Sunday, 24 July 2011

On Feeling Compelled To Boycott Greg Land's "Uncanny X-Men"

The blogger would appreciate it if folks who might be offended by a touch of somewhat bad-tempered and fruity language didn’t read on. Similarly, if you’re one of those folks who aren’t concerned with issues such as sexism and who loathe those who are, well, it’s best you opt out too. Don’t say I didn’t warn you;                    

               
I can’t do it, I just can’t. It doesn’t matter how much I admire Kieron Gillen as a writer, and admire him I most certainly do. He’s undoubtedly one of the best half-dozen writers currently at work in the superhero sub-genre, and his fine scripts have seen me return to the buying of Uncanny X-Men after 28 years of apostasy. But all the craft and ambition and decent-hearted humanism of his scripting can’t compensate for artist Greg Land’s utterly wretched storytelling and the despicable sexism that marks so much of his work. No, it just can't.

Of course, no-one’s going to surprised to hear a blogger lambasting the shameless Mr Land and his pathetic artwork. In fact, I’d assume that the general response of any who stumble across this page would be ‘why bother?’ Surely it’s a debate which has been and gone, surely we’ve moved past this? And there’s certainly a sense on the net that sexism is a social ill which comicbook fans don’t need to be concerned with, as if they’ve survived that argument, as if no-one but the stubborn, the obsessed and the congenitally joykilling would want to go through all that fuss again. Perhaps it’s that weariness which the poor harassed superhero fan may feel which accounts for the fact that of the first dozen reviews of this comic to be found when using Google, none of them even mentions the unarguable sexism of Land’s work. 

In this perplexingly staged scene, the Mayor of San Francisco is shown arriving without warning in the X-Men's 'Psionic Conference Room'. Note that the first response of the Mayor is to mimic a scene from 'Bus-Stop' while looking as alluring and passive as possible. Quite why her response to this situation is to grab her dress in the manner of a nervous, helpless child crossed with a guileless 'glamour' model must be obvious only to Mr Land. It is, of course, cheesecake that makes no sense in the context of the script, though no doubt someone will pay very good money for the original art. But if the first panel is pathetic, then the next one is incredibly ill-judged, as you'll note below;
        
Nope, not a single one. I'm sure that there's a great number of pieces which have noted the problems in this specific comic, but those first dozen destinations certainly didn't. From sites as high profile as Comic Book Resources to I Fanboy and then to all points beyond, any restrained criticism of Mr Land to be found was strangely centered on his reliance on photo-resources, with the exception of one review, where Land's choice of a cowgirl outfit for Emma Frost was objected to because, it seems, such would be out of character for her. And while I could only applaud a great breadth of opinions being expressed across the net, a thousand flowers blooming and such, the absence of sexual politics in these blogs didn’t mark any broad measure of debate and difference on other topics. In fact, what these critics have produced between themselves was a great homogeneous and politically-disconnected mass of incredibly similar and mostly lukewarm-to-positive reviews, although the blogger whose responses was to ask “Would the Mayor of San Francisco really be that sexy?” at least made me laugh. Yes, mate, that’s the context within which the argument ought to be framed. You’ve nailed it and closed it too. Well done! Just a little less sexiness for the middle aged female politicians in Marvel’s books, please ...

Well, why don’t more folks buy superhero comics? I couldn’t possibly say …

Good to see that in a virtual environment where Mr Land could have placed his characters in any relationship to each other, he's chosen to present us not with the Mayor's face, but with her right breast, the line of which then leads the reader's gaze down to Emma Frost's chest too. Note how ineptly constructed the frame is, with Cyclops being placed in the background in a way that seems to mimic a child's control of composition. So, Mr Land, why did you choose to focus on cleavage rather than narrative here, given that the Mayor's expression might have been interesting to actually see ..

Hardcore comic book fans, you undoubtedly get what you deserve, but your beloved hobby will wither and die, as it indeed is, because few beyond your ranks are going to want to spend money on such celebrations of contempt for 51% of the human race. Yet oddly enough, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to put Uncanny X-Men back onto the shelf if the likes of Land's objectivised super-people were removed from its pages. And I simply can’t buy into the premise that anyone searches out Land’s work simply because it gets them not just hot and flustered, but ultimately relieved and somewhat sleepy too. After all, there's surely enough porn to be had for nothing more costly and demanding than an internet connection and the capacity to manipulate a mouse while exercising a less than entirely limp grip too. And if there is a tiny minority of boys who’ve somehow sexually imprinted upon Land’s work, well, I doubt they constitute a commercially vital niche. No, Land could produce superhero

No one will be shocked if I respectfully remind them that while men are often represented in Land's art as bearing different body-types, ages, faces and so, women are nearly always stereotypically and tediously 'beauteous' and 'alluring'..
    
books without the most unedifying of cheesecake and most consumers would, I suspect, keep investing. So why does Marvel keep commissioning and publishing work that’s not just so often technically inept, but morally contemptible? Is it stubbornness, an unwillingness to avoid being seen to bend before the tyranny of kind-hearted ideals and simple ethical decencies? Or is it that the short-term business of making money is more important than the more generous and inclusive of moralities to Marvel? If so, the company has already crossed a decisive moral Rubicon. Once a publisher recognises the immorality of its product and yet continues to produce it - and how could Marvel not see Land's art for what it is - then there's no reason to note any significant ethical restraints at all. The basic principle that making money trumps ethical standards has already apparently been established, and all that's left is the key question of 'what can we get away with and profit by?'. Why, there are as yet untapped niche markets of sexists and racists and homophobes and a thousand other worryingly hateful minority tastes just longing for comics to cater to their beliefs in a far more specific way than at the moment. If filling up comics with Land's representations of women doesn't upset too many folks while also making you money, well, why not have the courage of the lack of your convictions and go a touch further, and further still? It's only business, after all, and it’s only comics, and why doesn't the publisher of Peter Parker and Jessica Jones and T'Challa make the bravest stand against the strictures of political correctness? After all, you're already effectively doing exactly that with artwork such as Mr Land's.

The reader will similarly not be astonished if Mr Land's reliance upon the 'widescreen' panel is remarked upon. Note how the artist works from the assumption that this type of frame is the best option for four very different types of content. It's as if Mr Land never actually thinks about how best to tell a story, but simply divides up his page according to whim and ease. Note, for example, the inexplicable choice to make the almost meaningless shot of the Juggernaut's face in panel 3 larger than the shot of Colossus punching him. But my favourite example of careless and surely lazy storytelling can be found in panels 1 and 2; note in panel 1 that Colossus is considerably smaller than his opponent. Strangely enough, the two of them are almost the same size in the next shot. Well, what does it matter?
         
Yet although I doubt Land's work brings too many extra panting and trembling consumers to the cash register,  I do find it easy to believe that a great many more folks might just give up buying certain comics because they're ashamed to spend their money on such regressive, ugly-minded and cruel-looking piffle. Me, for one. For it's not just that some of us despise Land's ethics, or his lack of any considered body of such, since it's hard to believe that he's ever given too much thought to his money-spinning, status-weaving activities. It's also that his ranks of sexualised women contradict the very meaning of the books he illustrates. He's not just producing tacky sexism, and poorly illustrated tacky sexism too. His representations of women actually work against the stories which he fails so conspicuously to bring to life. It’s certainly hard to buy into the adventures of a team of superheroic outsiders expressing support for the struggles of the powerless against the powerful as long as the women involved look just like stereotypical porn actresses. Give the X-Men the MU's tired, the MU's poor, the MU's huddled mutants yearning to breathe free, but just make sure that they’re built like the least edifying masturbatory fantasies of a ten year old boy so immature that he can only stir up bubbles of air while staring-staring-staring at the cleavage of Mayor Sadie, M.I.L.F.

Again, Mr Land has chosen to fill his page with four panels which are the same shape. In doing so, he produces a considerable amount of dead space; panel two is a prime example, giving us a great deal of the back of Juggernaut's shoulder and to what end? Panel 3 is a particular example of waste; who knows what's going on there, or why such a vertical segment of a face which simply can't transmit a great deal of emotion has been given such prominence.
          
Good work, publishers and editors at Marvel. Your wives, your sisters, your mothers, your daughters, as well as your husbands, brothers, fathers, sons and indeed everyone you know and don't know - that's everyone, really - must be proud of you. How you must long to take copies of Mr Land's Uncanny X-Men into schools and churches and town halls to show off the contributions you're making to a braver, better, more compassionate world. Well done for persevering with such a principled and well-thought through stance. Hurrah for Marvel!

For Marvel Comics can do all the thinking it wants about attracting wider audiences, and babble on in public about its progressive and well-intentioned strategic policies. But until the company fully recognises and accepts what shame is, they’ll not attract anyone from beyond the hardcore who’s got the slightest idea that loathing ‘sexism’ isn’t an aspect of ‘political correctness’, but of basic human decency.

What profession and character might we associate with this woman? Indeed, can we even tell how old is she? What's her emotional state in this shot? Why is she looking at the reader with that strange gaze? What is the reader supposed to feel about her?
        
It’s doesn’t matter what I say, of course. What I do or say won’t affect a thing, except that I’ll get a few more contemptuous and insulting comments and a few less folks visiting this blog as a result of the above. Writing about these things is never a ratings winner or a nerve-soother, I’ll tell you. Oh well.

But I did want to continue to read your work in Uncanny X-Men, Mr Gillen, and to be inspired by it too, and I really am sorry, but I just can’t.

Shape up, Marvel. It's 2011. If you're not going to be consistently and deliberately kind-hearted and generous in all that you're doing now, after 60 years and more of publication, then when will you?
I wonder, how many folks aren't buying the likes of Uncanny X-Men because they're uncomfortable with the objectivisation of teenage girls, such as with Hope here? However, please see below;

Folks who might want to see what Marvel can publish in the way of Mutant tales that're in a considerably more compassionate and laudable vein ought to race off now and buy Generation Hope # 9 by Mr Gillen and Mr McKelvie, in concert with a long list of collaborators and enablers from the X-Office. It's worth the investing in, I really do assure you, and we'll be taking a look at it in the not too distant future here.

Hope from the same week's Generation Hope by Mr Gillen and Jamie McKelvie. Why, she looks like a young woman and not a sex object. Human, fallible, charming, distinctive, and anything but objectivised. Gosh, it can be done. In fact, Marvel is hiring folks who are doing so already!
       
.
.

102 comments:

  1. Hello Colin

    "Once a publisher recognises the immorality of its product and yet continues to produce it, and how could Marvel not, then there's no reason to mark any significant ethical restraints at all"

    You know, I like a good rant as everyone, and no doubt everyone has his hate-artists. I for one absolutly detests Humberto Ramos and Chris Bachalo and won´t buy their work, and in this epoch of rotating artists - whoever installed this system should be bannend forver from this business - guys like that ruined my entertainment of many comics. I still grind my teeth when I think of the godawful issues Bachalo did on Morrison´s X-run. Korday made it sick, but guys like Bachalo killed it. Still, many fans think them geniuses. More power to them.

    But calling Land´s artwork "immoral" is, well, over the top. This is a question of taste, not of morals. If Marvel would insist of drawing black people or jews like propaganda carricatures form the 30s, well, yes, that would be indeed immoral. But drawing woman in an idealised way? Come on!


    There is nothing wrong with a little bit of cheesecake. Of course you could argue that other artists do cheesecake a bit better, the Dobsons for instance, or Cho. Land´s woman are looking all the same, and the inane grinning is ridiculous and boring.

    And it isn´t very sexy. Just compare Land´s woman with Risso´s woman. Risso is unable to draw a woman who isn´t sexy, but his sexiness is miles away from the harmless plastic-sex of the superhero world. Risso´s woman look like if they would gut you with a rusty knife with the same smile they invite you in. (On second thought you could argue that Risso´s style indeed has a sexist agenda as he revels in the image of the bad girl who is the equivalent of a gangsta rap ho).

    Of course you could argue if the obsession with many artists with the model of the supherhuman isn´t wrong per se. Some renderings remind me a lot of those stalinistic or fascistic paintings of the 30s, and not in a good way.

    But Greg Land? His worst sins are his plastic pod-people. And I still would prefer them over Ramos or Bachalo. Every day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Andy:- well, THIS is a pass, isn't it, that you'd be telling me off for going too far? But thank you for expressing your disagreement with the points I'm making.

    I'll have to be careful not to just repeat my argument above, but I think our key point of disagreement is summed up in your statement;

    "If Marvel would insist of drawing black people or jews like propaganda caricatures form the 30s, well, yes, that would be indeed immoral. But drawing woman in an idealised way?"

    I don't have a problem with superheroes being shown in an idealised form. In fact, I can't see how they could be shown in any other form; even many comics with superheroes which claim to be representing folks in a 'real-world' fashion end up working really hard not to end up making folks just look ridiculous.

    But Mr Land doesn't do that, or at least, he doesn't in my opinion. He doesn't idealize women, he reduces them all to sexual stereotypes. Whether you or find those representations 'sexy' or not isn't the issue. He doesn't present individuals or even a broad range of types. He produces nothing but an intense form of cheesecake , and he does so for characters who are supposed to be girls as well as the women he draws. There's grounds for representing Emma in this way, and you'll note that I didn't criticize that representation. But elsewhere, he's not presenting characters who are defining their own sexuality and body-image; he's showing characters who are having a sexuality imposed upon them, and a confining and exploitative one it is too.

    But I'm content for us to disagree on this. We're obviously seeing the same material in very different ways. What's more, Andy, I have no doubt that your view of things will be that of most people. But that's OK. That's what a debate is. I may think Land's work is ethically repellent. I may also very much not want to see 'cheesecake' in superhero comics either, to be honest. Can't see the point in a medium aimed at a general audience which constantly presents itself as following a moral agenda. Worse than 'can't see the point', I can see the harm. I might have agreed with some of what you're saying, Andy, before I taught year upon year of young women who'd been turned so often into forms of cheesecake themselves by our culture. Life's hard enough without doing that to people, without contributing to a culture that encourages such processes. So I don't feel at all sympathetic to any such tolerance of that cheesecake business at all anymore.

    But I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm not trying to ban anything. I'm just stating an opinion which I feel absolutely passionately about. As indeed are you. Thank you for expressing your disagreement in the fashion you did, and my best to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The blogger would appreciate it if folks who might be offended by a touch of somewhat bad-tempered and fruity language didn’t read on"

    To be honest, I've always hoped for a bit more of it on here ;) Now to read the article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not gonna say you took it too far, Colin, but this is definitely the most brutally I've seen you take someone to task. At least in the relatively short amount of time I've been reading your blog.
    In response to Andy, though, I think the fact that Mr Land's characters are 'plastic-pod people' is what makes his sexualization of them so much worse that people like Frank Cho or Amanda Conner. Those two artists may draw some sexy characters, but they're always given personality. You can tell there is something going on in the character below the surface. And it goes further than that too. On a purely physical level, their depictions are less problematic also. Conner is able to draw different types of body shapes and sizes. They're often sexy, but it's not saying "This. This body type is what's good." And Cho may seemingly draw only one type of female, but his females are built. They're strong and poised and look like they could beat me or most any other guy up without a sweat. I can't speak for women, but I'd imagine that Cho's women's physiques have the same empowering and inspiring effect that men are drawn in superhero comics. I'm open up for debate on that, but that's how I view his women.
    On the other hand, Land's characters are, as Andy said, 'plastic pod people.' There is nothing to his characters underneath their sexiness. All women proudly display their breasts with vapid eyes, despite age or creed. His women look dead inside.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, Emperor. I got cold feet and edited all the ideas and passion out, and left it as a spoiler-free summary of what I liked and what I didn't like about the story, adding speculation on how it all connects up with future crossovers and the like.

    I also speculated on who's stronger, The Hulk or Superman :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it really the majority opinion that drawing women like this is a good idea? I guess I've always just assumed that most people would prefer characters they can relate to than characters who stand around posing, but that most artists these days just didn't know how to draw so we've gotten used to it.

    But then, I guess I have no idea what the majority thinks. Earlier today I was considering the existence of Power Girl. It baffles me how so many artists and writers and editors and fans can see that costume and think it works. I've always figured there just weren't any people who cared enough about Power Girl to bother changing her costume, but they keep her comic going because DC doesn't have enough female characters. But I guess they really don't see that there's something wrong with it.

    And Wonder Woman! What the hell! When Straczynski finally gave her some clothes, and had her acting like a person -or at least like a Straczynski character, which is close enough for me- I felt like for the first time that character made sense to me. That was a character I wanted to read about. I figured the only reason it hadn't been done sooner was because the crappiness of the character was an ingrained tradition, and it took someone like Straczynski with a strong ego to overcome the tradition. And even when the fans complained about the fact that she had pants and sleeves, I assumed they were just a tiny minority who were too attached to tradition and would get over it within a few months' time. But just a few issues in, she was already pulling her clothes off to show how serious she was. And just a year later, they're going back to having her fight crime in her panties.

    And then there are those godawful scenes that just leaked from the Wonder Woman pilot. Thankfully the show wasn't picked up, but how on Earth did someone okay a series about Wonder Woman where she's whining like a little girl about how she doesn't want to be strong, she wants people to listen to her feelings?

    These stories add up, and make me wonder whether the majority is actually a lot scarier than I've given them credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello Joe:- I've been sitting watching Torchwood with the Splendid Wife thinking that I probably did take it too far. And then I thought of how profoundly weary I am of folks pretending that what they produce doesn't affect our culture, which made me realise that I do mean what I said, and that I do agree with what you say about representations of women in the X-Men who seem all smiles and yet seem dead inside.

    Of course, no single comic can affect anyone, unless they're eminently corruptible anyway. And comics can only ever be a tiny influence on folks who’re far more likely to influenced by parents, peer groups, the work place and the mass media and so on. But that endless drip-drip-drip of portrayals of women which shows them as both impossibly thin and yet incredibly fleshy in JUST the right places, that presents an empty-faced symmetry as a norm, that reproduces body-fascistic ideals of the female, and indeed the male, form over and over again as if it doesn't matter, as if it doesn't affect folks at all over the long term in its cumulative affect …. Well, shouldn’t the art in a comic concerned with outsiders persecuted by an often-oppressive world be more inclusive, be simply more kind … ?

