Len Wein RIP

I just read that Len Wein died. Comics have lost some great creators over the past few years and he was one of the greatest. He wrote some of my favorite comics. He co-created Swamp Thing. He was a creative genius, and from everything I've read, he was also a great guy. He will be missed.

Comics Creators

Here are two articles that provide a lot of food for thought. In the first, Gerry Conway explains how DC Entertainment defines "derivative creations" and it is not pretty. It's not fair, either.

In the second, in an interview, Roy Thomas explains how he created Ultron and Vision and why he tried to not create many characters for Marvel.

I'm not a comic book writer or artist, nor am I otherwise involved in comic book publishing. I'm a reader and don't, therefore, have a stake in any of this. But I do believe fair is fair and creators should be fairly compensated. When many of the older writers and artists toiled at Marvel, DC, etc., there were few merchandising opportunities for their characters and while TV adaptations were a possibility, the blockbuster movie was not as likely, certainly not a big team-up movie with lots of characters. Work-for-hire contracts start off unfair. Most of the time, creating characters to be owned by the companies doesn't seem like a big deal. Unless the character hits big. And gets a movie franchise or is part of one. Or a hit TV show with action figures and the like. And then, the company that owns the character makes a fortune and the creators sit and watch others make money off what they created. And only the comic geeks know who they are.

It's fine that pretty much every Marvel fan knows who Stan Lee is. He sure has an impressive resume of cameos in Marvel Studios movies and TV shows. He even has his own action figure. But what about Roy Thomas?

Actually, I'm pretty impressed that Ed Brubaker, the man who brought Bucky Barnes back to life in the Captain America comic, as the Winter Soldier, got to appear in the movie. And how many people knew that? Or even what he looks like?

I understand the impulse of more and more comics creators to leave the big publishers to make their own comics where they can retain the rights to their creations. Creator-owned comics have made Image my favorite publisher. The variety of talent and stories in Image Comics is amazing, with truly something for everyone. But for anyone starting out, they need to make their rep first and that means toiling for Marvel or DC. And how many independent comics can the market support? The Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, et al remain the characters people know. How many would be willing to try something new and different? I for one will continue to support creator-owned comics by buying all the ones that appeal to me. And now I'm hoping to convince you to do that, too.

Greg Rucka's Lazarus is in development for a TV show. Rucka is a well-established writer of both novels and comics. He and artist Michael Lark created the realm of Lazarus and its characters and own the rights. They will be adequately compensated for their creation. As it should be. Apparently, that's not true for the creative people at DC and Marvel, and that's a shame.

More on the Wedding Special, Spoilers

Notintheface has an interesting idea re: Ollie's apparent brainwashing. Now, I didn't know about these hypos, or if I did, I completely forgot. *sigh* However, I'm not convinced it was Ollie, mostly because of the solicits for the upcoming Green Arrow/Black Canary series. Before seeing the Wedding Special, I'd thought that with Connor being the Green Arrow first seen in the new series, that meant that Ollie was missing. And that idea has stuck with me. However, I can see this going in any number of directions now.

I want to enjoy the new series. I've always liked Ollie and Dinah together, simply because in the right hands, they've always been fun as a couple, especially when they were arguing. Ollie is flawed, no doubt about it, and Dinah's one of the few women strong enough to put up with him without losing herself to him.

Judd Winick is not one of my favorite writers. He's got great ideas and is good with character. He's always shown an understanding for Ollie and Roy's relationship and he's done a nice job with Roy over the years, especially in The Outsiders. But too many times, the seams show. Too many times, you can see the plotting because what we get is plot convenience.

So, yeah, everyone who's pointed out (in too many blogs for me to go back and find the links) that Dinah could've taken Ollie down easier without needing to resort to an arrow through his neck has a valid argument, even if I can also see that Dinah wasn't mentally prepared, couldn't get proper leverage, and her instinct at that moment was to go for the kill. Would Ollie unconscious from a blow to his temple from her hand, for ex, been as dramatic as that arrow? I don't know. But we do know he's not getting up and walking around in GA/BC 1, and it's clear Judd wanted Ollie/? either dead or incapacitated for the start of the new series. Was that the only way to achieve it?

