they don't seem to grasp how to do that, though I'm hoping DC's Minx line helps. But getting females reading superhero comics should be a goal, too, because right now, comics are losing out to other media and bringing in female readers can improve the bottom line.
The dialogue these controversies have generated can be good if the creators and the publishers pay attention. The goal is to keep print comics viable (at least through my lifetime because I hate reading comics online because my eyes don't like it) because it is a wonderful media. I want to see it healthy and thriving. I want to see it appeal to everyone, young and old, boys and girls, men and women. I want people to think of comics and smile fondly. I don't want them to think of comics and frown or turn their nose down or make derogatory comments. Comics shouldn't be just for kids. The sooner the publishers realize they need to make some adjustments to bring this dream to reality, the better.
Okay, I rambled on long enough. This post. Maybe some other time, I'll post something about role models. But one thing I won't do here is claim any issue is simple or that it has one perfect solution, though in this case, more women editors and writers and more women who get to make the decisions couldn't hurt.
While I was away, a lot of the comics blog posts I read had to do with a certain cover to a certain comic I don't read. Coming right after the MJ statue controversy, it's been a busy time for feminist bloggers, fanboys, and everyone else who enjoys an online ruckus. I would have more to say on the topic if I was more familiar with both Spider-Man comics and Heroes for Hire. But as I have just general knowledge of the former (never read the comics, did sometimes read the newspaper dailies, did see the first movie) and no knowledge of the latter (beyond seeing listings for it in CSN), I'll just post some general observations and opinions.
First, Kalinara linked to a nice defense/explanation of the H4H cover. Well worth reading for how to react to a controversy. The official and unofficial defenses that I read over the last week didn't cut it.
If someone is offended, then a thing is offensive on some level, as Kalinara explained previously. Saying it can't be offensive because no intent to offend existed is to avoid the issue.
Not everyone will be offended by the same things. Same as not everyone will like the same things. If I think Hemingway is a boring, annoying writer (which I do), does that mean he's a boring, annoying writer? Depends on who you ask. Artforms are like that. Sometimes, it's helpful to turn the argument around to something opposite to see how ridiculous some defenses can get.
I think better than saying the work is offensive can be "the work offended." Or that some people found the work offensive. The work exists on its own merits, but because it's an artform, its qualities are subjective. Offense is subjective. The more people who find something offensive, the more offensive it is. The audience ends up defining the work.
Bigotry works like that. Biases are everywhere. Stop a black man on a street for a random check without cause, but not the white men, that's bigotry. Stop the black man because you're looking for a mugger described as a black man wearing similar clothes, there likely isn't bigotry, unless you unnecessarily rough him up. Stop all men, regardless of ethnicity or race, and you probably aren't displaying bigotry, either. Context is usually everything. And no, I tend to not deal in absolutes, because I've learned in my 54 years (and counting), that exceptions can be found for just about everything.
My brand of feminism, as I believe I've stated here before, is about self-determination. It's about equality. Equal rights. Equal opportunities. Equal chances to fail as well as to succeed. Many years ago, I read a wonderful quote (I forget from who, but he was an education official, I think) that had to do with the concept that equality won't be achieved when the top people all have equal opportunities, but when the mediocre ones and those below that do. I agree with him. Equality will be achieved when ethnicity, religion, race, and sex will cease to be factors determining opportunities. Only abilities will.
Exploitation is something else. Is it exploitation when someone willingly allows it? When they control it by going into what's been labeled exploitive situations/jobs? Is someone above the age of consent being exploited or exploitive when they choose to sell their bodies? Is it demeaning if you don't feel demeaned? I would certainly not make the choices others do. Sure, prostitution is an extreme example, but how about something less obvious? Librarianship. The traditional domain of women (straight and gay) and gay men. Where, when I was in library school anyway, straight men were looked at funny when they wanted to be a librarian. Like male nurses. Did I settle for something I was programmed to be or did I become something I truly enjoy being? We all make choices based on upbringing, cultural influences, and our own minds.
What does this have to do with comics? Why am I posting it here instead of on my more political blog? Because the issue is pervasive in comics. And it is that way because comics have long been in the control of men, some of whom get women and some of whom don't. Which isn't to say women creators are all made of the same cloth, either. But in large part, men make the decisions, even if a woman ran DC Comics for a long time prior to Paul Levitz succeeding her. It affects how females are portrayed and how they are viewed.