    If I don't respond to more of the specific points in your comment, it's only because I agree with you on why the pod-people aspect of that art is so unpleasant, and because I don't really know where I stand on the art of the folks you've mentioned. I need to read more of their work and get an opinion together. And you've certainly inspired to do so.

    My thanks to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Mory:- “Is it really the majority opinion that drawing women like this is a good idea? I guess I've always just assumed that most people would prefer characters they can relate to than characters who stand around posing, but that most artists these days just didn't know how to draw so we've gotten used to it.”

    Well, I’d like to believe that, Mory. I certainly believe that there are a lot of fans who don’t want the kind of art Mr Land produces, and who’d be happy to see him amend his style. I also suspect that there are a lot of lapsed readers who’re just embarrassed and weary of a sub-genre which refuses to grow up. Certainly, the companies often don’t seem concerned, for they KEEP printing this stuff. If they wanted to end it, all they’d need do is stop buying the material. If there weren’t enough able artists around, they could invest in some in-houses training. And then we could have some responsible and interesting and really rather spicy expressions of sexuality that didn’t rely on folks looking like virtual porn stars.

    ”I've always figured there just weren't any people who cared enough about Power Girl to bother changing her costume, but they keep her comic going because DC doesn't have enough female characters.”

    I think Power Girl would be fine if she really was in a substantial minority where her appearance is concerned, and if her costume weren’t so ridiculous. In fact, if comics were saner and fairer, there’s no reason why a woman like Power Girl who was an exhibitionist and/or exceptionally proud of her body and/or just happier running around in very few clothes couldn’t be a useful figure in a fictional universe. But that’s not how she appears in the broad context of comics.

    ”And Wonder Woman … And just a year later, they're going back to having her fight crime in her panties.”

    I don’t know, Mory. I just don’t know. I did very much like Mr Lopresti represented WW in his stint working with Gail Simone. He made her seem like an athlete and her whole stance rendered those pants far more like a practical uniform. She never seemed to me to be there for the male gaze in those issues. But generally, I just don’t get the desire to have her in so few clothes, especially since the market as stands is hardly supporting her books as is. Perhaps change might make commercial as well as moral good sense.

    ” … and make me wonder whether the majority is actually a lot scarier than I've given them credit for.”

    I’d like to believe that some folks at the companies under-estimate how good-hearted and concerned the market-place is. And I hope that soon, as ridiculous as it sounds, Marvel and DC will just stop being so adolescent about certain fundamental decencies. I’d be pleased, you’d be pleased; they might well be surprised how many folks would be.

    And those who wouldn’t be? I seem to be finding it hard to care about anyone who'd think that way ..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Colin,

    Joe is right. Land´s people look dead inside. But this joke here is that all his people look like this, both genders. So I can´t see this as a problem specifically with his woman. As an artist his work has clearly devolved, if you see his work on Birds of Prey, it was much better.

    The "cheesecake" is a part of every pulp-fiction I think. It is part of the formula, you can´t have one without the other. I guess we could have a long discussion about the moment when a kid´s medium became an adolescent medium - I really wouldn´t call todays comics adult -, if you ask Fred Wertheim, there was smut even in 1950s comics to find. (Well, if you didn´t take your medication :-), sometimes a cigar, etc ) Guess one could blame Howard Chaykin or Frank Miller for this. Or Dave Stevens. They really revived the style of DeSoto and co which they did on all the Men´s Adventure magazines.

    "Can't see the point in a medium aimed at a general audience which constantly presents itself as following a moral agenda"

    Do they really have that? Escapist fantasies like to present themselves as that no doubt, but it is hard to see these tales having any morals except that might makes right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've been thinking about this post in light of our previous exchanges about morality and judgement, and this is a fine example of you bringing judgement to bear upon something! Previously you and I were considering things like the depiction of torture in fiction, and my wrestling with the fact that there are works of fiction that depict torture in a morally problematic way, but which I nonetheless believe have integrity and worth. What, then, of sexism, objectification of women, etc?

    Well, I think I agree with you on this subject, at least in relation to the example you discuss here. And that's despite the fact that I'm someone who can tolerate a far bit of cheesecake in my comics. As you know, I thought there was merit to the Voodoo 'Dancing in the Dark' miniseries, and that was cheesecake central. In that instance the cheesecake was somewhat appropriate to the plot, which involved sexy voodoo practices, but even then it was pushing it.

    Now, consider Zatanna, who's always been a somewhat cheesecakey character and who's VERY popular with the cosplay crowd. I'm fond of Zatanna, both as a character and (I admit it) as a pretext for some Good Girl Art. But I've never read a Zatanna story that was about sexy voodoo practices. So aside from the fact that she's a stage performer as well as a superheroine (and that fact actually makes things worse rather than better if you dwell on it too much), her get-up is always going to be slightly gratuitous. Fine. I get that, and I can live with it, and so evidently can a lot of cosplayers.

    But then why oh why oh why do so many artists...well, I was going to say 'gild the lily', but that's too dignified for what I'm talking about. In short, why do they insist on drawing Zatanna with pneumatic breasts and prone poses? Doing this takes something that was already risqué and spoils it, by making it flat out crass. In the 'Camelot Falls' Superman storyline that Carlos Pacheco drew a few years ago, he gave us a version of Zatanna that would have looked out of place even in a Russ Meyer movie. It was ridiculous. Kurt Busiek's wonderful dialogue and characterisation were all for naught. And it's not the first time I've seen that happen with Zatanna.

    I realise that DC is trying to fix this sort of thing with an 'every female character (except Supergirl for some reason) has to wear trousers' edict for the relaunch, but that misses the point. And in the 'Camelot Falls' example, it wouldn't have helped a jot. This isn't about rules, it's about underlying attitudes. And the Greg Land stuff you post here, combined with his 'pornface' reputation (just Google it if you've not read about it already), represents an attitude to women that I think you're quite right to criticise in the way you have, just as I think you were right to criticise the sexism of the new Moon Knight title.

    (I did laugh, however, when I saw that Land's ineptitude in the sixth image you posted makes it look in the final panel as though the phallus of Cyttorak is flying TOWARDS the Juggernaut rather than a hammer flying AWAY from him.)

    Alex S

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really enjoyed this issue of Uncanny, in part because I try not to pay any attention to Greg Land's art. I see his name on the cover, I know what I'd be getting - toothpaste models with massive tits in inappropriate poses. That said, the crassness of the mental meeting illustrations had me aghast.

    And yet, didn't Kieron Gillan do well? The script he came up with for such an unpromising issue was excellent. Cyclops' Plan B scene made me warm to the character for the first time in decades.

    Mory, DC doesn't publish Power Girl because there's a shortage of female characters, they publish it because various creators had a tack on her that first, the company, then the readers, like.

    As for Wonder Woman, while I found the Mike Deodato dental floss look ridiculous and borderline offensive, the panties in the last few years have been no worse than they were in the Golden Age. Unlike the charactisation of her by Straczynski, which was a significant regression - angry and inept as opposed to to the self-assured, fun-loving gal of old.

    Should I buy Generation Hope from #1, then, Colin? I avoided it because she was tied into Cable and there's a dog man in the book? But this panel looks great.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Mory - I've seen the Wonder Woman pilot, and her 'whining' has been misrepresented somewhat by critics. There's strong hints that she's a lonely figure by dint of the life path she's chosen (the path of a 'living action figure'), and there's an ex-boyfriend she seems melancholy about, but otherwise her 'feelings' manifest as attempts to connect with people, which you'd kind of hope most writers would attempt with their characters regardless of those characters' gender - otherwise why should the viewer give a hoot?

    "How you must long to take copies of Mr Land's Uncanny X-Men into schools and churches and town halls to show off the contributions you're making to a braver, better, more compassionate world."

    Oh how you mock, Smith, but I'll have you know Land illustrated the X-Men Free Comic Book Day issue given away several years ago by Marvel, and it featured the 14-15 year-old Pixie to boot! The Pixie introduced during Grant Morrison's New X-Men era as a dwarfish Welsh child and since reimagined into something... shall we say more easily drawn by Land or the Dodsons (not to lump the two together in terms of end product as much as the perception that they depict females friendly to the eye). And here again is the rub - the diminutive and largely useless Pixie was quite a unique addition to the cast of a book about superheroes, the big-titted kung-fu Amazon currently starring in the books significantly less so, leading us to question why the need was felt to homogenize an element of a book all about the variety and infinite diversity of humanity in favor of a slightly more Aryan approach of uniform Amazons and himbos.

    In Land's defence, speaking as someone who's been trying to learn the visual craft of comics for the better part of the last six years, drawing different body types is a pain in the hole, especially teenagers, who you have to make look like kids rather than just small adults - but if everyone looks like a twentysomething porn star, though, that does make things easier for the guy drawing it.

    At least let's give the guy props for getting his pages finished on time despite trawling through all that porn. Me, I'd get nothing done - that guy must have some serious self control.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know I've been something of a naysayer to some of your denunciations of recent comics, so I just want to make clear that I heartily support your takedowns of Finch and now Land. Actually, as absurd as it is that Finch gets to write his own book, at least he's a) not on the flagship and b) not dragging down a good writer, neither of which can be said for the continued, lamentable presence of Land on UXM.

    (That said, maybe he's done me a favor in saving me from reading Brubaker and/or Fraction's UXM, as it seems like increasingly the whole blogosphere is of your mind regarding Fraction's current books that are not Casanova (and X-Men always did seem to far from noir for Brubaker, although I love most of his stuff). I'm wondering if I should expect Invincible Iron Man to start sucking at some point, particularly as I'm so far from caught up on it).

    As for Wonder Woman, I'd rather see Cliff Chiang draw her without pants than Don Kramer or whoever it is now draw her with pants. Chiang is one of the main current "mainstream" artists who seems to actually like women. Probably also rather read Azzarello write her than Stracyznski, but less certain about that one (Azzarello's "traditional" style of noir seems a bit anti-woman at times, but I haven't even read 100 Bullets yet, so I don't know if i'd feel more or less that way if I had. Whereas Stracyznski just seems to have jumped the shark, from what i can tell).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Andy:- firstly, thanks for popping back to engage a touch more. Secondly, having said much of what I believe, I'll only respond to things that I've not covered, or started to, in the above, because otherwise I'll be the blogger repeating himself because he can't stand other folks disagreeing with him :)

    I think the problem may lie in how you and I define 'cheesecake', which is quite different, although I didn't notice that. To me, 'cheesecake' is a representation of a woman as a sexual stereotype that bears no purpose other than reducing a woman to a sexual stereotype. So, there are characters and indeed stories where the appearance of 'cheesecake' actually tells us about a character and/or their world, or may even stand as an argument for the worth of such representations. Fine. No problem with that at all. My objection is the blanket sexism of Land, to whom every women is stereotype regardless of character and story. As such, each situation has to be judged on its own merits. When I said I'm not for cheesecake at all, I didn't mean the people couldn't ever be shown in a way associated with that phrase. I meant that Land simply isn't concerned with women; he interested in sexual stereotypes, and a particular type of such. Different thing to a blanket ban on representations on sexuality, although I'd never recommend that either. It is possible to believe that morality is important to discuss while being virulently opposed to censorship :)

    "It is part of the formula, you can´t have one without the other."

    I can't see why a medium which is characterised by one set of representations can't change. We no longer have the excesses of racial stereotyping in comics. It changed because folk's attitudes did. We're not prisoners of the conventions of these stories. They serve us, not we them.

    I'm not sure what your reference to Wertham means. Just because one self-obsessed fraud built a career on a moral panic and a cry for censorship doesn't mean that every self-obsessed frauds are like him :) I just don't see why every attempt to discuss ethics in comics eventually gets reduced to saying Wertham discussed ethics and comics, Wertham was wrong, you're wrong too. What I'm saying has nothing to do with his arguments at all, and I argue that it's pretty self evident what Land's doing. There's no inference in my analysis about hidden agendas in these issues. There's no claim that Land is doing anything more than contributing in a slight fashion to the drip-drip-drip of sexual stereotyping. And I don't believe that Freud is relevant here either. Both Wertham and Freud were terrible frauds. I may be too, but my grounds for being appalled are nothing to do with theirs. I'd rather be hung for my own beliefs than be associated in any way with those two :)

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  15. cont

    I do believe that fiction carries a moral message, and I do believe that the superhero comics often justifies itself as a moral medium. I believe that although 'might makes right' is often the theme of super-hero books, it's by no mean the only theme, and most the books I've lauded in this blog have quite different attitudes to power and ethics.

    I wouldn't blame Chaykin, Miller and Stevens for anything. I'm making no blanket assault on any group of books or creators. I'd have to sit down and consider those very different creators and their broad range of work before I said a single thing about them. I enjoy work by all of them. I've no time for dehumanizing cheesecake. But that doesn't mean I see a woman represented as a sexual creature - as most of us are - and reach for my repressed horror. Sexuality is cool, sex is cool too. Cheesecake, the reduction of women to plastic examples of body fascism, isn't.

    In your comment, Andy, I see a set of assumptions that often come into play when folks discuss these things. The belief seems to be that to discuss ethics in this way brings with it (a) a stupidity and abuse of analysis re: Wertham, (b) a desire to assault any and all representations of sexuality, and (c) the assumptions that all judgments of ethics are individual and flawed, so we shouldn't discuss them. (But we discuss them because they ARE flawed, so a debate is always essential. As we're doing here.) There's also often the sense that to discuss standards here is to be wielding, somehow, the same principles as a censor.

    Now, of course, all moral standards are opinions. The belief that murder is wrong is nothing but a belief. But we still believe it within a context which we debate and modify. And the absence of a debate here, or the assumption that a debate carries meaning which the debater never referred to, IS something which concerns me. Freud, Wertham? Wouldn't agree with them in just about any way at all. Can't see their relevance. Chaykin, Stevens et al? Wouldn't class them on what I know as akin to Land at all, though I may be wrong. I don't know, I'm not stereotyping anyone here. I'm having a go at one artist and one body of work for a set of specific reasons.

    All I'm saying is; this is a world where women, and more and more men, suffer from the dead hand of sexism and the malign influence of body fascism. And Land contributes to that, even down to how he characterizes children. In my opinion, that's a very bad thing. And that's all I'm saying, I do promise you :)

    Thank you for coming back and engaging with good humour and your convictions. We may disagree and debate each other points, but I really do hope I've not phrased my answer in any way that expresses disrespect rather than disagreement. I may believe in these things with a passion, as you do your opinions, but the debate's the thing. The debate is always what counts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello Alex:- “I've been thinking about this post in light of our previous exchanges about morality and judgement, and this is a fine example of you bringing judgement to bear upon something!”

    I was going to say I dread your response, but of course I don’t! Your response – and I’ve not read on yet – is the whole point of this, in the context of that much-adored DEBATE thang. But I will say that our discussion really informed this piece. It framed it from beginning to end. Which isn’t to say that you’re responsible for it or that I think you’ll agree with it. But what I wrote was definitely considerably informed by our talk.

    “Well, I think I agree with you on this subject, at least in relation to the example you discuss here. And that's despite the fact that I'm someone who can tolerate a far bit of cheesecake in my comics. As you know, I thought there was merit to the Voodoo 'Dancing in the Dark' miniseries, and that was cheesecake central. In that instance the cheesecake was somewhat appropriate to the plot, which involved sexy voodoo practices, but even then it was pushing it.”

    As I say above to Andy, who raises some excellent points, it’s the specific context of the representations here that concern me. I’ve no problem with any representation of sexuality which deliberately serves a specific cause and doesn’t break the very broad standards of what we might, in the terms of our previous conversation, regard as ‘ethical’.

    ” fond of Zatanna, both as a character and (I admit it) as a pretext for some Good Girl Art. But I've never read a Zatanna story that was about sexy voodoo practices…. Fine. I get that, and I can live with it, and so evidently can a lot of cosplayers.”

    “Me too. Context, context, context. And the distinction between stage garb and costume is one which I wish more creators would play up. And ‘good girl art’ doesn’t have to demean any humane principles. It can inform characters in a very positive light, of course.

    ”But then why oh why oh why do so many artists...well, I was going to say 'gild the lily', but that's too dignified for what I'm talking about. In short, why do they insist on drawing Zatanna with pneumatic breasts and prone poses? Doing this takes something that was already risqué and spoils it, by making it flat out crass”

    Oh dear. I can’t challenge a thing you’re saying, but what I can say is that it’s the context of your arguments that I find compelling. ‘Zantanna shouldn’t wear fishnets’ is an obscene argument. ‘Zantanna should be shown wearing whatever the creator likes and be built however the creator chooses’ is a similarly pernicious principle.

    “ In the 'Camelot Falls' Superman storyline that Carlos Pacheco drew a few years ago, he gave us a version of Zatanna that would have looked out of place even in a Russ Meyer movie. It was ridiculous. Kurt Busiek's wonderful dialogue and characterisation were all for naught. And it's not the first time I've seen that happen with Zatanna.”

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  17. cont

    OK. Tis on the homework list. I know my library has a copy, I’d like to see that tale.

    ”I realise that DC is trying to fix this sort of thing with an 'every female character (except Supergirl for some reason) has to wear trousers' edict for the relaunch, but that misses the point.”

    Bless you, yes. It’s not the bloody trousers, is it? Mr Lopresti’s Wonder Woman had her in her skimpies and she looked great, like an athlete, unashamed, entirely un-objectivitised. We keep having as a culture the wrong bloody argument, don’t we? Again, it’s that absence of debate. Everything gets phrased in terms of easy. Received opinions and generalisations and nothing gets bettered because of it.

    “And the Greg Land stuff you post here, combined with his 'pornface' reputation (just Google it if you've not read about it already), represents an attitude to women that I think you're quite right to criticise in the way you have, just as I think you were right to criticise the sexism of the new Moon Knight title.”