There are only so many writers out there and a lot of books these days. The top tier, the ones we as individuals wish could write all our favorite comics, are really not able to do that. And because of the need to use many writers, consistency, in characterization as much as background details, can get muddied quickly. Even editors, apparently, can't keep up. Or we wouldn't have had the minor errors Tony Bedard made in a recent BoP. It's the difference between a self-righteous Ollie as written by Denny O'Neill back in the day and the pompous ass written by many others after (not counting Mike Grell who did a good job with him). And a writer might work for us on one book or with one set of characters and not another. And we all get disappointed by different things.

The Wedding Special, until that final scene, was clearly meant to be funny, on an almost slapstick level. And so, we have Dinah freaking out trying to retrieve her ring and trying to knee Deathstroke in the balls even though she more likely would've ignored the ring to bring down the baddies and she knows Deathstroke well enough to know he protects that area of vulnerability. The thing is, the book made me laugh, and that's as much thanks to Amanda Connor's fun art as to what Judd Winick wrote. I really didn't think I was supposed to take the details too seriously, especially since, with so many writers and artists handling various aspects of the marriage storyline, all the pieces didn't line up, at least not as well as I would have liked.

We all have the little things we like to rant and complain about. I can do an entire rant on how long Roy's hair should be. And we all have expectations of some sort, I think. I know that Gail Simone has done such a fantastic job writing Dinah that anything anyone else writes simply pales in comparison. So while I'm looking forward to what Sean McKeever can do with her, I'm also a bit nervous.

Then again, I didn't think anyone could do justice to Catwoman after Ed Brubaker left the book, but Will Pfeifer proved me wrong. And yet, he wasn't nearly as good with the Amazons. Which just supports my premise that no matter how good a writer is, they won't appeal to everybody, at least not all the time, and a writer can be great with one book or character and not another.

I want GA/BC to succeed, but I suspect that even if I enjoy it, it won't be one of my top books each month. And that's okay, as long as it's enjoyable.

Barbara Gordon and The Killing Joke: A Clarification

A comment on my post "When is it Gratuitous?" prompted a reply I feel deserves a more public answer than just another comment.

First, the comment that prompted this post:

"Alan Moore didn't revitalise Babs Gordon. John Ostrander did in SUICIDE SQUAD.

When Moore wrote THE KILLING JOKE he felt that Barbara Gordon was expendable and obviously the editor agreed. It was John Ostrander who brought her back from comics limbo."

In going to answer the comment, I found a linkback to this post on Stars and Garters. It says:

"Yeah, it was "after the fact", all right. Years after the fact.

Let's clear something up right now:

Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" did not help revitalize Barbara Gordon.

Suicide Squad did."

and

"Moore, and apparently the Bat-editorship at the time, thought Batgirl was disposable enough to end her career permanently.

"Suicide Squad" writers John Ostrander and the late Kim Yale, on the other hand, thought Barbara Gordon was salvageable enough to re-invent her. They deserve credit for inspiring what's happened since (Birds of Prey).

Not "The Killing Joke"."

Now, what I said:

"Aside from crippling a sidekick to a character, Batman, who already had Robin, The Killing Joke helped revitalize Barbara Gordon as she transformed herself into Oracle and went from sidekick/guest star to Major Player. She can literally appear in any story in continuity. She has her own book with her own team. Rather than be the helpless female, Babs fought back."

In no way do I see what I posted to be inconsistent with the facts of how it occurred. I was discussing a character and her development in the context of everything that's happened to her since that story. I never read The Suicide Squad and actually, until about 3 days ago, didn't even know that's when Babs became Oracle, which is why I was vague about when that happened, simply saying "as she transformed herself into Oracle." To me, she was Oracle in Birds of Prey and a few years ago, I found The Killing Joke and read it so I could find out how she got crippled. When I wrote the post, I knew she didn't become Oracle in The Killing Joke. And all of that happened while I was boycotting comics following Kara Supergirl's death in Crisis on Infinite Earths. Yes, I was that upset.