One more thing before I get to the specifics here. I'm also a believer in Wittgenstein's concept of... well, concepts. That there are core concepts just about everyone will agree to and then nebulous, movable borders to those concepts that are placed differently for each person. So, we all might agree that shooting someone in cold blood is murder, but we might disagree that euthanasia is murder.
So, specifics. The MJ statue. Who hasn't seen a pic of it by now? Is it offensive? I dunno. I wasn't offended by it. I thought it was ridiculous looking and a poor reproduction of the sexy illo it was based on. It looked painful for MJ to be bent over that way. But I also thought it was a poorly executed attempt at a playful poke at a traditional and outmoded image of women, whether or not that was the intent. I don't deny that people were offended and anyone who mocked them for it missed the point.
The Heroes for Hire cover. Again, I didn't see it as offensive. I do agree the expressions made them look fearful, not a positive image, to be sure. I had no problem with the placement of the tentacles. More on that in a bit. Lea Hernandez reworked the cover on her LJ. She also posted this interesting letter from a retailer.
Re: the reworked cover. First, I don't think the middle woman looked all that frightened. More calculated, like she was biding her time before she could act. Anyway, in the reworked version, they look eager. I commented that they looked eager for the tentacles to attack them. Now, I'm a literal-minded person. I take what I'm given. If I infer something, it's got to be really clear. I didn't infer that they were eager to kill the tentacle creature, because that really isn't in the picture. What interested me was the comment my comment that they looked like they were enjoying it got: better to enjoy than to cower in fear... Yeah, right. That's so much better. Gonna rape me? Bring it on! I love being raped! Yeah, that works. NOT.
I don't get the whole tentacle porn/rape imagery in that. I'm a literal-minded person, mostly. I didn't see it, but that doesn't mean others didn't. They did, so on some level, it's there, intended or not. Lea changed hair and such, because it wasn't realistic. Heck, these are comic characters who, I presume have superpowers? Why would they be realistic? But I digress. I would never blame the artist, who worked freelance, I believe, according to specs she was given and her own cultural mores. Marvel bought it. Marvel didn't return it to be reworked. If that's the image Marvel liked, that's where the complaint should lie. And it wasn't nearly as suggestive or exploitive as many other covers on mainstream or non-porn books in comics shops.
Covers (see, I am getting to that) generally fall, as I see it, into one of two major categories: Heroic and Jeopardy. The more dangerous the situation, the more dire, the more eager we readers should be to see how the heroes get out of trouble. And for women (though it would work for men, too), rape is viewed as very dire, indeed. It's sure not on my list of things to experience (<-- Note of sarcasm here.) So, while the expressions could've been improved, I'd have made them look angry.
From another cover in recent months: Star Sapphire ready to stomp Hal/Green Lantern = Hero in jeopardy! Star Sapphire wearing the skimpiest costume in history for her negates the image somewhat because it detracts from her ability to pose a legit threat and therefore is viewed by many to be exploitive. The story rose above it.
Unfortunately, I don't know H4H, so I can't know if my "improvement" for it would make sense. But I would swap out one of the females for a male. Make things more equal.
Where do I sit in this controversy? Probably somewhere in the middle. I'm not all hot and bothered by the art in both the cover issue or the MJ statue. I don't think they're evil or misogynistic, nor do I think they're all that exploitive, though they do cater to a certain audience. But that's how marketing works. Doesn't make it right, not when companies claim they want to expand their audience and definitely not when they want to appeal to more females. Sad, but they don't seem to grasp how to do that, though I'm hoping DC's Minx line helps. But getting females reading superhero comics should be a goal, too, because right now, comics are losing out to other media and bringing in female readers can improve the bottom line.
The dialogue these controversies have generated can be good if the creators and the publishers pay attention. The goal is to keep print comics viable (at least through my lifetime because I hate reading comics online because my eyes don't like it) because it is a wonderful media. I want to see it healthy and thriving. I want to see it appeal to everyone, young and old, boys and girls, men and women. I want people to think of comics and smile fondly. I don't want them to think of comics and frown or turn their nose down or make derogatory comments. Comics shouldn't be just for kids. The sooner the publishers realize they need to make some adjustments to bring this dream to reality, the better.
Okay, I rambled on long enough. This post. Maybe some other time, I'll post something about role models. But one thing I won't do here is claim any issue is simple or that it has one perfect solution, though in this case, more women editors and writers and more women who get to make the decisions couldn't hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)