    I do believe that an appropriate context and debate can help folks who do disagree on quite a bit – such as you and I – to frame a response to these things. As of course I know you do. Of course, all that does is set up the next round of debate, and so on. But what’s the alternative? Mr Land? Pah, I say, pah. (And ‘pornface’ is, you’re right, a phrase I don’t know. I will check it out.)

    ”I did laugh, however, when I saw that Land's ineptitude in the sixth image you posted makes it look in the final panel as though the phallus of Cyttorak is flying TOWARDS the Juggernaut rather than a hammer flying AWAY from him.”

    That why I concentrated not just on the ethics, but on the storytelling. The man just doesn’t seem to be thinking. In comics terms, that’s a no-no. Not unethical, but undoubtedly a cheat on the reader and, I suspect, his collaborators too, though I have no evidence for that at all. (He hastened to say!)

    ReplyDelete
  18. I intend to reply to you in turn when I've got a moment Colin, but I thought I'd better add quickly that you should Google 'greg land pornface', not just 'pornface' by itself. Doing the latter will just lead to you wading through actual porn, which wasn't my intention!

    Alex S

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello Martin:- “I really enjoyed this issue of Uncanny, in part because I try not to pay any attention to Greg Land's art. I see his name on the cover, I know what I'd be getting - toothpaste models with massive tits in inappropriate poses.”

    You see, I really do ENTIRELY know what you’re saying. The script is so good that the comic can be read and thoroughly enjoyed on that basis alone. In fact, I’m struggling to think of a book where my feelings about story and art clash so entirely ……. Nope. Can’t think of a single example.

    “That said, the crassness of the mental meeting illustrations had me aghast.”

    Yes, it’s staggering, isn’t it? But more staggering for me is the fact that no one in authority thought, on storytelling grounds even if not ethical ones, to say “C’mon, Greg. Can we tell the story here?”

    ”And yet, didn't Kieron Gillan do well? The script he came up with for such an unpromising issue was excellent. Cyclops' Plan B scene made me warm to the character for the first time in decades.”

    How often do we see a superhero team leader actually lead? We’re always being told that Cap is a great field leader, and yet he so rarely seems to grasp any military tactics at all. Taking the high ground, concentrating forces, the importance of fire-power, maintaining and manipulating a strategic reserve etc; most times, his solution to any problem is to point, throw a shield and charge forwards, or put on a coat and sneak around. But Cyclops was THINKING here, and I thought how impressive and in character it was. I can recall shrinking from the Claremont Storm v Cyclops battle to lead the X-Men. Wha’ppen? But this respected Mr Summers and had him behave rationally and admirably. Great stuff.

    ”Mory, DC doesn't publish Power Girl because there's a shortage of female characters, they publish it because various creators had a tack on her that first, the company, then the readers, like.”

    The more I think about Power Girl, the more I can think of great ways to use that celebrates her lack of self-consciousness. Why shouldn’t there be a woman of such stature in the DCU? I must go back and re-read your reviews of the last series. It’s only when she’s cheesecake for it's own sake that there’s a problem for me. I do find it amusing and concerning that Wally Wood drew the character in order to push the boundaries at DC – or so I’ve read – and that now his depiction can often seem very tame by comparison indeed. Indeed, Wood’s version now looks both very strong and very formidable.

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  20. cont

    ”Unlike the charactisation of her by Straczynski, which was a significant regression - angry and inept as opposed to to the self-assured, fun-loving gal of old.”

    I followed your reviews of those books with interest, Martin. I couldn’t bear to read another hack JMS script, but I did come back for the penultimate issue of the non-JMS issues. It was dreadful …. And yes, can we have a ‘self-assured, fun-loving gal of old’? I do MISS her.

    ”Should I buy Generation Hope from #1, then, Colin? I avoided it because she was tied into Cable and there's a dog man in the book? But this panel looks great.”

    Well, I think you’d love Gen Hope # 9, although there’s one spot of a lack of foreshadowing which weakens the narrative. But it’s passionate and sweet and angry and clever and quite frankly I love it, despite that reservation. Mr McK’s art is splendid from beginning to end, as of course I’ve always found it to be. But the issues before it? Well, I just couldn’t afford them. Of course – sigh – now I’ll have to go back and check them out. (There’s another artist, I believe, on the issues before.) That’s the daily paper and the diet drink gone from the budget for a week in order to catch up a touch. I couldn’t have imagined a series staring the Hope character I’d read about up to then being interesting. I didn’t enjoy Second Coming at all. But GH # 9 is a grand book. Let’s hope the previous ones are too :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hello Mr Brigonos: “At least let's give the guy props for getting his pages finished on time despite trawling through all that porn. Me, I'd get nothing done - that guy must have some serious self control.”

    You see, this is why I value your comments :) Because I’ve never thought how tough that’d be for poor Mr Land. I can’t tell you how much my regard has increased for him, but I will say that your words brought the first laugh about his art I’ve had for a good few days ….

    “In Land's defence, speaking as someone who's been trying to learn the visual craft of comics for the better part of the last six years, drawing different body types is a pain in the hole, especially teenagers, who you have to make look like kids rather than just small adults - but if everyone looks like a twentysomething porn star, though, that does make things easier for the guy drawing it.”

    And as a bloke who went through his long years of drawing his own comics, as well as a year-long spell in a small graphic design studio, I do understand fully how difficult even the simplest task on paper can be to achieve. (In fact, sometimes the most simple-looking tasks ARE of course the most difficult.) But Land has been at this business for year upon year now. I think it’s fair to expect an artist to work on his craft a touch more over that span of time. Grump-grump-grumpy blogger me ….

    “@Mory - I've seen the Wonder Woman pilot, and her 'whining' has been misrepresented somewhat by critics. There's strong hints that she's a lonely figure by dint of the life path she's chosen (the path of a 'living action figure'), and there's an ex-boyfriend she seems melancholy about, but otherwise her 'feelings' manifest as attempts to connect with people, which you'd kind of hope most writers would attempt with their characters regardless of those characters' gender - otherwise why should the viewer give a hoot?”

    There you go. You’re the only person who’s made me want to see the programme. No, you’re not making it seem like a masterpiece, my hopes aren’t unduly raised. But that does sound interesting …

    " Oh how you mock, Smith,”

    Smith? Smith? You know, looking back at the piece, I noted that I’d not called Mr Land “Mr”. I always call creators by their title. Gosh. I’m not happy with his work am I?

    “but I'll have you know Land illustrated the X-Men Free Comic Book Day issue given away several years ago by Marvel, and it featured the 14-15 year-old Pixie to boot! The Pixie introduced during Grant Morrison's New X-Men era as a dwarfish Welsh child and since reimagined into something... shall we say more easily drawn by Land or the Dodsons … leading us to question why the need was felt to homogenize an element of a book all about the variety and infinite diversity of humanity in favor of a slightly more Aryan approach of uniform Amazons and himbos.”

    Well, that just says it all, really. Marvel REALLY choose Land to illustrate the hand-out? That just says it all ….. In fact, I’m staggered, and I feel a lot less bad about the ‘church, school, town-hall’ comment. A lot less bad.

    I’m going to go back and work out why I feel the Dodsons work is far less problematical than Land’s. (As you too so obviously do.) Off the top of my head, the women are individual, far less defined by the male gaze, far stronger …. I fully accept that the super-hero book is one where, as Mory said, idealisation occurs. I am going to go back and do some thinking about the Dodsons. But wherever the line is drawn, that LAND is currently on the wrong side of it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello Carl:- “I know I've been something of a naysayer to some of your denunciations of recent comics … “

    And it’s always appreciated too. I’m glad you know the blog isn’t a pulpit, but an attempt at a conversation opener …

    “so I just want to make clear that I heartily support your takedowns of Finch and now Land. Actually, as absurd as it is that Finch gets to write his own book, at least he's a) not on the flagship and b) not dragging down a good writer, neither of which can be said for the continued, lamentable presence of Land on UXM.”

    It’s really, really odd, isn’t it? I find it inexplicable. And if folks who do tend to disagree find common ground here, then I’d suspect a working hypothesis for some market research is suggesting itself here; this bloke may not be as good for sales as is assumed.

    ”That said, maybe he's done me a favor in saving me from reading Brubaker and/or Fraction's UXM, as it seems like increasingly the whole blogosphere is of your mind regarding Fraction's current books that are not Casanova (and X-Men always did seem to far from noir for Brubaker, although I love most of his stuff).”

    The year’s worth of comics prior to KG taking over as sole writer, rather than scripter over MF’s plot on one arc, were in places just shameful. And it wasn’t just Mr Land who practising the unreconstructed sexism in the art either. I can’t grasp what was going on in those books …. I just can’t.

    “I'm wondering if I should expect Invincible Iron Man to start sucking at some point, particularly as I'm so far from caught up on it).”

    I’ve only read the omnibus, which is the first two years. But I saved up for it because I enjoyed the initial 5-part story, and I found the collection well worth the saving for. But Fear Itself, for example, is just soulless. Inexplicably wretched, to tell the truth. And MF is of course a much finer and more sensitive writer than that. So, what’s going on?

    ”As for Wonder Woman, I'd rather see Cliff Chiang draw her without pants than Don Kramer or whoever it is now draw her with pants. Chiang is one of the main current "mainstream" artists who seems to actually like women. Probably also rather read Azzarello write her than Stracyznski, but less certain about that one (Azzarello's "traditional" style of noir seems a bit anti-woman at times, but I haven't even read 100 Bullets yet, so I don't know if i'd feel more or less that way if I had. Whereas Stracyznski just seems to have jumped the shark, from what i can tell).”

    As I was discussing with folks above, the pants v no pants is indeed the wrong debate. It’s a matter of objectivisation versus respect. Certainly, Mr Chiang is a splendid artist, though I know not how he has represented Wonder Woman. I’d be VERY curious to see how he’d go on the property. JMS? The Earth-One and Superman-walks-America just killed any regard for the man’s writing stone dead for me. I couldn’t follow to WW in the wake of that, so I may have missed a masterpiece. But I don’t think so ….
    I’ll be interested in Mr Azzarello’s WW, but I do wish that they’d head off in a far more fantasy-based, good humoured and optimistic direction. As with Captain Marvel and the Shazam family, DC’s got properties which have sat well with grit’n’angst. Yet that doesn’t seem to stop them trying …. A shame, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello Alex:- good catch! Thank you! I'm just typing out replies waiting for the yearly visit by Los Parentos Splendido, which will take me off the net for a while, and I must say, I'd not have wanted to activate THAT search phrase while my old'Ma and Pa stuck their head round the study door ....

    I may be 48, but I still don't want to give Los Parentos Splendido the wrong impression ...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm shocked at how all of you are defending Wonder Woman. Do you often see women walking through the streets without pants on? Is this normal where you live? Because maybe that would explain your attitude.

    Martin Gray, don't you see a problem with still treating women like it's the 1940s? "It worked in the Golden Age" is a lousy excuse for sexism.

    And Brigonos, what I said about the Wonder Woman pilot didn't come from the critics, they're my own opinions of the little snippets of video that leaked onto the internet recently. (I'd link to them, but they've been taken down.) I was responding to the way she was written, and the way she was acted. I was specifically referring to the board room scene where she goes on about her neglected feelings in a business meeting. That is not how a respectable person acts.

    Colin, you're saying it's okay to present women as "sexual creatures". And of course it is, when the story is about sex. But superhero comics are so very rarely about sex (of the consensual variety), and yet every female character is drawn in skimpy outfits and suggestive poses, just because they're female.

    You don't see the men drawn the same way. You don't massively enlarge or add details to a male superhero's crotch, because then the panel is about that man's crotch, in a way that it has no reason to be. You rarely even see bare-chested white males in superhero comics (though it's probably more common of other races), because they're not sexual creatures. These stories are about power and good vs. evil, they're not about sex. And yet every female character is treated like they're supposed to be sex fantasies. And we're okay with this?!

    ReplyDelete
  25. The "Awesomed by Comics" Podcast has a regular segment called "Watching Porn With Greg Land"- it is hilarious and pretty much all I could think about when reading this. It's near the beginning of the episode, so you don't have to listen to the whole thing, but it is really an excellent podcast in general anyways. In fact, I think you would be an excellent guest host on their podcast if you ever have the opportunity!

    the episode in question:
    http://awesomedbycomics.blogspot.com/2009/06/abc-podcast-episode-49-and-visual-aids.html

    And I have not read a single comic with Mr Land as an artist, but it does seem crazy that they'd pair him with Gillen, of all people. Doesn't Gillen generally have a reputation for being a pretty conscious, thoughtful kind of guy? I'm sure he had nothing to do with the choice, I'm sure it was all editorial- but do you think he's mad his well-planned intentions were spoiled by horrible storytelling?

    Mory- to be fair, I don't see men walking through the street with form-fitting tunics or capes, either. 
    One rule of thumb I've heard is to look at it logically: someone like Power Girl,  Wonder Woman, or Superman are strong-to-invulnerable, to the degree that clothing is really just a fashion choice for them. If they want to show skin or wear heels, it's arguably not gonna hinder their fighting in any way.
    Now, for someone like Huntress, a "normal" who fights on the street, it is completely ridiculous to imagine why she'd enter combat with her midriff exposed. Or Black Canary with her fishnets- and they gave SUPERMAN kneepads in the reboot? At least Zatanna's magic, again, so physical action is not her primary means of defense. 

    But I agree with Colin- in a lot of cases, it's not the costume but how they are drawn that is offensive. Amanda Connor doesn't shy away from PG's rack, but she's so expressive that that's not the point. Whereas all of Land's faces express only one tedious thing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hello Mory:- “I'm shocked at how all of you are defending Wonder Woman. Do you often see women walking through the streets without pants on? Is this normal where you live? Because maybe that would explain your attitude.”

    Well, I don’t see folks wearing capes on the streets too often either, Mory, but I’m happy to see them wearing them in comics.

    I went out of my way to explain the circumstances under which WW’s shorts are “acceptable” to me. I even gave specific example by a specific artist. When WW is portrayed as an athlete without pandering to sexist imagery, I’ve no problem with her costume taking that form. However, if you feel that there should be a blanket on anyone wearing little shorts regardless of context, then I guess there’s nothing that can be said. My argument is more flexible. I think context is all. I’d personally like to see WW wearing a skirt such as that associated with his mother which can be removed if she’s involved in the business of running, swimming and so on, just as if she was an Olympic athlete. Have you seen Mr Lopestri’s version of WW?

    ”Martin Gray, don't you see a problem with still treating women like it's the 1940s? "It worked in the Golden Age" is a lousy excuse for sexism.”

    Martin never said he wanted women treated as they were in the Forties, Mory. Never said a word about it. He said her representation was ‘no worse than the forties’. He never suggested, let alone stated, that how she was shown in the Forties was good, or indeed bad.

    ”And Brigonos, what I said about the Wonder Woman pilot didn't come from the critics, they're my own opinions of the little snippets of video that leaked onto the internet recently. (I'd link to them, but they've been taken down.) I was responding to the way she was written, and the way she was acted. I was specifically referring to the board room scene where she goes on about her neglected feelings in a business meeting. That is not how a respectable person acts.”

    And Brigonos wasn’t attacking your opinion, Mory. He was giving his opinion of the work as a whole. He was respectful, generous and welcoming. (Which is, I must say, a damn sight more than he ever is with me!)

    cont;

    ReplyDelete
  27. Whoah whoah. I've just got to reply to Mory Buckman here (for references sake I'm glad he's the latest comment)

    "You don't see the men drawn the same way. You don't massively enlarge or add details to a male superhero's crotch, because then the panel is about that man's crotch, in a way that it has no reason to be."

    There are tons of examples of extreme male crotchness. Any work by Liefeld is an example (though I'll grant you it's a cheap shot) but there's been a great deal of... EMPHASIS on, say, Batman's latest Batman Incorporated suit- and did you hear the one about Green Lantern's construct gun crotch (just google the teaser image, maybe it's the cover, for the upcoming Justice League #1 to see one of the many things the internet is abuzz over)

    Even if you don't see exaggerated crotches left right and centre (uh, hopefully centre I guess..) don't think for one second that car sized chests and biceps as big as the characters head aren't sexual signifiers. We're just lucky that those males are often the story protagonists, that they've dumb lucked themselves into a position where they get to give narration and a slight glimpse into an inner life beyond their hyper body.

    So yes, the men ARE drawn the same way.

    Colin is saying, if I may be so bold as to interpret, that it's okay to present women as sexual creatures in the same way that we are all (or, well, most of us anyway) sexual creatures- that that is a perfectly valid and justifiable PART of a character.

    The biggest charge being laid at Land's feet is that there is no character to his depitions of women, only blank, uniform sex-bots- that he can get away with this shows (not the hypothesized money over morals) that the guys making decisions at Marvel don't get the problem, just like the DC guys "fixing" sexism by handing out pants to women in the lobby.

    I'm completely on board with being okay with the "swimsuit Wonder Woman" as shown when Greg Rucka and Gail Simone were on the title, because she was a fully realized character beyond her appearance- and her fashion choices always made sense, never worn in a prurient manner, but because that was just what they wore at the good old home of Themyscira, particularly for battle.

    Considering the greek heritage, I'd say they'd even be justified in having her fight clothesless- not that I'll be advocating for that change.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ah, well, I see Colin beat me to the punch as far as replying to the above goes. Just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Let me clarify my Wertheim comment, which was meant basically as snark. I read "Seduction" ages ago, and there are some examples of supposedly hidden drawings which according to Wertheim were done to arouse the innocents. In a age where a "damn" in a issue of Superman would have fired Mort Weisinger on the spot the idea that an artist would have drawn hidden breasts for the amusement of all those juvenile delinquents is so ridiculous that it is unimaginable how anybody could take this man earnest. (One should do a thesis on Wertheim and McCarthy and the environment in which both could reach so many people)

    But the discussion about sexism is often coupled with the outcry that comics are no longer for kids. It just makes me wonder what the good Doctor would have to say about the style of artists like Land.