I was not discussing the writer of The Killing Joke or any other writer. I was discussing the character, from the benefit of hindsight. Same as many years ago, when I went back and analyzed Ollie Queen to explain how he could go from socially unaware, rich playboy to the do-gooder he became in Green Lantern/Green Arrow. Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams had their reasons for doing what they did, but that didn't mean it made sense in the larger context. So, psych major that I was, I went through it all and analyzed Ollie, the character, so it made sense to me. Apparently, it made sense to other people because it got published in a semi-pro magazine. Published as in, I got paid for that piece of writing, my only paid writing credit so far.

It is and remains my contention that The Killing Joke helped revitalize Babs as Oracle despite what the intent was. See, writers' intent isn't really relevant except as an "extra" of the sort that gets added onto DVD releases of TV shows and movies. Intent is an interesting side story. As has been discussed previously elsewhere, and maybe here, but I forget, not intending to insult someone who's insulted anyway, doesn't make that offense less real to the person feeling it. If it's just one person who feels the offense, then it's likely to be that person. If it's 99 of 100 who feel it, then it's likely to be what's on the page/screen. In either case, the intent is a footnote to the person's reaction.

I've had writers tell me they didn't have something in mind when they wrote a book, only to have readers tell them what it's really about, and often, the readers will disagree. Never mind what the author wanted to say, if anything other than tell a fun tale.

Do Ray Bradbury's comments that readers and critics have misunderstood his classic anti-censorship novel Fahrenheit 451 make readers suddenly change their view of it? According to Bradbury, the book is about this:

"Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature."

Bradbury, and any writer, is certainly entitled to his opinion and his intent, but that book will remain an example of how censorship can become extreme. His intent will never change how most readers will interpret it. Because, once a writer releases his or her words into the wild, those words become open to interpretation by others. Writers who don't want to give up complete control of their writing shouldn't seek publication. As an aspiring novelist trying to ready her first manuscript for the submission process, I understand this.

Back to The Killing Joke. Perhaps my interpretation of the events is influenced by hindsight and my view of The Killing Joke might be different if I'd read it in real time, with all the years between that and Babs becoming Oracle in The Suicide Squad. But I'll never know if that would be so. I can only look back at it all in its entirety, see where Babs was and where she was at the start of Birds of Prey (and I came into that about 10 issues into the series and had to find the trades).

If she wasn't crippled there would have been no reason for Babs, from a character standpoint, to reinvent herself as Oracle, unless another major event occurred in its place. From a writer's standpoint, there would probably have been no reason to give her the role of Oracle if she hadn't been crippled and unable to be Batgirl anymore, thanks to The Killing Joke. Like it or not, Moore provided the impetus or the inspiration for that. So yes, Ostrander and Yale deserve the credit (I hadn't known who had been responsible for that) for making Babs Oracle. But The Killing Joke gave them the reason. And as Batgirl, Babs was stuck as a secondary sidekick in the Batman family, and stuck with the "girl" part of her name. For whatever reason, even a bad one by many people's figuring, being crippled freed Babs to become something more, something better, someone who could be Batman's equal.

And as a character, Babs progressed from Batgirl to a crippled woman who needed a new purpose and reinvented herself as Oracle. As a writer, I'm not always so concerned about the writer. I'm concerned about the character, about making and keeping it plausible. About being able to look at characters independent of their creators. Do they stand on their own? Could they really exist? Would readers be able to embrace them as real and believe in them?

From the moment I first watched Man from UNCLE in 1964 and started playacting UNCLE with a friend, the characters of Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin were more than the words the writers gave Robert Vaughn and David McCallum and more than the actors speaking those words. I believed in Napoleon and Illya. They became as real to me as my favorite comic book characters. Through scores of writers and interpretations, the best characters maintain a core that keeps them consistent and real. I had to look hard to find that core in Ollie Queen, but I did, which is why I'm so enjoying the new Green Arrow Year One series which is filling in the gaps so perfectly. And it's why I and my friends wrote fan fiction. Because we saw things we wanted to do with the characters, put our own spin on them, fill in the gaps, yet maintain the core of what they were that made us love them.

I didn't have to look hard to find the core in Barbara Gordon.

Wonder Women

Just read the interview in the February 2007 Wizard with Jodi Picoult who will take over Wonder Woman. I'd like to say soon, which it is issue-wise, but time-wise, who the heck knows?

Anyway, I was happy to read that she was a comic book fan, though mostly of Marvel, and that since getting the WW gig, she's read all the Wonder Woman comics she could get her hands on:

"...But I read everything from the stuff back in the '40s to the [Greg] Rucka stuff and things that have been much more modern."

I was heartened by her comments that show a true understanding of the character:

"The fun thing about her is that she's not like Batman, who is human. She's more like Superman. You can adore a group and fight for them, and still know in your heart that you're not like them."

Now, it can be argued that Superman is more human than Batman in that Supes as Clark has married and formed close relationships with the people in his life from his adopted parents to the people he works with, while Bruce has kept emotional distance between himself and anyone who does care, including Alfred and Dick and Tim even while using them, even exploiting them as suits him. To me, Diana is somewhere in between, someone who is alien like Supes, but who never quite fit in with humans the way he does, probably because even when she used a secret identity, she never really lived the life she'd assumed in the way Clark became that reporter he was playing.

Picoult gets that, too, or at least, part of it:

"One of the things that I'm trying to do is talk about how hard it is for her to maintain this secret human identity for the first time in a very long time."

I'm eager to see how she handles Diana Prince, agent for the Dept. of Metahuman Affairs, especially given that she is a metahuman.

She also mentioned issues remaining for Diana regarding her mother, the "archetypal story between any woman and a daughter," which brought to mind Black Canary's own mother issues as explored most recently in Birds of Prey 100 in the solo Black Canary story when she tells Sin about her life. Both Dinah and Diana lost their mothers and both took up the role their mothers played. I'll be interested in seeing Picoult's take on it re: Diana.

Picoult expressed surprise that such a strong female character has had only one other female writer, something I don't remember, so it must have been when I wasn't reading comics. And while I think a good writer can write characters of either sex -- and indeed, women like Gail Simone have written wonderful stories with male characters, with the men of Secret Six at the top of the list, and Ed Brubaker and now Will Pfeifer writing a great Catwoman, among other men who write strong females -- a character as iconic as Wonder Woman who has never achieved the status of her peers, Batman and Superman, could benefit with a woman's perspective. Gail Simone made BoP a "must-read" and I'm hoping Jodi Picoult can do the same for WW.

She showed a sense of humor, too, saying she'd expected to be cast as WW in the upcoming movie as part of her deal with DC. Now, if she can just meet deadlines, I think we'll be in for a treat. I'd been hopeful since first hearing she'd gotten the writing gig on WW, but now I'm really looking forward to her run on the book. If we can only get through the current one.

Sexism?

Tamora Pierce, co-author of Marvel's White Tiger mini-series with Timothy Liebe, poses some good questions and points out a troubling double standard on her LiveJournal. I haven't read the first 2 issues, yet, but they are sitting here on the stack. I hope to get to them soon. Her comments about how people have reacted to the comic and her are worth reading.

Another Crossover Writer

I just discovered Denise Mina writes comics and books. She's writing Hellblazer and I just finished reading her mystery novel Field of Blood, which I greatly enjoyed and have reviewed on my book blog. Always nice to find another woman writing mainstream comics.

Novelists Who Write Comics

Because I was bored and looking for something to fill some time, I thought I'd compile a list of comic book writers who are or have been novelists, too. And if they have websites, all the better. If anyone has more to add, just leave a comment and I'll add to the list. I was thinking of adding movie type people, like Joss Whedon and Kevin Smith, but maybe they should get their own post.

• Peter David
• Neil Gaiman
• Brad Meltzer
• Jodi Picoult (to come: Wonder Woman)
• Greg Rucka

Otherwise, I've been busy with real life crap, mostly medical tests (pretty much negative so far) to explain my shortness of breath (which my doctor thinks is stress, but we're doing lots of heart tests to rule out more interesting ailments). I really hope tomorrow's comics are all winners. I need the entertainment.

Women and Writers and Women Writers

First in a maybe series of rambling posts, streams of consciousness, whatever. And this one is long.