    I find the discussion about which artwork is "sexy" and which is "stereotyping" incredibly difficult. Of course it depends on context. I just can´t find it in me to condemn Land as the worst offender here. All the top comics suffer from the "glamour people" syndrom. All females look like supermodels. They can be buried under a building, but the hair and the cleavage is perfect. (One of the great points of Moore´s Miracleman was that both Moran and his wife looked so ordinary compared to the superman he became. An idea which today seems unworkable).

    Maybe you are right and this is becoming off-putting in superheroes. Maybe this is a reason why artists like Guy Davis or Camuncoli are becoming ever more interesting :-)

    Oh, and DCs idea with the pants, this is soo idiotic. Recently I browsed some old comics and saw an ad for a Zatanna mini where they ditched the fishnet and went for pants and a punker-outfit. It looked just horrible :-) But the character is a good example how an artist can make or break a story. How lovely the character looked in the Seven Soldier mini, and how ugly in some issues of Gotham Sirens.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have had the same experience, Colin. When I saw that X-Men was going to be written by people I liked (Fraction, etc.), I gave it a shot. But I could go beyond a single issue of Greg Land's porn tracings. And so, like you, I've found that I CANNOT read a comic drawn by Land.

    What does this mean? I've read comics where the art was bad. I'm a "writing-first" kind of guy, after all. So why can't I read Land's? Because it's not an issue of bad art. It IS bad, but of course, we've seen worse, that's really not the issue. The issue is that it makes me queasy. While the word "immoral" is strong, and I can understand why Andy in the first comment (I only read the first few, sorry if I repeat any ideas here) reacts to it the way he does, it's probably the right one.

    I wouldn't say I'm easily offended by anything, but this I find offensive. Note that you could do a whole porn comic where that would be the point (Flex Mentallo #3 for example), and I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm offended by the crudeness and by the pointless, amoral sexism of it. And I disagree with Andy here where he says racial stereotypes are wrong, but sexist ones are not. You can't have it both ways.

    Immoral rather than amoral? Yes. I tend to think of racial and sexual stereotypes in, say, Golden Age comics as "amoral". They stand as a document of what social mores were like at that time, and though yes, it's casual sexism and racism, there's a naivety about it. People didn't know any better.

    But we don't live in that world anymore, and I do wish comic book companies would make an effort to be documents of what OUR social mores are. Writers have a role to play (we've had that discussion before), but artists are largely to blame on this particular issue. It's one thing not to write about people who are not white males. It's another to do so, and then have your intent subverted by sexually objectifying art.

    Uncanny X-Men has, since the 80s, been a book with an international cast and strong female characters. Sadly, it's a franchise that's too often fallen prey to cheesecake art that completely undermines those qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry Mory, but again I must support Colin, Martin and others. While there are costumes that are objectifying (Emma Frost's, Star Sapphire's), a one piece bathing suit just isn't. Nor are fishnets necessarily objectifying. Or a skirt. Or even Power Girl's "window".

    It's about HOW that costume is used to portray the woman wearing it. Nothing wrong with a skirt... until artists start doing lascivious "upskirt" moments. Nothing wrong with Black Canary's fishnets, until Ed Benes (another artist because of whom I will drop a book) draws her from crotch level, open legs, etc. Wonder Woman's innate dignity saves her costume choice from being prurient IMO, if that's how the art portrays her. I have far less affection for the JMS pants version (pun intended) who seems always about to fall out of her bra or topple over.

    Mory, I'm not even sure what you want superheroines to wear! There aren't many costumes out there don't show off the female form. Most are skin tight, after all. But except in extreme cases of partial nudity, it doesn't matter what the characters wear. Gratuitous poses such as bending over, or vapid porn expressions (that's what we're supposed to get from the telephone panel, Colin) are the real problem. If the artist's knowledge of women is mainly pornography, we will always have a huge problem with their portrayal in that artist's work.

    I feel like there's a rising tide of sexism in the world today, and working with college students, I often get a sort of "chill out, dude" reaction to my warnings of sexual harassment. The girls want to be "one of the boys", so they act like it's all fun and games, and yet, they eventually wind up crying in my office because they're not treated with respect (in other ways than the sort of overt "jokey" objectification, but one permits the other, IMO). We can all go "chill out, it's just comics", but comics like these have an effect on how teenage readers (and older ones, I'm sure) view, understand and come to interact with, women.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "As I was discussing with folks above, the pants v no pants is indeed the wrong debate. It’s a matter of objectivisation versus respect."

    I searched Google for Aaron Lopresti's rendition of Wonder Woman, and you're right that she looks like a person. It may have something to do with not pulling the lines of the clothes too far back, so that he's not showing off her cleavage and her crotch. But it's still an inappropriate outfit for her character, and when it works it works despite its essential sexism and not because of it. I do not think you're sexist, but I think when you claim it's perfectly fine to not demand DC's main female character wear pants like the male characters you're tolerating a sexist attitude in the comics. And that's surprising to me, given the other things you've written.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Moray; cont

    ”Colin, you're saying it's okay to present women as "sexual creatures". And of course it is, when the story is about sex. But superhero comics are so very rarely about sex (of the consensual variety), and yet every female character is drawn in skimpy outfits and suggestive poses, just because they're female.”

    Mory, by ‘sexual creatures’, I meant that women ought to be shown as individuals who have their own distinct sexual identity. Whyever would I attack Greg Land for sexism and then suddenly argue for sexism myself? My point was that some comics obscure the fact that each individual has both their own sexuality and their own way of expressing it. That’s the opposite of the sexism of Mr Land, who isn’t interested in individuals and individual characters, but instead wants to reduce everyone to stereotype.

    ”You don't see the men drawn the same way. You don't massively enlarge or add details to a male superhero's crotch, because then the panel is about that man's crotch, in a way that it has no reason to be. You rarely even see bare-chested white males in superhero comics (though it's probably more common of other races), because they're not sexual creatures. These stories are about power and good vs. evil, they're not about sex. And yet every female character is treated like they're supposed to be sex fantasies. And we're okay with this?!”

    Mory, I have no idea what you’re angry about. Every word I’ve written is against sexual stereotyping. I’ve never once suggested that women should be anything other than individuals as respected s such. I’m sorry that you’re so upset by what you think you’ve read here. But, Mory, if you’re suggesting that I’ve been making sexist arguments here, or that it’s an acceptable idea to present women as sex fantasies, then you’ve just not read the piece or the responses. Mory, the post itself was about the fact that I couldn’t bear to read Land’s sexism. I just can’t see how it is that you’ve decided that piece and my comments are sexist ...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hello Historyman:- I shall indeed track down Awesomed By Comics. Thank you for the steer :)

    I must admit that I had a keen sense that the Greg Land 'issue' was one so often discussed that I'd best not deal with it. But I do think that the fact of Marvel's sponsership of clearly sexist material is well worth airing again. Marvel really does need to be being asked again and again why it does print this man's work when it's so sexist. There is a clear moral issue to be discussed here.

    I too wonder about the pairing of Mr Land and Mr Gillen. On the one hand, I feel rather strongly that it's not my business :) And yet, why put a writer who's so concerned with a humane agenda on a book with an artist who's such a sexist? I can't make sense of it. I have to assume that no one perceived the clash of script and art to be important.

    Who knows? There's a host of possible reasons. Contracts, sales, a deliberate balancing of what might perceived as a conservative and humane agenda? Oh, I don't know. I do know that the real question - argh, I'm going to repeat myself - is how Marvel can possibly print that sexist $*!£ of Land's and not feel ashamed of itself.

    I agree entirely with your discussion of context and appearance. To it I'd add that it is the right of women to embrace, either sincerly or ironically, sexual stereotypes. Not all women wish to reject stereotypes, but either knowingly embrace them or use them to make ideological and personal points of their own. Reducing all women in comics to a PC correctness is a profoundly wrong-headed business. If WW is the only character wearing her star spangled shorts, and if she's represented with respect and with good reason for what she wears, then I'm for it.

    Mind you, 99 times out of 100, I just want her creators to give her some sensible clothes. Sadly, there aren't many artists who can rise to the challenge of that costume, and the last thing any creator should do is to reduce WW, that BRILLIANT creation, to cheesecake.

    ReplyDelete
  35. A post about DC's Voodoo that is relevant to this discussion at 4th Letter.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hello Isaac: “There are tons of examples of extreme male crotchness. Any work by Liefeld is an example (though I'll grant you it's a cheap shot) but there's been a great deal of... EMPHASIS on, say, Batman's latest Batman Incorporated suit- and did you hear the one about Green Lantern's construct gun crotch (just google the teaser image, maybe it's the cover, for the upcoming Justice League #1 to see one of the many things the internet is abuzz over)”

    Bless you for raising the issue. I felt that it wasn’t entirely relevant to the argument I was focusing on, but it’s ABSOLUTELY relevant in itself, and I like the idea that as I was writing my response, you were doing the same and we were focusing on different but related issues.

    ”Colin is saying, if I may be so bold as to interpret, that it's okay to present women as sexual creatures in the same way that we are all (or, well, most of us anyway) sexual creatures- that that is a perfectly valid and justifiable PART of a character.”

    Oh, yes, I’d be horrified if it were thought I was arguing for characters to be represented as malecentric ‘sexy’.

    ”The biggest charge being laid at Land's feet is that there is no character to his depictions of women, only blank, uniform sex-bots- that he can get away with this shows (not the hypothesized money over morals) that the guys making decisions at Marvel don't get the problem, just like the DC guys "fixing" sexism by handing out pants to women in the lobby.”

    It’s a really valid counterpointing of two daft approaches to the same problem. Yes, Marvel choose that there’s no problem, and then DC issue a blanket proclamation that flesh=sexist. It’s as if no-one really grasps the central; in a patriarchal society driving sexual stereotyping, comics have a moral responsibility to (1) take a stand against sexism while (2) focusing on representing women AND men as individuals who reflect a broad range of personal positions and choices.

    It’s not difficult.

    ”I'm completely on board with being okay with the "swimsuit Wonder Woman" as shown when Greg Rucka and Gail Simone were on the title, because she was a fully realized character beyond her appearance- and her fashion choices always made sense, never worn in a prurient manner, but because that was just what they wore at the good old home of Themyscira, particularly for battle.”

    Absolutely. And I have the strongest sense that if a creator wanted to present Diana as chessecake, you’d reject that too. As would I. It wouldn’t reflect the character or the meaning of the property.

    ”Considering the greek heritage, I'd say they'd even be justified in having her fight clothesless- not that I'll be advocating for that change.”

    It IS true. Our culture couldn’t cope, but the Spartan women wrestled in nude in public, for example. It wouldn’t be inappropriate at all in the right – here comes THAT word again – context :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hello Andy:- You snarked me? You snarked me?

    Sorry, Andy. Sarcasm meant in the warmest way can read as something else on the page. I can take a touch’o’snark.

    “But the discussion about sexism is often coupled with the outcry that comics are no longer for kids. It just makes me wonder what the good Doctor would have to say about the style of artists like Land.”

    GREAT POINT! Oh, he’d have had kittens! He’d’ve seen all of this as the decline of western civilization. And the irony is that I’d be happy to see the end of Western Civilization in the sense of it being one saturated with unchallengeable received opinions and marked by a disapproval of critical thinking. But of course Wertham wanted a traditional society modified by certain pseudo-psychological principles. He’d have wanted to go back and I’d love something a touch more inclusive and rational.

    ”I find the discussion about which artwork is "sexy" and which is "stereotyping" incredibly difficult. Of course it depends on context. I just can´t find it in me to condemn Land as the worst offender here. All the top comics suffer from the "glamour people" syndrom. All females look like supermodels. They can be buried under a building, but the hair and the cleavage is perfect.”

    One thing this whole debate, and very much your comments, has made me do is think again about this whole business of ‘idealisation’, as you called it, and of the process by which folks get more and more beautiful.

    “One of the great points of Moore´s Miracleman was that both Moran and his wife looked so ordinary compared to the superman he became. An idea which today seems unworkable”.

    You’re right. The associated issue of the beautification of everyday characters – yes, I invented the phrase :) – is an important one. And that points to a problem common in our Western culture, where difference has become less and less acceptable in the media. One of the reason the Splendid Wife and I love programmes such as Sweden’s Wallender and Denmark’s The Killing is that everyone over 30 hasn’t had plastic surgery and there’s so much individual difference in the casts.

    ”Maybe you are right and this is becoming off-putting in superheroes. Maybe this is a reason why artists like Guy Davis or Camuncoli are becoming ever more interesting :-)”

    I don’t know Camuncoli. Can you steer me? Mr Davis’s work is SUCH a relief from the wave of perfection matched with sexism,

    ”Oh, and DCs idea with the pants, this is soo idiotic. Recently I browsed some old comics and saw an ad for a Zatanna mini where they ditched the fishnet and went for pants and a punker-outfit. It looked just horrible :-) But the character is a good example how an artist can make or break a story. How lovely the character looked in the Seven Soldier mini, and how ugly in some issues of Gotham Sirens.”

    Well said, sir, and thank you for coming back for another go at this problem. Your point about ‘beautification’ is a really important in itself. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hello Siskoid:- “I have had the same experience, Colin. When I saw that X-Men was going to be written by people I liked (Fraction, etc.), I gave it a shot. But I could go beyond a single issue of Greg Land's porn tracings. And so, like you, I've found that I CANNOT read a comic drawn by Land.”

    I really do suspect that Marvel over the longterm looses readers that it can ill-afford to drop. Yet I would make a point of investing in a comic in which Land made an effort not to be so incompetent in his storytelling and sexist in his art. I’ve nothing against Mr Land as a person – how could I, for I don’t know the first thing about him beyond his work – and I’d like to be able to express that. But Land will cause older and more engaged readers to give up, and that’s no good thing for anyone.

    ”The issue is that it makes me queasy. While the word "immoral" is strong, and I can understand why Andy in the first comment (I only read the first few, sorry if I repeat any ideas here) reacts to it the way he does, it's probably the right one.”

    It’s a fair point, because I would buy the comic if Mr Land’s lazy storytelling remained but the sexism was amputated. Yes, I might be averse to his storytelling, but it’s the sexism that means that I can’t buy into it.

    ”I wouldn't say I'm easily offended by anything, but this I find offensive. Note that you could do a whole porn comic where that would be the point (Flex Mentallo #3 for example), and I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm offended by the crudeness and by the pointless, amoral sexism of it. And I disagree with Andy here where he says racial stereotypes are wrong, but sexist ones are not. You can't have it both ways.”

    It’s not the sex, is it, but the sexual stereotyping. Absolutely. “the pointless, amoral sexism of it”; I feel compelled to applaud that, but that would depend upon Mr Land’s stance on the matter of sexism. Is he really oblivious to what he’s doing? I don’t know, but he’s been at this for a good long while now. Can he really not know, for good or ill, what he’s doing?

    ”Immoral rather than amoral? Yes. I tend to think of racial and sexual stereotypes in, say, Golden Age comics as "amoral" …But we don't live in that world anymore, and I do wish comic book companies would make an effort to be documents of what OUR social mores are. Writers have a role to play (we've had that discussion before), but artists are largely to blame on this particular issue. It's one thing not to write about people who are not white males. It's another to do so, and then have your intent subverted by sexually objectifying art.”

    May I say I think that’s a fine argument, but perhaps I might suggest that the publishers ought to be taking responsibility for their own product. Land is only selling what Marvel is buying and publishing. In the end, they are responsible. I agree with all you say, but Marvel ARE responsible and they should surely be more decent-hearted.

    ”Uncanny X-Men has, since the 80s, been a book with an international cast and strong female characters. Sadly, it's a franchise that's too often fallen prey to cheesecake art that completely undermines those qualities.”

    It’s so sad, isn’t it? And yet all Marvel have to say is that in 4 months time, the problem will be gone. Fine. We can all start again with clear consciences and – key point – THEY CAN HAVE OUR MONEY TOO!!!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hello Siskoid: - “While there are costumes that are objectifying (Emma Frost's, Star Sapphire's), a one piece bathing suit just isn't. Nor are fishnets necessarily objectifying. Or a skirt. Or even Power Girl's "window".”

    Emma’s costume IS objectifying, isn’t it, and yet there are grounds for her wearing it. She plays with the sexual stereotype in a deliberate fashion and she’s certainly no fool. She also uses her sexuality rather than offers it up in a submissive fashion. I’m not entirely convinced by that, but I can see that it’s a very different business to Mayor Sadie’s “I’ve-just-wet-myself” posing. The same goes for Power Girl and that wretched window. Geoff Johns wrote an issue of the JSA where PG presented her own ideology of why ‘she’ presented herself in that way. The problem arises when everyone is represented as sexual stereotypes, when there’s no debate at hand at all. The land of Land, in other workds.

    ”It's about HOW that costume is used to portray the woman wearing it. Nothing wrong with a skirt... until artists start doing lascivious "upskirt" moments. Nothing wrong with Black Canary's fishnets, until Ed Benes (another artist because of whom I will drop a book) draws her from crotch level, open legs, etc. Wonder Woman's innate dignity saves her costume choice from being prurient IMO, if that's how the art portrays her. I have far less affection for the JMS pants version (pun intended) who seems always about to fall out of her bra or topple over.”

    Hear hear. I’m not sure where I stand on the BC’s fishnets. On the whole, I can’t see why she would wear them, and so I’m concerned. And yet I’m open to be convinced. I’ve seen some representations of her which make her look like the strongest and least victim-like character in the world, and what I’ve read of Gail Simone’s Bird Of Prey hardly presents her as anything other than strong and fascinating. (I know little of Mr Benes, though what I have seen has often concerned me. The type of shots you describe … where are the principled editors these days?)