Here's a Gail Simone interview that is worth reading. And almost anything by Ragnell at the Written World.

I blogged a bit about feminism and comics before, but since the topic is important and is at the fore right now, I figured it was time to discuss it again. I don't do the carnival thing. There's something about blogging on a schedule that I mentally rebel against. Even memes are passive. I either do one or not; I haven't made a commitment to do any, except the one I started over on Shelly's Book Shelf. So my lack of participation in the Feminism in Comics carnival, or whatever it's called, is not from lack of interest.

I agree there's sexism in comics and yes, it's ingrained, to the point that the majority of the people in the comics industry, especially on the creative side, don't see it. They do see what sells and of course, the more females are exploited, the more the core audience will buy the books. Seeing an audience that isn't there yet is a tough concept for the bottom-liners. They don't necessarily get "make them and they will come," meaning, make more comics female readers can enjoy (and I don't mean a return of romance comics and that ilk, necessarily, or the comic equivalent of "Sex in the City") and girls and women will buy more comics, improving the bottom line. And women like me who have long bought male dominated comics or female comics with a male sensibility are under the radar in that we're lumped in with the general readership that supports the concept that what's selling is what will keep selling.

A number of years ago, I managed a neighborhood library with almost no science fiction but a lot of fantasy books. I was told there were no science fiction readers in the neighborhood. Being a devotee of SF who doesn't read much fantasy, I continued to buy fantasy at the then current levels, but upped the SF titles. They slowly found an audience and the 6-7 regular SF readers who started coming in via word of mouth (Hey, they got SF there now!) borrowed those books heavily.

I was also told there was no need for home and furniture repair books. We were, after all, in Manhattan, land of apartments. But I bought some general repair books because I know men have a tendency to not ask for something if they don't see it. Those became very popular and a few men took the time to tell me how much they appreciated the collection changes. The additions I made to the sports section was equally appreciated by our male readers, and even some of the women. See, any group can be marginalized. In some areas, it's the men. Same as it's people of color regardless of sex.

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.
Exploit: "1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE (exploiting your talents) (exploit your opponent's weakness)
"2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage (exploiting migrant farm workers)"

Exploitive: "function: adjective
: exploiting or tending to exploit; especially : unfairly or cynically using another person or group for profit or advantage (exploitative terms of employment( (an exploitative film)
- ex·ploit·ative·ly adverb"

Exploiting someone or something isn't necessarily good or bad. It is often a good idea to exploit something to one's advantage. But exploitve has become a negative. The problem is getting a consensus on what's exploitive.

I've encountered a lot of disagreement over the years as to what is exploitive or what is stereotypical or what is a negative image. When is something sexual and when it is sexualized. And there is no easy answer because we each have our own definitions of a concept (as per Wittgenstein).

Is a woman who takes advantage of her sexuality, her beauty, her femininity to further her goals an anti-feminist? Or is she simpy a realist, using what's available to her? Is she setting back the cause of feminism or is she clever? Is a woman who is agressive, acting in a manner people have described as masculine simply a feminist not wanting to be pigeonholed as a weak, or is she trying to be more like a man, denying her true nature?

The truth is all that in-between ground. There are men and women at both ends of the spectrum and a fair amount of overlap. True equality is when people can be who they are and folks don't criticize them for it. It's when a woman can be feminine or masculine without it being an issue for anyone. It's when a man can show feminine or masculine aspects of his personality without being criticized, either. Someone (I can't recall who, but he was in education) once said that equality isn't about the best and brightest having equal opportunities to succeed, but when people with mediocre skills get the same chances as other people with similiar skills.

I've said before that I don't want to eliminate cheesecake shots (though appropriateness for the situation should be considered). What I want is my equal opportunity to see beefcake shots. I don't think having a sexualized media, in comics or otherwise, is bad. I do think we need to have alternatives to it. If all comics were oversexed, then yes, it's a bad thing because there is no choice.

Artists seem to like drawing the female body and showing off a characters physical attributes. I don't begrudge them a little fantasizing when they do that. Same as when they show off the muscles of the male characters, perhaps a bit of wish fulfillment on their parts. Who knows. As a writer (alas, still amateur in status), I can certainly relate to fantasizing and going for the angst. I just give it more to male characters than females. I actually expect that sort of thing to go on.

I've been reading about the backgrounds and experiences given to female characters vs males in comics, mainly the rape scenario. It's hard to come up with something for females to overcome. Sure, death of parents is available, if a bit overdone (ie, Batman et al), or last survivor of a planet (Superman, but then they diluted that with Supergirl, Krypto, Argo City, etc). But rape is easy because it's more likely statistically to happen to females than males. It's a theme used often in novels, and that includes by women writers. Yes, I'd like to see some more imagination here, but I also don't want to eliminate the desire to give characters built-in angst. Perhaps more male characters who were abused as boys, perhaps by their uncles, priests, etc, right out of the headlines.

The issue here for me isn't what is being done to females, but the uneven distribution of angst between males and females. When are we going to get the boyfriend's body in the refrigerator, or when are we going to get enough of them to help even the odds.

Yet I don't want the male supporting characters to be wusses to help balance out the weak female supporting characters. Both can be strong, really. Or maybe just individual characters instead of types.

Actually, I want to skip right to equality. In books and movies, I've seen the backlash, the strong female character, the repressed males (I'm reading a science fiction novel like that now). I've even read science fiction which exagerated the issue with female slaves and male overlords to show how harmful such attitudes are. It's all so been there, done that to me. I want strong characters and weak ones, regardless of sex. I want interesting characters with interesting backgrounds and adventures. I want characters who react as individuals and not as stereotypes to what their fictional lives throw at them. I want writers and artists to be able to express themselves without being second guessed re: motives. I want art and stories to not reek of cliche and sensationalism, where the creators seem to be thumbing their nose at the sensibilities of the audience, rather than expressing themselves. I want to get to the good stuff and I want it to all be good, with the understanding that I won't like all of it and that's okay.

Because right now, every word, every angle of a woman's body, every millimeter of exposed comic art skin is being scrutinized way too much for my taste. I get why it's being done and I get why it needs to be done. But I just want to get back to enjoying comics and for creators to be able to create. And if someone doesn't like something, they can speak with their wallets. Which, when you think about it, is what's going on now. Only the people who like that exploitive stuff get to speak louder because the other stuff isn't out there yet in sufficient quantities. We need to fix that by creating it, not change what's already here.

Anti-Women Bias in Comics?

I tried to comment to this post on Written Word, but after 3 tries, the &%^=*! comment box wouldn't come up, so I'm commenting here. In a discussion about a former Wonder Woman artist's comments on a BDSM-type website, Ragnell (commenting on yet another blog post about this issue) said:

"You see, the quote had got me thinking back to this writer's tenure on the series. And it got me thinking about all of the various problems I'd had with his run, problems I mentally pushed aside because, on the surface, he'd seemed like one of the better writers she had. I still disliked what he did, but I hadn't considered any sinister personal motives behind it. I'd attributed it to standard societal problems with portraying female characters. Problems even female writers tend to have."

Now, first my disclaimer. I didn't read WW during his tenure on the book, so I can't comment on it. I have read his comments on other characters in books of his I did read and my problem with some of those comments is that I didn't agree on some of the decisions that were made re: story. Take for ex, the time he spent on Teen Titans/Titans (whatever it was called then). He wasn't exactly enthused about Speedy who was deliberately kept out of the book til the drug stories. I had a real problem with that, but then, I had a problem with Mike Grell keeping Roy out of Green Arrow until as it turned out, issue 75, but I'd given up on the book at issue 40 or so. Excluding characters that are clearly part of the title character's life bugs me.

I also have to say that I've met the artist/writer in question, a number of times. Once, when I visited his home with a friend who was in the Titans APA (she was drawn into the Donna Troy/Terry Long wedding, along with others of the APA, as a guest), and twice when he gave programs at libraries where I was working. All three times, he was friendly, gracious, and amazingly willing to help out teens looking to join his profession. So yeah, I'm a bit biased here, because back then, in the '80s, he was a comics god.