    ”Mory, I'm not even sure what you want superheroines to wear! There aren't many costumes out there don't show off the female form. Most are skin tight, after all. But except in extreme cases of partial nudity, it doesn't matter what the characters wear. Gratuitous poses such as bending over, or vapid porn expressions (that's what we're supposed to get from the telephone panel, Colin) are the real problem. If the artist's knowledge of women is mainly pornography, we will always have a huge problem with their portrayal in that artist's work.”

    Oh. The telephone panel wasn’t meaningless, but offensive. Sigh.

    ”I feel like there's a rising tide of sexism in the world today, and working with college students, I often get a sort of "chill out, dude" reaction to my warnings of sexual harassment. The girls want to be "one of the boys", so they act like it's all fun and games, and yet, they eventually wind up crying in my office because they're not treated with respect (in other ways than the sort of overt "jokey" objectification, but one permits the other, IMO). We can all go "chill out, it's just comics", but comics like these have an effect on how teenage readers (and older ones, I'm sure) view, understand and come to interact with, women.”

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  40. Siskoid cont;

    I found exactly the same process at work with many of my sixth form students, Mr S. There’s been an assumption on the part of government and the media that the feminist argument is over, and folks have forgotten that the next generation haven’t experienced and learned what the previous ones did; as a result, not only has the debate fallen often into decay, but a host of forces which for one reason or another want to undercut feminism have gone to work with a great deal of success. It can be a sad and terrifying thing to come across hundreds of men and women with no idea of feminism really is, to realise that there’s not all these young folks who’ve not rejected it, as is their right, but who never really were helped to grasp it in the first place. And culture does have a part to play, it does. Those in charge of various heights of the culture don’t want that accepted, because it would compel their behaving ethically, but of course culture affects the folks who live within it. That’s what the purpose of culture is.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hello Colin!

    Thanks for your kind words.

    Camuncoli has done some of the new Conan for Dark Horse and is currently doing Hellblazer. Personally I am less sold on his Hellblazer, but it is very different than the Conan. Insofar he is one of the more interesting of the tide of new artists currently working for the Big Two.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just as point of reference on the fishnets, and you can maybe take that as a measure of how Black Canary was portrayed in the early 80s when I started reading comics, but I never "understood" what I was reading as sexually objectifying lingerie. To me, it always looked like blue pants with a cross-hatch pattern on them.

    Only later did it suddenly start looking like the most impractical piece of undergarment, and when I say "look", I blame the artists who put Canary in compromising poses and made the fishnets look like sexwear.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You know, after reading a lot of the opinions about how to draw the females, about posing and "upskirt" moments, it astounded me that not one threw the magic word "Manga" into the ring.

    I personally can´t stand Manga - the lone exception is Lone wolf and Cub - , and I really hated the phase of american comics aping it. The X-books particulary had their pseudo-manga phase, and with fanboy glee a lot of artists especially copied the japanese obsession with sexism. Which, according to some things I have read, is not the same thing there. Or worse. I don´t know, and I don´t particulary care.

    But a lot of the complaints about the deciption sexual stereotyping can be followed directly to the Manga craze where those elements were lifted without rhyme or reason.

    ReplyDelete
  44. “I searched Google for Aaron Lopresti's rendition of Wonder Woman, and you're right that she looks like a person. It may have something to do with not pulling the lines of the clothes too far back, so that he's not showing off her cleavage and her crotch. But it's still an inappropriate outfit for her character, and when it works it works despite its essential sexism and not because of it. I do not think you're sexist, but I think when you claim it's perfectly fine to not demand DC's main female character wear pants like the male characters you're tolerating a sexist attitude in the comics. And that's surprising to me, given the other things you've written.”

    Well, I admire and appreciate the passion you invested into this, Moray, and given how vital this issue is, it’s understandable that passions are high. And if I feel passionately that I’m very much not ‘tolerating a sexist attitude in the comics’, I can’t prove that by shouting the same points again.

    The point is that no type of clothing is in its own terms sexist. If anyone says that women must never wear anything that’s associated with sexism, they’re simply imposing another blanket standard. Whatever a woman chooses to wear is what’s cool within the broad constraints of the law. The context of the individual’s life, their choices, their thoughts and feelings, is what gives that person’s choices its meaning, and not what anyone else thinks of it. That means that a feminist future isn’t one in which sexuality isn’t expressed, but one in which it’s expressed in a variety of forms. It’s also one in which the display of naked flesh isn’t given a sexual meaning unless the individual whose displaying it intends that.

    How does this connect to comics and the superhero sub-genre? It means that a character who has a reason to wear a particular set of clothes should be shown wearing them, regardless of whether those clothes can be associated with sexism. WW might well wear her shorts if her character has a reason for wearing them and as long as the artist doesn’t contradict that meaning by presenting her as a sex-object. Which was what Mr Lopresti did, to his credit. By which I mean, there will be individual differences in how women dress. Emma Frost will dress herself quite deliberately as a sexual stereotype and use that to a particular end. Wonder Woman may dress as a super-hero printer at the opposite end of the spectrum, entirely innocent in her clothing.

    The key isn’t the clothes, although each case needs to be considered in its own lights, but why they’re being worn and how they’re being visually represented. Would I prefer Wonder Woman not to be wearing her running shorts? I’d prefer a skirt, as I said above, to be removed when necessary. I’d probably prefer long trousers too, given that Mr Lopresti's skill and restraint is rare; but then, it’s the editors job to make sure that the art is relevant and acceptable. We shouldn’t be editing appropriate costumes because the artists aren’t up to it; that’s putting cart before horse. Would I find any such costume acceptable for Kitty Pryde? Absolutely not. Do I find Psylocke’s costume sexist nonsense? I do. It’s impractical , it tells us nothing of her character, and it represents an adolescent prurience. Each costume in context is the only way forward.

    There’s nothing sexist about a pair of shorts. The issue is far more complex than that. And there’s nothing that’s supportive of sexism in being willing to think about each case in context.

    But I might suggest that insisting that all women are represented as sharing one attitude, one sexuality, one dress code, one code of behavior, certainly would be paternalistic, if not sexist itself.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hello Siskoid:- Thank you for the Voodoo link. I shall be following it up immediately ...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hello Andy!:- I thought we persevered with a debate and generated some useful steps forwards, actually. I'm glad we DID persevere :)

    And my thanks for the steer re: Mr Camuncoli. Of course, I know you're a big Conan fan and indeed, if my memory serves correctly, a Hellblazer one too. I shall keep my eyes peeled for example of Mr C's work.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mr Siskoid, I entirely agree with you, both about my intial understanding of the BC uniform and the way in which it's been represented by artists who've focused on the possibility for sexism.

    The truth is that a great many of those early BC stories don't look, as you say, tacky in the context of their times. The Alex Toth forties tales for example look quite charming, and his latter illustrations of the character often shared that. My feeling is that the constant pornographisation of the culture means that those stockings are toxic, but I'm up for a creative team convincing me as regards the meaning she gives to the costume while presenting it in a way which isn't gratuitous.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Taking on only one aspect of the matter, that being the issue of Land drawing Uncanny currently, leaves me torn. One one cynical hand, I appreciate that it will in all likelihood result in a Gillen-written comic gaining a much larger readership than it might have done otherwise, which pleases me in that it advances Kieron's standing in the comics world.

    On the other, purist, hand of course we have the fact that I can't really bring myself to buy a Land-drawn comic and so I must deprive myself of Gillenised goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  49. All they really need is blue tights underneath and they become a pattern again. And have them be drawn as lines, not as meticulously rendered 3D texture.

    See how that dovetails into other debates on your fine blog? Super-detailed art as distraction from story?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I guess I'll take Isaac's word for it that the male characters are being oversexed as well, though I've got to say I don't see it.

    To get back to the Greg Land point: Colin, you really should send the Marvel editors an e-mail at officex@marvel.com (the address listed in the Uncanny X-Men letter pages). Let them know that they'll be losing your business because of Land's artwork.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Hello Andy:- your point is a fascinating one, and it means that once again I realise how little I grasp about the facts of the influence of anime and manga on the American comic.

    Sources for such a well-after-the-event will be readily accepted here at TooBusyThinking :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hello Matthew:- you catch me sitting in the corner of a family gathering tapping out answers when it doesn't seem rude and inappropriate.

    I too want my Gillen to have the most successful career possible. That's what we wish for the folks whose work we admire, isn't it?

    And I'm sure that Mr Land adds X-thousand readers to sales. Yet he also seems to loose at least a few readers. And if somebody just told him to stop being such a $*!" where the sexism of his work is concerned, then those who can't bring us to buy his books could chip in with our money too :) More money for everyone involved, less negative press; result, you'd think ....

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hello Siskoid:- "See how that dovetails into other debates on your fine blog? Super-detailed art as distraction from story?"

    You, Mr S, YOU win the prize. And win the debate too.

    TWO prizes. You win two hypothetical and yet entirely worthwhile prizes. Congrats :)

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is shaping up to be a really great and useful discussion, thanks for kicking it off Colin. Since we're talking about shaping up and idealisation, I'm going to launch into a rant about a particular bugbear of mine, which is the way comics and broader culture treat female adiposity. Or, to use the vernacular word that's become so loaded as to be toxic, fat.

    Like many a man (and woman), I like voluptuous women. It's nice, therefore, that so many artists feel the same way, and want to share their enthusiasm with me. But somewhere along the line, someone got it into their head that voluptuousness is a quality manifested only in the breasts and (if the artist is pushing the boat out) the buttocks. In real life though, many (most?) women who are voluptuous and haven't had surgical enhancement also manifest their voluptuousness, to a lesser or greater extent, in their upper arms, their thighs, their calves and (yes) their face and belly.

    Now, as others have argued, comics represent mediated ideals of body shapes rather than unmediated reality. But even allowing for this, I think it would be nice to see a variety of body shapes in comics, including more realistic forms of voluptuousness, for three reasons. First, variety is interesting (in my opinion anyway). Second, as you've argued before in relation to racial and gender diversity, it's desirable that a diverse range of people reading comics feel that they're involved in and represented by them. That representation may be mediated and indirect, but it would be nice to see it in some form (pun intended).

    The third reason (and this is me being selfish here) is that I happen to find realistic voluptuousness more alluring than the less realistic kind. Or to put it bluntly, I personally don't get my jollies from looking at beanpoles with two (or four) watermelons awkwardly attached to them. (Apologies to anyone who actually looks like that, hopefully you'll agree that you haven't exactly been underrepresented lately, and I actually think a bit of variety around you would complement you nicely.) In short, I'd like to see women in comics whose adiposity is allowed to roam outside those four circles invisibly marked 'anything fleshy outside these borders is fat and that's bad!'.

    It's regrettable that we perpetuate the idea that most women can and should have washboard stomachs. And it's regrettable that we perpetuate the idea that most women can and should have watermelon-sized breasts. But to perpetuate the idea that most women can and should have BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY is outright cruel.

    Power Girl, on the other hand, is different. She has a combination of upper-body musculature and pronounced breasts that is rarer in real life, but does exist and is beautiful – see, for example, Jenette Goldstein in the movie Aliens. A bit of exaggeration of both musculature and breast size is fine when drawing Power Girl, but you have to keep the breast size within some sort of sane limit, otherwise everything becomes irredeemably prurient once again.

    In reply to Mory, I just wanted to say that I watched that boardroom scene from the Wonder Woman pilot, and I interpreted it differently. Yes, it was alarming when she used the word 'tits' (not a word I've ever imagined Diana of Themyscira using), but it seemed to me that she was complaining about the way she had been objectified. In fact, judging by those few leaked scenes, I actually thought that the pilot looked pretty promising.

    Alex S

    ReplyDelete
  55. And I'm only really in it for the prizes. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hello Moray:- I will say that there's no suggestion being made that men are objectivised to the degree that women are. Isaac is, I believe, quite right to argue as he does about how aspects of male sexual stereotypes are represented. But its the female characters which are represented most consistently in a sexist fashion.

    It's a good point about e-mailing the companies. I've often wondered if that is the ethical thing to do, to contact folks directly as well as discuss them on the blog. My feeling is that if I write well enough - I never have - then the publishers being discussed will hear of it. Whether they respond or not is their business. But my feeling is that one e-mail would achieve nothing and stand actually as an example of arrogance. After all, Marvel has to know what the opinion of Mr Land is where many folks are concerned, even as they obviously believe that that opinion doesn't matter.

    The truth is, I have no delusions concerning the influence I can bring to bear. I have none, and nor have earned the slightest right to have any. But I still think that the debate is one worth contributing in within the fun of writing a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hello Alex:- “Since we're talking about shaping up and idealisation, I'm going to launch into a rant about a particular bugbear of mine, which is the way comics and broader culture treat female adiposity. Or, to use the vernacular word that's become so loaded as to be toxic, fat.”

    Well, fat is taboo, isn’t it? Culturally, fat is seen as sign of failure, ugliness, moral weakness … Fat is to be burned off in gyms and then surgically injected in controlled amounts in certain key areas. In fact, so is individuality, for all the many reasons that psychologists and sociologists have uncovered. The war on difference and independence of thought is one being fought on all fronts and ‘they’ are winning.

    ” Now, as others have argued, comics represent mediated ideals of body shapes rather than unmediated reality. But even allowing for this, I think it would be nice to see a variety of body shapes in comics, including more realistic forms of voluptuousness, for three reasons. First, variety is interesting”

    I am so bored with pod-people. Bored-bored-bored. It’s hard to express how tedious a lack of difference is, and of the pleasure of coming upon a page of Ditko, Eisner or Kurtzman and all the individuality that crowds their pages.

    “Second, as you've argued before in relation to racial and gender diversity, it's desirable that a diverse range of people reading comics feel that they're involved in and represented by them. That representation may be mediated and indirect, but it would be nice to see it in some form (pun intended)”

    Yep. Motion carried..

    ”The third reason (and this is me being selfish here) is that I happen to find realistic voluptuousness more alluring than the less realistic kind.”

    I’ve been thinking about this. I rather like the idea that the party line – a mythical creature, of course – runs parallel to your personal tastes. There’s always a relationship of intensity between what we believe and what we like and the causality between the two is often incredibly confused. It’s easy to become intimidated from accepting the value of any such opinion, because it seems selfish and biased and nothing can be generalized from it. But nothing informs the principle than the experience, even if the way they connect is as problematical as real life is.

    ”But to perpetuate the idea that most women can and should have BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY is outright cruel.”

    It is. It’s a profoundly despicable business. It’s an enemy that seems to become more and more accepted as a norm, and in 2011 too, as if the future has arrived and turns out to be insanely perverse and cruel.

    ”Power Girl, on the other hand, is different.”
    She can be, no doubt, although it depends on who is representing her. And it’s important to remember – though it’d be insane to even have to say it in anything other than this profoundly broken time – that there are women who look somewhat like PG just as there are those who look like any other character. To suggest that PG shouldn’t be a character given her appearance is to impose yet another stereotype on women and how they look. The key to it all, as always, is to represent PG in a way that respects the women and which doesn’t reflect yet another stereotype. (The chest no-insignia has to go, I suspect.) It worries me that DC’s diversity campaign may put long pants on all their female characters while leaving every other problem intact.

    ”In reply to Mory, I just wanted to say that I watched that boardroom scene from the Wonder Woman pilot, and I interpreted it differently…. I actually thought that the pilot looked pretty promising.”

    And I never thought I’d say it, but I’d like to watch that pilot now …

    ReplyDelete
  58. Siskoid: I've considered the matter.

    THREE PRIZES!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Colin, you really should write a letter. This is not some theoretical discussion detached from reality. This is about an editor making a mistake by not noticing a crucial problem with the art he's selling. This editor is a human being just like you or me. His name is Nick Lowe, and the reason I know that he can be reached at officex@marvel.com is because he put that e-mail in each of his books to invite people to write in. He's read and responded (in the letter pages) to a lot of criticisms less substantial than what you're bringing up. And if you write him, it's not even so far-fetched that he'll ask Greg Land to be more sensitive.

    I once witnessed a room full of brilliant musical academics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who talked for hours about different ways of looking at improvisation. Then they were asked if one of them could come to the piano and improvise, and I swear the room went dead silent for over 60 seconds. Everyone in the room looked nervously at everyone else, waiting for someone else to go to the piano. Finally the head of the whole musicology department slowly marched down to the piano out of embarrassment, and he played the most marvelous improvisation you can imagine but not before stopping by the piano and insisting that he didn't know where to start. It took more prodding to actually get him to sit down and put his hands on the keys, because he'd spent so much time thinking about music that he'd forgotten that music is supposed to be played.

    Let's imagine a likely scenario. Nick Lowe has heard the criticisms of Greg Land, which are mainly about how he traces porn stars. Despite all these criticisms he still sells, so Mr. Lowe chalks up the criticisms to a matter of taste in aesthetics, with a small minority not being a fan of photoreferencing, and tells Mr. Land to just do what he does. What else should he do?- if you fired every artist whose style didn't appeal to everyone, you wouldn't have any artists left! Let's say, in this conjectural scenario, that Mr. Lowe has never given as much analytical thought to Land's representation of women as you have. Let us further imagine that in this little niche market Nick Lowe does not want to lose customers when he can easily do something about it, but has no idea that this is the case.

    Now, maybe that's not true. Maybe Nick Lowe and his associate editors Jordan White and Daniel Ketchum are all proud sexists who have made it their mission in life to make money by demeaning women. But maybe they're just imperfect people like anyone else doing a job as well as they can, who will appreciate hearing that there's a way they can not lose readers. If you don't feel you've "earned the slightest right" to be heard, what difference does that make? The ideas you're raising in this blog post deserve to be heard and considered, do they not? And you're good at laying out ideas in a reasonable and considered manner. That is what you do in each and every post here.

    So just tell them what you've said: that you are a fan of Kieron Gillen's humanistic approach to the X-Men, but are not willing to suffer through such-and-such very clear problems with Greg Land which can be seen in such-and-such examples. You're consistently eloquent, and your ideas are obviously very well-considered, so a single e-mail written the way you write might actually carry some weight. Or maybe not, but what good does it do to even talk about this if you're not willing to write a single letter to fix it?!