I'm one of those feminists who came of age in the '60s. I was born in 53, making this the year I turn 53. I am glad there is still a feminist mindset out there, but as in the '60s, it has many voices. I grew up not knowing what I wanted to do. My role models were as often male as female. I went through and rejected careers in law enforcement (my love for the police came from cop shows of the time), teacher and librarian (the only non-housewife careers I saw women really in), and some that were so fleeting that they've gotten lost in the deep recesses of my brain. I ended up being influenced by my college advisor/psych professor to decide to be "just like her" -- a college professor of psych! That I realized, before I got too locked in that it wasn't the life I wanted, is now something that no longer carries regret and disappointment, nor do I still feel I settled by going back to one of my early goals: librarian. Yes, the profession where straight men who go into it are looked at skeptically (perhaps not so much anymore) because "everyone" knows it's a job for women (het and lesbian) and gay men.

And I would prefer more attention be paid to the weakening of Roe vs. Wade and other issues that affect the lives of women than their depiction in comics. And yes, while you can argue that comics can foster attitudes that lead to those real world issues, the same was said about violence and TV and I don't really see that, either, not if kids are given a well-rounded environment and if not, well, TV or comics won't be the real problem, neglect and other issues will be.

Women have been sexualized for, well, forever, it seems. Good girl and bad girl art goes way back. The cartoonists of the first half of the last century excelled at the artform of calling attention to a woman's uh, curves. Where the line between sexualized and objectified comes along, I don't know. I think it's one of those concepts with nebulous boundaries around a core idea in a Wittgenstein kind of way. My definition and yours might be different, same as murder for some folks includes abortion and euthenasia and for others, don't, and varieties within.

I remember when Ed Benes was drawing Supergirl and got flak for showing the panties on teenage girls in a high school locker room scene. It was a bit much for that book, but the editor allowed it or didn't care. To me, having seen his work in Codename: Knockout, his Supergirl was tame in comparison. When he was drawing Birds of Prey and there were comments about his depiction of the birds, Gail Simone explained that in his country, there was a different attitude about sex and sexuality and she'd explained to him and asked he tone things down a bit for the US market. I read this on the DC BoP message board which Gail visited and commented on quite often. Was he fantasizing as he drew those women? Who knows and I sure don't care.

BoP had its share of bondage, when Dinah was held by Savant. Dinah triumphs, and more recently, Savant got his chained-in-a-dungeon-and-tortured scene. Fair is fair after all. Even way back when when Dinah was captured and tortured, Ollie was a bit later, too. I like fairness in my reading material. Were the writers and artists fantasizing at all in creating those scenes? I would've. I did as a reader.

Yes, some poses are gratuitous and yes, I'd like to see some/more ordinary looking women in comics, women more like, uh, me. But I also enjoy seeing beautiful women. And I want to see more sexualized men. There's a reason I like looking at Hawkman and it's not because of that hawkhead thingie.

Ragnell also said:

"It made me tempted to pick up his old stories, go back and reread them, and then pinpoint where his professed fantasies had affected his work. And that, I think, is where the comments may have crossed the professional line. The earlier writer who had expressed support for WFA? Her comments could not be twisted beyond comparison to support someone's accusations that her run had an anti-man agenda. But this other guy? This is going to come back to bite him in the butt. Because now that that opinion is out there -- that everyone knows that not only did he fantasize, he fantasized while writing the book -- there's nothing to stop a fan from linking to his comments to support the idea his run may have misogynistic undertones."

Well, d'uh. All he did was admit to something few people have or will admit to: that they have fantasies and it can affect their work. Pretty much most of fiction can be viewed that way. I remember reading some science fiction novels in the '70s and '80s by women that had a clear anti-male bias. If the author intended that or not didn't matter. I saw it. They could admit it or not; an admission would just lead me to a "oh, so it was intended." My feeling is if you see it or can read something like that into it, that's your experience. As a writer I've learned that writer's intentions and readers' experiences of that writing are usually far apart.

I wrote fanfic. For comic book characters, they were just short pieces trying to straighten out Roy and Ollie's relationship way back when, but I had trouble "hearing" comic book characters, a necessity for me to write fanfic. TV, with live actors playing the parts and "talking" to me, was much easier. And in my fanfic and now in my original fiction, I fantasize all the time about my male characters, doing my share of male rape and torture scenes. Because, well, turnabout is fairplay and I'd much prefer fantasizing about men helpless and hurting who need comfort than about women. That the women in comics these days don't usually need rescuing after being tortured is progress. Because, well, it does have a sexual undercurrent for most of us. I've had this discussion with other fan writers. When I was 11-14, watching Man from UNCLE, and Illya, my then-current lust object, got hurt, I felt it in the core of my being. I got, well, hot. I learned from talking to friends that my reaction was not unique. Given that this was the mid-'60s and I was undergoing puberty where the most I knew about sex was the talk my mother gave me when I was 9 and what I read in James Bond books, I can't say this reaction came from anywhere but me. I don't think sex can really be separated from all of fiction, nor would I want it to be. And much of it is what the reader/viewer brings to the table.

What does bug me is when different writers take over a book and change the character. Devin Grayson got a lot of flak for her version of Nightwing. Devin's a fangirl writing out her fantasies about her fav characters. In essence, as with many writers, she's doing pro "fanfic" work. I got what she was doing with Dick and enjoyed much of it. I thought the mob storyline crossed a line because it didn't seem to follow from the rest and I thought the previous arc lost its direction. But I still believed that was Dick Grayson as Nightwing, even when the new Tarantula had her way with him. But now, Nightwing is awful, because I can't believe that boytoy is Dick Grayson. He's been completely emasculated, and a man is writing him!

It is unfortunate that Wonder Woman is a character that never had a clear direction that followed from writer to writer, editor to editor. Batman had his incarnations, from camp in the '60s to intense in the '70s, detective one minute, nighttime vigilante the next, but at his core, he was always Batman, the Caped Crusader. Superman, from Earth's protector to everyday guy and even the angstful times, has always been noble (okay, maybe with a few bumps on the road). I've never felt an identity to Wonder Woman, the 3rd of the big 3, that is anywhere close to that strong. Everyone tries to remake her because they know best. Very few makeovers like that work. The only one IMO that really took was Green Arrow's transformation by Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams. Probably because Ollie needed it so much so he could come out of Batman's shadow (Don't get me started on the whole arrowcar vs batmobile thing). Wonder Woman's had so many of them, I don't really know who she is. That's more of a concern to me than whether or not an artist fantasized and drew her according to his fantasies.

In a way, the whole medium, and probably every other artistic endeavor, is a fantasy of someone. Comics is a collaborative fantasy, if you will. Freud would have a field day with this.

Which doesn't mean I'm not aware that there are inequities. A case might be made that Spoiler's death was more sensationized than Robin II's. Yes, the guys still die more heroically than the women, but change won't happen quickly there until more women are on the creative and editorial end. The better chance to effect change is usually from within. It's getting women into the profession that's tough when they don't see it as viable because the books don't speak to them. But there seem to be many more female fans now than when I was ostracized by my friends for reading superhero books. Back then, I hardly ever saw women in comic shops here in NYC (in the '70s and '80s) and now I see them all the time, at least a third of the staff and public in my main shop. I consider that progress.

And I'm aware of the argument that role models are needed, along with providing examples of healthy interactions. I agree. But as with TV, I enjoy what I enjoy and I don't want things changed because someone else says they need to be changed. What sells will always control the product. Sex sells. TV has had its backlash, so now we have cable. It's one thing when something comes to you vs you going out to get it. I just don't like censorship, though I'll go along with parental controls and oversight. Yes, we need more comics for kids, but Wonder Woman and the rest of the superhero books aren't really them anymore and haven't been for decades, not for the little kids. I want more variety, but I also have no problem with sexual fantasies, including BDSM, being played out in comics. I just want my chance to lust after the guys in the same predicaments as the women. To me, it's the context, the quality of the writing, the skill of the artist. I don't want a steady diet of any one thing, but I'm an adult and can decide what I enjoy reading. Or writing, for that matter.

Okay, I wandered on and off topic. And this got way longer than I'd planned, but I'm going on vacation, so this might be it here for about 10 days.