    ReplyDelete
  60. On the subject of showing male "package"...

    I don't think it "objectifies" men, but I think it's still part of the adolescent way some artists approach comics. Let me try to make that clear.

    Most superhero comics readers (and indeed, artists) are male. Males tend to respond to sexual imagery much more than females. Most females, if shown the picture of a largely drawn package or faux-phallus (like a Green Lantern with a giant crotch-gun) are not going to be titillated by it, and most likely will go "ick". So my question is: Who are they drawing those phalli FOR?

    If a certain segment of the male readership is attracted to female objectification, can we say the same of a segment of the female readership? I don't think so. Perhaps those artists are trying to be fair in their own misguided way. What's good for the gander, so to speak.

    But the picture I have in my mind is that of snickering schoolboys drawing breasts and upskirts and crotch guns and outrageous violence, giggling as they show these subversive pictures around the school yard, away from teachers' eyes. Am I wrong? "Haha, I drew a big pee-pee! Aren't I outrageous! I bet I can get that by an editor, those guys are asleep at the switch anyway." (No, strike that, the editor is the giggling schoolboy being shown the picture by the bushes.)

    No, I can't see women being interested in that kind of thing. Of course, there might be a large segment of the gay male readership who likes that sort of thing. But since I don't want gratuitous cheesecake in my books, I also can't condone gratuitous beefcake.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I was reading along, a lot of nice points made, and then Andy's post about manga made me come to a screeching halt. Manga has a lot of the same problems as American comics with sexism, but the I find the idea that manga comics has had any affect in American comics concerning sexism contemptible. As if things were hunky-dory before this outside influence sunk it's horribly tainted claws into our fair industry. People like Liefeld were drawing stick thin waists and missile tipped breasts way before manga had any affect in American comics. And the idea that Lone Wolf and Cub is some strange stand out in a sea of corrupted sexual politics shows an ignorance of manga that helps create shallow blanket statements like that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I can agree with you entirely that Greg Land is a bad artist who objectifies women. I can agree that he is among the worst out there when it comes to presenting women as sexbots (props to whoever wrote that term first). I can agree with you that such junk should have no place in comics.

    My question, then, is where is the line drawn? So many artists draw women overly endowed, so many female characters are represented poorly. I'll give Power Girl a slight pass because of the fact that some artists and writers have made her character work. Emma Frost, too. Even ignoring the obvious crap (e.g. Lady Death, Tarot) there are a lot of problematic female characters in comics. What about Voodoo, the weak super-hero who was a stripper? Or Vampirella? There are readable Vampirella comics, even fun ones. Her costume is 2 strips of fabric, though, and I'd be embarrassed to be caught reading the few Vampi comics I own. Then there's Psylocke who fights crime in a bathing suit, that woman in JSA whose costume looks like disconnected strips, Huntress in her belly shirt (still can't believe they got rid of her good costume), Rogue unzipping her costume past her breasts, Star Sapphire, etc.

    Moving on to artists, Ed Benes is guilty of a lot of the same crap as Land, Jim Lee reconfigured the X-women as sex objects, Frank Miller put prostitutes in most of his modern work... even the average comic book artists draw super-heroines as overtly sexualized.

    So, in the interest of furthering the discussion, if Land deserves not to get your business, who does? Is your criteria sexualization + other deficiencies, or is the reduction of female characters to sexbots enough?

    I applaud your takedown of Land and the deficiencies in his work. Now what?

    - Mike Loughlin

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hello Siskoid:- Forgive me, but I can think of a few cases, inspired by the above, where there's a measure of that objectivication going on. And of course there's the wider issue that all that focus on muscles and a form of male beauty - something which has become far more prevelant over the years following the Mravel Revolution's revolt into oddness - is a serious problem in itself.

    Yet I'm with you 100% that what we know of how such symbols are read indicates different responses between different those with different genders and sexualities.

    I find your comment about certain schoolboys to be worryingly compelling. I would hope not, wouldn't you? And if so, I would assume that it's as a rule a very small number of people. I find the idea of the artist and editor who doesn't care, who accepts body fascist norms as 'just the way things are', to far less disturbing, although still depressing, to a few folks who frame their sense of transgression in such a way.

    As for the question of gay men and their responses to such texts, I've no knowledge beyond a few friends who love comics and seem to perceive texts in a remarkably similar way to me. By that I don't mean - I REALLY DON'T MEAN - that you were stereotyping in any way. You say 'might' and that's exactly the word I'm responding to in order to discuss my own understanding of how different folks respond to texts. I know a fair amount of sociology and psychology about responses to media texts, but I know little beyond the anecdotal of the range of responses of a whole host of communities. I wonder if there are splendid studies out there concerning such issues. I wrote in a piece about Sam Cooke a month or so ago in this blog about how I wish someone had got out studied the meaning of comic books in the 40s and 50s from the point of view of the types of consumers who rarely left detailed records. Today's audiences are far more likely to leave records and to discuss matters in public forums, but it would be good to see some gifted researchers and writers doing some work to pull all that together.

    Because I'd like to know, I really would.

    Gratuitous cheesecake that reproduces insidious sexual stereotyping without irony or heart? Unless it's a book that's created and sold for that purpose, I find it hard to say anything but 'Pah!'.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Hello Mory:- and I owe you a sincere apology. I fear I've spelt your name wrongly in the above and I do apologise. No disrespect was intended, I do promise you.

    That's an absolutely enchanting story you write concerning the musicians. And I mean when I say that I'm pleased I kicked off this topic simply because I got to read that.

    Your argument is a compelling one, and it's one that I'll be mulling over. If I do act on it, I'll do so in the spirit of a private citizen and not refer to it here. But my feeling remains - and I hope that you'll know that I don't write about things insincerely on this blog - that I haven't the right to go knocking on anyone's door with my concerns. Of course, I accept fully that everyone has that as individuals, but .....

    You've raised a fine point. It makes me uncomfortable, but that only means that it IS a good point and needs considering. You have my word I'll consider your points.

    "Or maybe not, but what good does it do to even talk about this if you're not willing to write a single letter to fix it?!"

    Well, my working assumption has always been that I am communicating my ideas. The piece has been up for about 36 hours and there's well on the way to 400 unique visitors dropped in. By which I mean that public debate is in itself a valid form of expressing opinion. And I also just can't help but feel that's it's more appropriate to discuss matters here.

    But I can't say I'm sure .... :)

    So, you raise an important issue. I'm grateful to you. And I will agree with the implication of what you say when you write "Maybe Nick Lowe and his associate editors Jordan White and Daniel Ketchum are all proud sexists who have made it their mission in life to make money by demeaning women." Well, of course they're not. Which is why I discuss matters in terms of a Common Comics Culture. My argument has always been that folks are acting in ways which undercut their own beliefs, not in ways which further them. Culture does that to folks. It takes folks who are passionately anti-sexist and by the ubiquity of its presence legitimizes the production of sexist material by them.

    Or of course, folks just might see that Mr Land's work, for example, is just harmless fun. I'd sigh at that, but I certainly couldn't believe that Marvel is knee-deep in sexists. I really couldn't. But that the comic's world is shaped by a culture which legitimizes certain representations of women .... Well, that's the hypothesis I'd put my money on.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "And the idea that Lone Wolf and Cub is some strange stand out in a sea of corrupted sexual politics shows an ignorance of manga that helps create shallow blanket statements like that!

    I didn´t say it stood out. It was just the only manga I bought more then 2 issues and later watched the movies because it captured my interest and I thought the artwork lovely. I tried quite a few manga and anime, of all genres, when it became big, and discovered they are not for me.


    Of course Liefeld did his "work" before manga became an influence, still after the manga-craze - i.e. big sales - a lot of superhero-comics played with visual elements of it. And a lot of poses appear to be lifted straightaway from manga. It is a valid influence. No artist lives in a vacuum.

    And sometimes it is done deliberatly. There was this cover on one of those doomed Heroes for Hire revivals for instance which on some boards was heatedly accused of being a representation of the sub-genre of "tentacle-rape" stuff. A hommage, a joke or a deliberate attempt to create buzz for a comic which was DOA? I don´t know, but it sure pushed some buttons.

    Doubtless there are a lot of fine manga out there and a hundred nuances of sub-genres which concentrates on, let´s say, the narrower aspects of culture. In a way which in american mainstream-comics would be unthinkable.

    But the question how much the simpler aspects of manga influenced todays art-style is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hello Joe:- First of all, my sincere apologies to both you AND Andy. I made a serious mistake when I didn't ask Andy about that blanket comment about Japanese culture. Considering that I argued with absolute conviction in the Sequart interview I did with Julian Darius just last week that I reject any such blanket view of Japanese culture, I ought to just have asked Andy for some clarification of his point. He and I are used to disagreeing in a friendly but committed way. I really should have done so. In such a way could Andy have supported or modified his view and you wouldn’t have felt it necessary to take him on in such a forceful way.

    But I was tired after a very trying day and I made a poor judgment. I wanted to avoid seeming to be an expert on something which I'm not, and I wanted to sign up that I was willing and eager to do alot more research into the matter, and so I focused on my own ignorance rather than discussing a key issue. I hate the thought of seeming to be able close debates on matters of which I’m ignorant, and I was distracted by the issue of my ignorance of Manga and I didn’t sign up the line about Japanese Culture, which – it’s to my shame to mention in connection with this – I studied for my degree at York University. So, I apologise to everyone, including both yourself and Andy. My position on such matters, including this very topic, is so much a matter of public record - including last weeks Sequart piece as I say - that I took it for granted that my position would be clear. It was a bad call. Tired and sloppy thinking on my part caused a flame up here, but if I do get tired and sloppy, I'd appreciate you letting me and the poster know the mistake in a way which helps further the debate and the air of give and take. At the least, get that understandable frustration taken out on me. Believe me, in this case, I'd have taken it, though a friendly word would've hurt just as much.

    My apologies to all.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hello Mike:- “I can agree with you entirely that Greg Land is a bad artist who objectifies women…My question, then, is where is the line drawn? So many artists draw women overly endowed, so many female characters are represented poorly. I'll give Power Girl a slight pass because of the fact that some artists and writers have made her character work. Emma Frost, too. Even ignoring the obvious crap (e.g. Lady Death, Tarot) there are a lot of problematic female characters in comics.”

    Yep, it’s a brilliant point, Mike, and it’s one which points to the fact that censorship isn’t only morally wrong – with certain exceptions – but practically impossible. All of the examples you give are highly dubious. Star Sapphire and Psylocke’s costumes, for example, are simply stupid as well as sexist.

    My feeling is that the debate is all here and the rules are those which the individual brings to the table and modifies according to the value of the conversation. That sounds woolly, but it’s not intended as such. You’ll forgive me if I sound somewhat over-serious, for I am incredibly shattered though in no way down, but the problem with cultural debate in the west is that it’s so often about absolutes. Of course, by raising the question you are, you’re stepping outside of that, but the debate is so often about what is and what isn’t acceptable, as if the matter can be settled NOW and then no-one ever need think again, if they ever did at the beginning. There’s such an absence of any debate, of any informing principles, in the likes of the costumes you mention in the context of 2011, or with most of them – Vampi when she first appeared aside, PERHAPS; I’ll think on it – in the context of EVER. But all that folks can do is narrow the debate to key questions such; ‘Is that an expression of sexuality which is in keeping with the character?”; are the comics presenting a disproportionate number of female exhibitionists? (Lawd knows what the correct ratio of superhero exhibitionists is, but as a general thought-catching point …): does this representation serve the cause of body fascism or create a debate with it? And so on.

    I hope that doesn’t sound like a cop-out. But to me the point isn’t where do we draw the line, but when do we accept that the question of that should be a constant process of negotiation, on an individual and group basis.

    “Moving on to artists, Ed Benes is guilty of a lot of the same crap as Land, Jim Lee reconfigured the X-women as sex objects, Frank Miller put prostitutes in most of his modern work... even the average comic book artists draw super-heroines as overtly sexualized. “

    And it’s hard, isn’t it, to draw any lines here. I’ve read work by committed and ferociously smart feminists who see Frank Miller’s Sin City work as wonderfully engaging, witty and, save me, PC in its irony.

    ”So, in the interest of furthering the discussion, if Land deserves not to get your business, who does? Is your criteria sexualization + other deficiencies, or is the reduction of female characters to sexbots enough?”

    CONT

    ReplyDelete
  68. cont;

    I DO want Land to get my business!!! I don’t want him NOT to be making money and I live in fear of seeming to be arguing for him to loose his job, which, although that would never happen, is still a crappy thing to argue for. What I want is for him to produce work that I’m not ashamed of buying :) Where else would I boycott a book?

    At this moment, I don’t know. I have suspicions but I need to think them through. … You’ve made a point I can’t answer. Of course, I already don’t buy comics by Mr Benes because I think his storytelling is questionable. But if he started illustrating tales by Mr Gillen, then I’d really have to look closely. And I think that that’s the point; I don’t study the artwork unless I really care about the writer, so I don’t have any broad grasp of the artists in the sub-genre.

    But I’d like to take a look at those artists whose work I instinctively recoil from and see whether its sexism as well as storytelling I’m responding to. So I’ll do that. I’ll check out Mr Benes work, for example, and see where I stand.

    ”I applaud your takedown of Land and the deficiencies in his work. Now what?”

    Well, hopefully a debate rather than the impression of a witchhunt accidentally started by my own stupidity. And your question really does help me sidestep that looming problem. What are the principles which make it impossible for your blogger to buy a particular issue? OK. That’s really worth thinking about. Can we start by saying “NO BAT-PERV!”

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hello Andy:- as I’ve said above, any misunderstandings and confusions and personal passions and so on which have sparked from my failing to just ask you about that one line about Japanese culture are my fault. When you wrote “the japanese obsession with sexism”, it was a too-broad comment and I ought to have asked you just to clarify your point. My reading was most certainly not that you were saying that Japanese culture was more sexist, or that Western culture less, but that’s a reading based on my time spent talking to you. I can see how it read badly and I should have just asked you for clarification. In such a way could we have focused on that, come to a clear resolution and avoided any problems. Just as you called me on the use of ‘immorality’ in my above piece Yet these issues are so quite rightly important that clarity is the only thing that can prevent utterly unintended offence.

    Having printed Joe’s passionate response to you, I feel it’s absolutely right to print your response. After that, for both kind gentlemen, I’d appreciate it if we might only discuss matters in the calmest of fashions, accepting the good will and fallibility of each other, and working from the premise that a lack of clarity is an inevitable part of such conversations. If we just work from the premise that we’re all good eggs, which we are, and discuss matters calmly from this point on, the sun will shine, the millennium will dawn, the lamb and the lion will lie down together and the former will not get eaten.

    ReplyDelete
  70. JOE!!!!! ANDY!!!

    Joe, I'm going to hold back your last comment. Not because it's rude or offensive towards Andy or myself, but because I'd like us to pause now and take the necessary deep breaths. I don’t want to extend this to any point beyond where it already is. I've printed one passionate response from each of you above, which I think is a fair process of steam-letting. Now I think it's important for all parties to measure their next words specifically in the light of what I wrote in response to Andy above. After that, for both kind gentlemen, I’d appreciate it if we might only discuss matters in the calmest of fashions, accepting the good will and fallibility of each other, and working from the premise that a lack of clarity is an inevitable part of such conversations. If we just work from the premise that we’re all good eggs, which we are, and discuss matters calmly from this point on, the sun will shine, the millennium will dawn, the lamb and the lion will lie down together and the former will not get eaten."

    I am more than happy to take responsibility for this confusion. It's my call. But I don't want to close this blog because folks are upset about important issues and context escapes us, and I have no interest in keeping a blog open if folks can't just take a deep breath and pause and then explain themselves without any motivation other than a belief in each other's good faith. I've worked damn hard to make this a blog where folks can turn up and chat and accept each other's limitations while discussing very sensitive issues. It would take 10 seconds to sink me as the bloke who doesn't care about vital social issues, or to allow four words on Andy's part in reference to his opinion of certain comics seem to speak about an entire nation, or to allow Joe to seem like a man who's so hot-headed he sparks flame wars without thinking of other ways forward. Yet I am desperately concerned with social concerns, I believe Andy was discussing nothing but a blanket view of comics which needed challenging and not attacking an entire culture, and I believe that Joe was motivated not but an intemperate nature but by a fierce concern for social justice.

    So, can we please just shake hands, accept we're eggs who’ve suffered from cross wires, and reject the pernicious modern day waste of folks who end up destroying things that, with a touch of restraint, they'd rather contribute to?

    Gentleman? Can we clarify what we feel needs clarifying, can we leave our hotheads at the door, and would you help me keep these comments open. Because if the result of all these long hours trying to be fair to everyone and reply to everyone is that I end as a man who it seems doesn't care enough about the very principles I live for, and if you two are alienated both from this blog and each other, then, and I mean this, screw blogging. It isn't worth it.

    There are great debates to be had about the degree of sexism in Japanese and Western culture. There are fantastic discussion to be had helping each other grasp the degree of influence between the two nation's comics and their culture in general. There are things we should be discussing once this mess is sorted out.

    Can we please do that?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Sorry about that. I didn't see that you let Andy's response to me slip in there before I commented.

    But holy heck, if you end up quitting blogging because of me and Andy, I'd feel like a tool. I'd rather you just block me from the site than give up the blog. Do whatever you need to to police your site and to keep dust ups like I accidentally started from stopping you from enjoying doing this.

    So, I genuinely am sorry to both you, Colin, and Mr. Andy Decker. I didn't mean any disrespect to either of you and let my passion get the better of me.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Colin, calm down :-) No hotheadedness or alienation here at all. I only wrote todays post to clarify my Lone Wolf comment. I should have phrased this a bit more subtle, which is sometimes difficult as this is a second language for me.

    The do´s or don´t of Japan are another topic, no doubt. In this area cultures are fundamentally different. I could write hundreds of pages for instance about the topic of censorship where the original cut of The Evil Dead still is banned here in Germany after all these years or how Panini has to edit every swastika in a Captain America comic out because of the law while on the other hand we have nuditiy in shower gel ads on tv before 8 p.m. and nobody threatens a boycot or a fine. And just a few kilometers behind the border in France or the Netherlands it is again fundamentally different in all things pop-culture. Comics are just a tiny aspect of the current pop-culture, especially if they sell not over 70000 issues or less, which I think is the case with the current X-Men. (And yes, I know, this isnt a problem of sales alone, but some irony may be allowed :-)

    So, really no problem here with any of the posters. I promise :-)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Uncanny X-Men recommended Art Palette cleanser.

    Issues 168 - 176

    Paul Smith - Walt Simonson - John Romita Jr

    The issues, sadly, do have about 3 incidents of Claremont referring to significant others as "Lover" but beyond that very nice stuff. It's just a personal thing, really. Showing affection between characters is to be encouraged and there are wonderful examples throughout.

    71 comments? Hot button for sure. Not sure if you kept abreast of the issues raised at Comic Con but DC did themselves no favors in the PR department re: Hiring of female creators and diversity of character.

    It's a touchy time to be sure and I'm disheartened by the seeming indifference of the comics biz to the emerging / existing and frustrated market of women and kids. Time was somebody would get a whiff of new interest outside the "base" and seemingly you'd get a title targeted specifically to that group!

    As the point expands I fear that the use of the politicized term "base" has put me in the mind of certain parallels. If comics feels it can "win" (stay profitable) by only appealing to the base audience then they will become increasingly unresponsive to opinion that goes against the established thinking. Content will continue to narrow...Oh, I think I'll table this for the moment. Go for the palette cleanser, Colin!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Hello Joe:- and isn't it astonishing how we in our passions are often willing to go far further in being decent eggs than other parties ever expected or hoped. I was working on the basis that the only apology necessary was mine, to nip this in the bud by accepting my own responsibility for not managing this at all properly. Thank you for what you’ve written.

    Actually, I've just been popping back from the dentists - joy - with the intention of removing the line about closing the blog. But in a strange way .... I am ferociously tired after the most difficult day I've had in a very long time yesterday, and so my judgement isn't as good perhaps as it should be. Again, that doesn't reflect well on me. And yet, there's a strange sense that this blog and the space which its carved out for discussion has become very precious to me; I never even realised there were comments that could be enabled when I started, it wasn’t a grand plan. But I like the idea that, while out there are folks who slit each other throats in blogdom, in here, whenever folks pop do in, they fight hard to do the opposite. Accidents happen, which is inevitable, and they get sorted too, which matters to me too, and I wouldn't want the blog on any other basis. And in the moment I wrote that this problem made me doubt my feelings about continuing, I guess I was expressing the belief that this blog, for all its faults, expresses those principles which I really do feel strongly about. It is a daft way, it seems a blog I started in a rather empty-minded way has become rather important to me. And first of the principles I think it carries for me is that point that good folks make mistakes, but that they accept them and benefit from them by working through ‘em. Is that naive? Well, ‘yes’, and yet as a practical principle, er, ‘no’ too. And so, I've got no problem with Andy making a generalisation about comics which can be read the wrong way as long as he's cool about saying "Nope, I didn't mean that" or "I meant that for this reason". Then we can debate or not the basic point and settle the matter in the best way possible. And I've got no problem with you being so rightly and passionately engaged in your response. In both cases, Andy might have just asked a few questions of his language, and you might have wondered whether there was another way to engage in order to benefit the situation. But me? Mine was the carelessness and tiredness which let the whole problem blow up. I trump you both ): I guess I just saw an unfortunate three-sided problem here, and I would love to believe that that there are places where folks just say "Oh. Right. Deep breath. How can we move on and make this better?" Thank you for doing that. In helping find a way to foster a grand-hearted compromise, you've certainly helped me feel considerably more positive.

    My very best to you.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hello Andy: “I should have phrased this a bit more subtle, which is sometimes difficult as this is a second language for me.”

    Ah. Well, that begins to explain a great deal :-) Your skill with the language is such that it just doesn’t read that way. In fact, I’ve never felt I was reading the words of a man with English as a second language until this comment :) I wish I’d realised that before. It woud’ve allowed me to read your arguments in a slightly different context.

    Can you clarify your point in this comment? Since we’re talking about the matter of Japanese culture and the problems of talking about it in the most appropriate way, what light does your description of Germany throw on that? Is your point that Japanese culture is a complex matter which it’s hard to come to grips with as an outsider, just as Germany is? For it does seem to me that you’re arguing against the idea of generalisations about cultures here. That would certainly put your earlier comments into perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  76. In a word, wow. Certainly a hot-blooded issue. I won't offer any more comment than a note of agreement. I never understood why Land sells. Never mind the sad fact that "he traces porn!" has become so widespread accepted that nobody even mentions it these days (which is why, I think, it hasn't been as commented upon as you might expect in this case - at this stage it feels like it's repeating one's-self), but he's just... well, his works seems over-rendered, never mind the other legitimate observations you make.

    As you said, it's this sort of thing that creates the impression of come books as an insecure pastime for sweaty pubescent sexually-insecure social rejects - which it isn't, but one can understand where that cliché derives from (see further: Open Source Boob Project and various other horror stories).

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hello Smitty:- Yes, it’s a great palate cleanser, isn’t it? I took the Essentials volume off the shelf. I had a flashback of the first time I saw the Paul Smith space whale splash; it was 1984, I was in Scarborough being frozen by a gale coming off the sea, eating chips and reading comics in the company of my girlfriend and her friends, who had more earthly things to discuss. I can even remember the tune on the Walkman I’d been listening to as I walked from the station to the sea-front; “Burning Bridges” by Japan. And all that stored up in the pages of a comic book that’s grand in itself!

    Hey, Smitty, that’s a grand sentimental journey you sent me on!

    “71 comments? Hot button for sure.”

    Well, half of them are mine. But I think there’s about 18 folks contributing, which is cool.

    “Not sure if you kept abreast of the issues raised at Comic Con but DC did themselves no favors in the PR department re: Hiring of female creators and diversity of character.”

    They don’t seem to know how to deal with these things, do they? Look, I’ve been in education for 20 years, I can do this and had to. I wish I’d had the chance to help frame a policy on these issues for a publisher. It’s tough, but it’s not impossible. Perhaps DC and Marvel need some help from folks trained outside comics? (I didn’t mean me. I really didn’t. But there must be a huge number of folks in NYC and LA alone who could help out there.)

    ”It's a touchy time to be sure and I'm disheartened by the seeming indifference of the comics biz to the emerging / existing and frustrated market of women and kids. Time was somebody would get a whiff of new interest outside the "base" and seemingly you'd get a title targeted specifically to that group!”

    Yes. And keep trying too! Five years investment might win 100 years of a new demographic niche. It’d be worth it. That indifference you mention isn’t just heartbreakingly uncaring, but its economically short-sighted.

    ”As the point expands I fear that the use of the politicized term "base" has put me in the mind of certain parallels. If comics feels it can "win" (stay profitable) by only appealing to the base audience then they will become increasingly unresponsive to opinion that goes against the established thinking. Content will continue to narrow..”

    Absolutely. And then you get Land and Finch who only appeal to a sub-group of the rump that’s left and the audience gets smaller and smaller. Oh, let’s hope for the reboot and its influence

    “.Oh, I think I'll table this for the moment. Go for the palette cleanser, Colin!”

    I’ve done it mate! It was fine!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hello Darren: "In a word, wow. Certainly a hot-blooded issue."

    I do feel in the name of full disclosure that I ought to point out there's only 21 commenters and a blogger here. It looks a hotter topic than it is. But it's hot enough :)

    "I won't offer any more comment than a note of agreement ...I never understood why Land sells. Never mind the sad fact that "he traces porn!" has become so widespread accepted that nobody even mentions it these days (which is why, I think, it hasn't been as commented upon as you might expect in this case - at this stage it feels like it's repeating one's-self), but he's just... well, his works seems over-rendered, never mind the other legitimate observations you make."

    It's true. And though I assume that he's still in work and thought of so highly by Marvel because of the sales spikes he brings, he MUST be losing sales too. I'm sure the trend is upwards with his work, but I'm also sure that a relatively affluent and articulate audience, a long-term audience, is being alienated to.

    "As you said, it's this sort of thing that creates the impression of come books as an insecure pastime for sweaty pubescent sexually-insecure social rejects - which it isn't, but one can understand where that cliché derives from (see further: Open Source Boob Project and various other horror stories)."

    Perhaps we could have a special imprint for such books? Marvel-Sad or some such? Let the rump of the superhero-as-kid's-porno have their own comics and let Marvel aspire for a broader, less dubious market with less distasteful material.

    Marvel-Porno?

    ReplyDelete
  79. "For it does seem to me that you’re arguing against the idea of generalisations about cultures here"

    Yes, that was the idea. Generalisations are never a good thing, even if we all more or less tend to see things through our own POV.

    Things which are not a topic in one culture are a hot topic in another. Every culture is a complex matter, and pop-culture is just an expression, governed by a lot of influences. I would say that the average american for instance would be absolutly baffled about our german comprehension of what constitutes free speech for us. (We are all for it, and the subleties are regulated by federal law, especially what is thought suitable for minors.) And of course the other way around. You really have to be very informed to recognize the subleties so you don´t make too broad generalisations.

    And still you fall into the trap :-)

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Marvel-Sad:" perfect. Maybe they could do a crossover with Batperv, and that one section of fandom can be perfectly happy with their comics. Then, Jamie McKelvie can draw X-Men. Or, better yet, Gillen & McKelvie can do more Phonogram. A guy can dream, right?

    Why does Land sell? I think many Marvel/DC fans like overrendered artwork. No joke, my first reaction to Sojourn (Land's CrossGen title in the early '00s) was "ooooohhhh!" I thought his work looked gorgeous, even better than his DC stuff. The more I saw of it, though, the more I noticed the flaws until that was all I could see. Then, it came out that he was a first class swiper, and I lost all respect for his art. BUT his work has that pretty and superficially realistic surface that a large section of fandom likes.

    Honestly, I like heavily-rendered art, too. Not always and not more than anything else, but I have no problem with Neal Adams-influenced art as long as it is done well. Barry Windsor-Smith is a favorite of mine, and he goes to town on the surface detail. Of course, he has tons of other skills, too.

    Just to clarify, Colin, I in no way meant to imply that you were wishing Land would be fired or wouldn't applaud a change of style or other noticeable improvements on his part.

    "But all that folks can do is narrow the debate to key questions such; ‘Is that an expression of sexuality which is in keeping with the character?”; are the comics presenting a disproportionate number of female exhibitionists?... does this representation serve the cause of body fascism or create a debate with it? And so on. I hope that doesn’t sound like a cop-out. But to me the point isn’t where do we draw the line, but when do we accept that the question of that should be a constant process of negotiation, on an individual and group basis. "

    Definitely not a cop out. Honestly, I was worried I came off as a little harsh in my last comment, and I'm glad it lead to some worthwhile thought. I wasn't looking for a definite answer, just thoughts on how you might make approach questionable things in comics. Which, of course, you gave.

    My dilemma is when good writers work with artists whose work I don't care for. I remember Alan Moore's work at Rob Liefeld's studios. It was great to see those Rick Veitch flashback pages in Supreme, but I didn't like the art for the modern day sequences. And then there was Judgement Day, which featured Rob Liefeld art. I ended up liking much of Mr. Moore's work from that era, but kind of reading around the art much of the time.

    I would be very curious how the editors would respond to your concerns, and if they could do so openly and honestly without causing a problem with their bosses.

    - Mike Loughlin

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hello Andy:- “And of course the other way around. You really have to be very informed to recognize the subleties so you don´t make too broad generalisations. And still you fall into the trap :-) “

    Well, thank you for saying that. Generalisations are easy to fall into, particularly when our individual tastes and preferences are involved. And it is as best to avoid them as it sometimes hard to. It must be particularly hard to avoid such when juggling with a second language. The Splendid Wife understands something of German. I don’t. All I know is how hard I find it to grasp the slightest aspect of anything which isn’t English.

    My best to you.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hello Mike:- "Marvel-Sad:" perfect. Maybe they could do a crossover with Batperv, and that one section of fandom can be perfectly happy with their comics.

    I owe you, Mike. Family stuff, visit to dentists, weary mood; but you’ve made me laugh. Thank you. A good laugh will power me off to a night’s sleep and a renewed day tomorrow :)

    “Then, Jamie McKelvie can draw X-Men. Or, better yet, Gillen & McKelvie can do more Phonogram. A guy can dream, right?”

    Ah, but a healthy dream. Dream harder, Mike, I want to see both.

    ”Why does Land sell? I think many Marvel/DC fans like overrendered artwork. No joke, my first reaction to Sojourn (Land's CrossGen title in the early '00s) was "ooooohhhh!" I thought his work looked gorgeous, even better than his DC stuff. The more I saw of it, though, the more I noticed the flaws until that was all I could see. Then, it came out that he was a first class swiper, and I lost all respect for his art. BUT his work has that pretty and superficially realistic surface that a large section of fandom likes.”

    Absolutely. And I see no harm with the style IF he’d just work harder on the storytelling and the sexism. After all, he’s an artist. He must care about improving his craft, as well as broadening his audience. I’d hope his editors would work with him on preserving his strengths and tightening the more challenging aspect of his art. I much prefer happier endings for everyone :)

    ”Honestly, I like heavily-rendered art, too. Not always and not more than anything else, but I have no problem with Neal Adams-influenced art as long as it is done well. Barry Windsor-Smith is a favorite of mine, and he goes to town on the surface detail.”

    I’ve written of my idolization of Mr Windsor-Smith. Isn’t his work still quite magical? I even like his early Avengers work. A remarkable talent.

    ”Just to clarify, Colin, I in no way meant to imply that you were wishing Land would be fired or wouldn't applaud a change of style or other noticeable improvements on his part.”

    I hope I didn’t imply you had, Mike. I just meant that I don’t trust my words to always carry the meaning that I intend them too. All those media studies lessons taught on how texts always escape their intended meanings, and I’ve been harsh enough on GL’s work without seeming to be cruel as well as disapproving.

    cont;

    ReplyDelete
  83. Cont;

    " Definitely not a cop out. Honestly, I was worried I came off as a little harsh in my last comment, and I'm glad it lead to some worthwhile thought. I wasn't looking for a definite answer, just thoughts on how you might make approach questionable things in comics. Which, of course, you gave.”

    I thought it was a brilliant question and it really raised that problem of where lines get drawn. And it’s exactly the kind of question which every shouter needs asked of them, namely, how does all that hot air actually work :) I’m grateful for your questions.

    ”My dilemma is when good writers work with artists whose work I don't care for. I remember Alan Moore's work at Rob Liefeld's studios. It was great to see those Rick Veitch flashback pages in Supreme, but I didn't like the art for the modern day sequences. And then there was Judgement Day, which featured Rob Liefeld art. I ended up liking much of Mr. Moore's work from that era, but kind of reading around the art much of the time. “

    Oh, Judgement Day. What a terrible, terrible car-crash. Apparently Liefeld just ignored those great Moore descriptions. And then declared that Moore wasn’t the artist he was believed to be because he wanted to be paid for his work. Liefeld, in his younger days, said some terrible things. But then, if I’d’ve been given a platform when younger, I can’t say I’m sure I’d’ve been a good egg. Oh, well …

    ”I would be very curious how the editors would respond to your concerns, and if they could do so openly and honestly without causing a problem with their bosses.”

    Or if they just told me to *$!^ off for being such an opinionated ass. I do VERY much doubt that anyone at Marvel knows I even exist, but I may not have made a good impression if someone chanced across the blog for a moment one rainy morning. Strangely enough, I have great fondness for the company. I really do. Marvel and its products have always meant a great deal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  84. A little late to comment on the manga influence, but I shall, regardless:

    A nuance missed by a lot of the defences of the notorious Heroes For Hire 'tentacle rape' cover is that TR as a genre is a product not of mainstream manga/anime but the Japanese pornographic industry (which includes animation companies and comic book publishers) and a barely-tolerated but rampant doujin (fan art) subculture, despite the enduring urban myth that tentacles are often used because they're a means of bypassing strict censorship laws. Trust me on this, the Japanese animation and comics industry can and will show dicks if it needs to and 'tentacles' are a fetish pure and simple.

    I know I'm not a certifiable boffin like Colin is when it comes to examining these things in detail, so possibly I'm missing some subtext that makes it okay to directly reference a pornographic genre focused on fetishising rape on the cover of a comic book (theoretically) available to children, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it was something that someone in editorial should have thought twice about.

    On 'blanket statements about Japan', it's actually pretty fair comment that the Japanese have a problem with their popular culture's objectification of women, but I'd stress that they're acutely aware of it. Tokyo recently passed strict local ordnance governing the depiction of minors in comic books, and while the laws are lamentably a bit fuzzy, at least awareness is there of a problem that needs to be addressed one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Hi Colin, 2 cents and couple of days late here, but anyways :-)

    I've been rereading quite bit of 60s and 70s UK comics at the moment (Smash, Valiant, Action, Battle, Jinty, Misty), and also some 70s Marvel,(Man-Thing, Creatures on the Loose), and while they were mostly aimed at young boys, there is very little if any 'cheesecake' art in them. The women and men are drawn as ordinary people in various shapes and sizes with being deliberately 'sexed up' at all. The girls' comics Jinty amd Misty were full of female characters, I don't recall of any being drawn as "hot" or "sexy" (albeit their audience was largely girls). It is entirely possible to make and sell good stories with depictions of both genders simply as people in all their variety.

    So, as we've discussed before Colin, it is entirely possible for DC and Marvel to make good comics - afterall they've done it before...is it that both companies are so beholden to and immerged in the "Common Comics Culture" that they simply can't see crap when it is right under their nose?

    Nostalgia aside, there have always been a lot of crap comics, but few were as offensive and/or braindead stupid as Rise of Arsenal, or Flashpoint Hal Jordan or anything with Greg Land art...somewhere along the line the CCC has taken a wrong turn. That said, given much of the rest of US popular culture perhaps comics are - unlike my assertion in a previous post here - truly reflective of 'consumption' in the early 21st century afterall.

    Somehow the idea has come about that companies can produce any old offensive, sexist, sometimes racist, morally dubious crap as long as it makes money. I long ago got tired of watching most TV here in New Zealand because we only have 'commercial' TV and the need to 'make money' seems to excuse everything the TV companies serve up...

    Sometimes the I feel that I'm simply getting old and cranky, but then I look at most 'product' and as a 'consumer' realise 'no that really is crap;. So, absoultely you should not buy books with Greg Land art, it is crap, and there is so other much better reading out there.

    Speaking of much better reading, you inspired me to go out and buy a collection of Orwell's essays which I'm enjoying immensely, so thank you for that. Turns out the local university has a course with a large amount of Orwell as required reading, so the library has a huge wait list and the largest 2nd hand bookstore here doesn't even bother to shelve his books, they simply put them on a table by the counter.
    Siskoid? I think reviewed Manguel's 'The Library at Night' which I devoured in a single session, and I think reading essays by Borges may be next(since Manguel was Argentinian).

    Now I've just got to go back and find that post of yours where you mention a critic whose writings you always have to hand :-)

    Have a good day.

    kiwijohn

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hello Brigonos: never too late to respond, Mr B, there's so much here that I don't understand and I need all the help I can get :)

    Thank you, Mr B, for doing what I'd wished I'd've been able to do, which is open up this debate in a way that incorporates both Joe and Andy's points, which I hasten to say reflect different rather than oppositional points. I didn't know anything of the background to the tentacle issue, yet in the context you've offered, I can only applaud your point; "but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that it was something that someone in editorial should have thought twice about." I'm absolutely happy to read alternative arguments, because that's what I want here, but as stands, it all looks like we're back to that old argument again; Editors and indeed publishers need to think a great deal more about the meaning of what they're doing. In a society which likes to consider itself a secular one when it comes to morality, a healthy sense of shame is still a good idea to help judge action. Shame and censorship aren't the same thing, though it seems like a great many folks think they are, as if to criticize is to deny someone else their freedom.

    On Japanese culture and the attitude to sex and gender; the multiplicity of attitudes and roles and the degree and effectiveness of the debate concerning them was something which was always emphasized when I was studying Japanese politics and culture, and your example is a prime example of this. What I find most interesting is how Japan and the West have affected each other in their different conceptions of sex and gender, for good and ill. The student of Japan doesn't have to go far to note the long-standing influence of Western beauty and sexuality upon the cultural norms of Japan during and after the Occupation, for example. The too and fro of influences ill and good is so subtle and so prevalent that the situation does need approaching, as both Joe and Andy have written off for example, with an incredible eye on the subtlety of it all.

    Julian from Sequart was discussing one particular noxious - from my POV - aspect of one small genre of manga when I spoke to him. At the same time, we were also talking about some of the disturbing attitudes of the Western comic. I can't help but feel - and this is selfish! - that I grasp the nature of what I really DON'T know alot better now. I do appreciate your imput here, because I think it raises all the issues I was desperate for just a little more data on; the contradictions of culture, the careless appropriation of sexual symbols coded in another culture, and so on.

    I suspect, Mr B, that the 'Boffin' here is you :) I can now envisage a new BBC sitcom entitled "Oh Boffin Brigonos".

    Er, I have no more ideas about its content, but I will be working on it while walking the Hound Supreme ...

    ReplyDelete
  87. Hello Kiwijohn: There’s no latecomers to the debate, and your 2 cents is as always very welcome

    “I've been rereading quite bit of 60s and 70s UK comics at the moment (Smash, Valiant, Action, Battle, Jinty, Misty), and also some 70s Marvel,(Man-Thing, Creatures on the Loose), and while they were mostly aimed at young boys, there is very little if any 'cheesecake' art in them.”

    It’s funny to note how common the criticism of girl’s comics was from a fair number of feminists during the period. Criticisms of comics presenting a standardised form of female beauty, of certain body shapes, of submissive attitudes and so on were prevalent and their arguments pretty much taken for granted among much of social science. And yet, looking back to those days which we now regard as a primitive past, you’re right to say that the situation was actually often far less disturbing in many ways than today’s. That escalation – not diminution – of sexism from ‘stereotypical beauty’ to ‘cheesecake’ has been shocking from that perspective and it’s profoundly depressing to note how the feminist agenda has been subverted and quite frankly out-manoeuvred by a variety of opponents, including members of its own ranks. Quite frankly, we ought to be appalled by today’s fusion of body fascism with pornography, and yet it’s become normalised to the point that young girls can still be seen with their parents wearing their ‘porn star’ t-shirts/

    “So, as we've discussed before Colin, it is entirely possible for DC and Marvel to make good comics - afterall they've done it before...is it that both companies are so beholden to and immerged in the "Common Comics Culture" that they simply can't see crap when it is right under their nose? “

    I do think that the CCC must be the explanation, especially given that it overlaps the broader culture so precisely in these matters. American TV, for example, is so wearisome with it’s body-fat-less women, it’s muscular washboard-stomached men, it’s censorship of age through endless and disgusting plastic surgery, and Brit TV isn’t far behind. This stuff is pumped out 24 hours a day and then we’re told that it has no effect. Hhhhhmmmm ….. Of Course it doesn’t. Screw the psychology and sociaology of it. Everything’s fine.

    ”Nostalgia aside, there have always been a lot of crap comics, but few were as offensive and/or braindead stupid as Rise of Arsenal, or Flashpoint Hal Jordan or anything with Greg Land art...somewhere along the line the CCC has taken a wrong turn. That said, given much of the rest of US popular culture perhaps comics are - unlike my assertion in a previous post here - truly reflective of 'consumption' in the early 21st century afterall.”

    Of course, whatever the most powerful nation of the time is carries the greatest cultural influence. And in that sense, those areas of US pop production which aren’t looking out for these issues are only doing what any nation’s would do in that circumstance; sell the dominant ideologies and their taken-for-granted assumptions. When I look around the world – and here you’re the expert for the ex-angle southern hemisphere – I see cultures doing the same but with less power. The issue, I guess, is how to infiltrate the mainstream with kinder and more decent-hearted influences. America has always been the home of a considerable culture of dissent as well as conformity, and it’s often to American products that I go when I’m most disappointed by American products! In that, comic books would be a wonderful place to effect a fighting retreat in the face of the modern world’s lethal cocktail of ageism, sexism, racism and so on. There’s always been a tradition of cultural opposition in the American comic, and the very moral playground of the abstracted figure of the superhero makes it a fine place not to preach, but to do as you say; just try not to stereotype to the point of doing more harm of good.

    cont;

    ReplyDelete
  88. cont

    ”Somehow the idea has come about that companies can produce any old offensive, sexist, sometimes racist, morally dubious crap as long as it makes money. I long ago got tired of watching most TV here in New Zealand because we only have 'commercial' TV and the need to 'make money' seems to excuse everything the TV companies serve up... “

    Ah., right! As you know, I answer comments as I read them, because it gives me the sense of a conversation. And you’re already way ahead of me, as of course you would be, on the cultural relativism re: the New Zealand media. I should’ve realised I didn’t need to hint for some background on your ‘own’ media here earlier up. But how disappointing. As you know, I very nearly moved to New Zealand 40 years ago. I have always had a fond picture of it in my mind and despite all I hear for good and ill which modifies that fondness, I still hope it might …. be doing better than the nations I know better do.

    ”Sometimes the I feel that I'm simply getting old and cranky, but then I look at most 'product' and as a 'consumer' realise 'no that really is crap;. So, absoultely you should not buy books with Greg Land art, it is crap, and there is so other much better reading out there.”

    And yet, wouldn’t it be cool of Mr Land said ‘OK, I could be more decent-hearted.2 and just produced books without the sexism. I think I’d buy his comics just out of respect for his having had the decency to re-evaluate his work. You know, prodigal sons and more joy in heaven ….

    ”Speaking of much better reading, you inspired me to go out and buy a collection of Orwell's essays which I'm enjoying immensely, so thank you for that. Turns out the local university has a course with a large amount of Orwell as required reading, so the library has a huge wait list and the largest 2nd hand bookstore here doesn't even bother to shelve his books, they simply put them on a table by the counter.”

    Oh, Well, it’s always a pleasure to share a much-loved enthusiasm. I’m so glad you found the reality of the wondrous Mr Orwell’s work rewarding. He’s so unpretentious and yet so bright it can be pretty daunting just trying to right beside a set of his collected essays …

    “Siskoid? I think reviewed Manguel's 'The Library at Night' which I devoured in a single session, and I think reading essays by Borges may be next(since Manguel was Argentinian).”

    Oh dear. I’ve been reading disappointing things about Borges. I knew of them, but chance has brought about four different pieces my way in a short period of time. I did so want to believe that a man who wrote so well could be a better bloke … http://www.slate.com/id/2159221/

    ”Now I've just got to go back and find that post of yours where you mention a critic whose writings you always have to hand :-) “

    I may have missed a kindly humorous elbow there, but if I may take your comment literally for fear of not being helpful; to the right of the desk I write at is a bookshelf of critical writing. It goes; Shaw, John Carey (whose best work is shamefully uncollected), Gore Vidal, Charlie Brooker, Orwell, William Goldman, Dorothy Parker, Charlie Brooker, Keal, and then there’s m’files with just piles of the stuff. But the two I most admire are Orwell and John Carey. Luckily the latter is still writing book reviews for the Sunday Times. Sadly, it’s the Sunday Times ….. :) Gawd bless Mr Carey and a voice of sanity and clarity in all the modern babble ....

    ReplyDelete
  89. This talk about how the female body is portrayed in comics made me think of this wonderful strip by Kate Beaton:
    http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311

    Also, thanks to Brigonos for making some points I wanted and tried to make but couldn't without getting riled up. (Too soon after my first lapse of control :P I need to put some more time between me and that incident before getting into that subject again.)

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hello Joe:- Kate Beaton's strips are fantastic, aren't they? I'd never come across them before. And like all good satirists, she lays waste to more than just one side of the debate. Grand stuff. Anyone making it down this far in the comments is encouraged to follow that link.

    I can't think of a better reason to get riled up than the principles you were defending, Joe. I hope I've never suggested anything else. That all of us later came across matters like confusions of language, let alone culture, doesn't undercut how much I agree with your principles here. But I do certainly understand why such debates might not be the most compelling thing on your to-do list today.

    I hope my response to Brigonos carried a sense of why I've been keen to declare my lack of knowledge here. Strangely enough, I'm far more secure where Japanese post-war politics and the broader culture are concerned than I am with the comics, which is actually what I love on a personal basis. There's an irony there. But it strikes me that there must be a really good chance that there's a lot of folks in the industry who don't also understand the cultural meanings of the forms they're playing with with, even as they might know far more about the surface appeal of these texts. I think that goes for conventions associated with American comics too, so no wonder there's a degree of confusion about the influence and meaning of comics from other culture. Everytime in such discussions, the vital role of the editor as expert and manager comes into play. It's a heavy responsibility, but it does need to be more commonly grasped.

    ReplyDelete
  91. from the Borges article: "In Borges, by contrast, the near past scarcely exists: In that respect his historical sense, like his Buenos Aires, is without contemporaneity. His political landscape is a depopulated marble -ghost -town remembered from childhood, spookily hieratic like the cemetery in Recoleta. ... The time scale ends not long after he was born."

    This is probably quite insensitive a comparison for me to make, but I feel that the same could be said of Geoff Johns, couldn't it? Not the specifics, of course, but the idea that all the development that has happened since childhood barely matters, compared to the endless nostalgia in how things used to be when he was growing up. 

    This is not to imply there's any kind of equivalence between ignoring political oppression in one's country and, well, anything happening in the comics world, but it still was an interesting connection to me.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I misread the title as Generation Hype. Not a good start.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hello Historyman:- I think you've identified a difference between GJ's best and least involving work. His best work does indeed touch upon adult issues, whether it's the despair that underscores his stories which refer to the tragedy of his sister's death and his attempts to come to terms with that; I really do believe that Blackest Night is in places very touching because of that. The other example I can think of of a more engaging GJ's script in a Power Girl tale he spun in JSA, where he was discussing a particular take on feminism.

    But although neither of us would compare him in the slightest to the unfortunate Borges, GJ's work does lack that engagement with the world beyond the superhero, as you yourself say. I'm not suggesting that GJ starts turning out polemics, though of course it doesn't matter what I suggest :) But it does mean that I wish he'd look more at the world than the DCU for inspiration. You're right, it's a good point indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hello Peter:- 'Generation Hype' sounds like a 'Youngblood' for the new decade! Marvel will have that trademarked by tomorrow, I tell you!

    ReplyDelete
  95. A rambling response to your interesting post...

    I respectfully submit that my mainstream comics moral outrage is monopolized by watching Marvel refuse to compromise with the Kirby estate.

    Is that an off-topic response? I guess that for me, the topic is how do I respond to ALL of the crappiness out there in the universe...!

    You are correct that the artist on these books is perpetrating gender stereotypes, but there's so much good cartooning being done now, so many more good comics for women that I just think skipping this mediocre crap is response enough.

    Interestingly, I remember trying to interest a friend in Love & Rockets years ago who just couldn't get past Luba's magnificent chest! So even GREAT comics may sometimes be impenetrable for casual readers... (nevermind Power Girl!--Wally Wood made Jim Mooney look like Gloria Steinem, but God, I love both artists' work.)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Hello Solo500:- rambling is always appreciated here :)

    I love the idea of there being a fixed degree of 'mainstream moral outrage', and that a blogger, or indeed anyone else, can be entirely rational and focused in how their responses to such issues are framed. I've not, for example, decided to open up on Mr Land as an example of a campaigning spirit. The grounds for my barrage are simple; he's drawing a comic whose writer I very much admire. I doubt I'd have been motivated to seek out Mr Land's work and take aim under normal circumstances. But his work stands between me and my desire to enjoy Mr Gillen's work. Hence my piece is far more about my own personal frustration rather than any mainstream comics moral outrage.

    Normally I would indeed skip material which I'm taken by. I've certainly never gone after a windmill to tilt at. But I would say that it really is worth having a go at sexism, or any other social ill, wherever it might be. I'd not disagree with you that there's a great deal of good stuff out there, both within and without the sub-genre. But I do think that the Big Two are worth taking at their word. They've claimed to be social progressive organisations at various times. That they should be judged as such is especially pressing in the light of their opinions of themselves.

    I've not read Mr Woods issues of the JSA in a good while. I ought to drag them out and do so. Memory recalls that Power Girl was quite ridiculous in how she was presented, but she also looked as if she could take on all comers and handle 'em too. At the very least, she was no simpering example of Pornface. Or at least, that's what memory says. Suppose I'd better go find out if that really was so ...

    ReplyDelete
  97. My "mainstream comics outrage" is limited since I live in the US & have to dedicate a certain number of hours every day to flipping out over watching my country turning into a banana republic!!

    Power Girl was clearly a very specific and authentic product of Wally Wood's fetishism. Nothing generic or boring about her! And, as you suggest, built like a fighting woman despite the cleavage window.

    I did get to meet Lanie Kazan, Kirby's model for Big Barda recently. Now THERE'S a role model!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Hello Solo500:- I never knew there was a model for Big Barda. You'd think that would've stuck in my brain after reading everything I could on Mr Kirby for about four decades now. I've just googled up some material there; well, great call. And how fantastic to meet the 'real' Barda.

    I suppose every country's politics looks strange from the outside. America does appear to be going through a .... unique passage of play at the moment. I can see why Uncanny X-Men doesn't really have much call on your outrage at the moment, and I suppose that'd stand for whatever side of the debt crisis an American stands upon. Good luck!

    Oh, that does show me how bad my memory is. My grey cells were telling me that a later generation put that 'cleavage window' there. Oh, well. Googling up PG from the Wood era does at least remind me that she really was a woman capable of looking after herself and the world too.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Well DC has just reaffirmed its commitment to female creators and characters at http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2011/07/29/we-hear-you/ under the heading 'WE HEAR YOU' so clearly it doesn't want to be seen as completely tone deaf when it comes to women. September will definitely be interesting.

    Meanwhile, I've just seen someone on a message board refer to a 'greglandian orgasm'. The man has become an adjective!

    Alex S

    ReplyDelete
  100. Hello Alex:- well done that Batgirl, ah? Let's hope words and deeds will match each other.

    I've just been reading some old Twittering from a creator who-shall-be-nameless who arguing that it's hard enough for him to get work without women being given greater access to the marketplace.

    Mmmmmm. My sympathy doesn't seem to be being generated. Might I suggest that rather than being happy for women to be poorly treated, said creator and those like him just PRODUCE BETTER WORK. Talent will out, if you're good enough.

    But I suspect we're talking about winning rather than being good enough ....

    I don't want to think of a 'greglanian orgasm'. I assume it's something that is achieved in the intimate company of an inflatable doll ...

    ReplyDelete
  101. Thank you for writing this it was cathartic just to read. I was told recently that new X-men editor Nick Lowe actively lobbied to keep Land on the book. It's a damn shame, not only for the missed opportunity but also for what we can expect down the line.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hello Thom:- it helps to share the frustration, doesn't it? I'm glad the above had some small virtue there. As for Mr Land's continued presence on the X-Men, or any mainstream book, I find it baffling, as I guess is obvious. By which I mean, not that I feel he should be run out of town. He's clearly gifted and able, but couldn't Marvel have continued to employ him and also said "Less of the sexism, if you would?" If they don't, it means they're sending out a message about what it is that they consider ethical. And as you say, that really is a "missed opportunity". Mr Land would, I suspect, retain his commercial clout even if he moderated the pornfacing, and we'd all benefit from that.

    Why, I could buy one of my favourite writer's books, for a start :)

    ReplyDelete