A brief interview with Darwyn Cooke has been making the rounds recently, where he discusses the pitfalls of modern comics storytelling, maligning the mature themes and drastic character modifications, supposedly because these actions take the fun out of the industry and make them less accessible for everyone. Numerousthreads have gone up in arms taking offense to his statement, which deserves a careful examination.
Last week's Birds of Prey #2 saw the death of a gay protagonist. Given the recent discussions about the seeming dispensability of DC's minority characters, along with the gore that's manifested with disconcerting frequency in Brightest Day's opening issues, I felt that an analysis of the death was fitting, not only as a send-off for the character I loved to read, but to look for implications of what this means for gay heroes, if anything at all.
Spoilers follow.
The husboyfner and I went to go see Kick-Ass last night with some of our friends. It has a hot star, it has superheroes, it's pretty much required viewing, right? When it was over, though, I had no idea what to think: is it satire, farce, mindless action or none of the above? Am I supposed to feel good, bad or nothing by the end?
What I kept finding fascinating prior to seeing it was that no one I knew who had already viewed it could tell me whether or not they liked it. Whenever I asked anyone they would open their mouths to respond, look at the ground and then say, "I don't know." Now I understand why: this is a movie about amoral psychotics whose behavior is almost wholly abhorrent but when we watch an action/adventure movie we expect to root for someone or another and, lulled into that familiar pattern, finding one's self sympathetic for persons who are homicidally disturbed is unsettling to say the least.
Except... I do that almost every time I read a comic book, don't I? Or do I?
Now that digital comics are becoming a more and more viable reading option, it's critical that the printed originals receive careful attention in being adapted. It's a chance for publishers to put out work they already own with just minor tweaks, a way to garner revenue from a series that's lost public attention. When I checked out the IDW app on my iPod touch, I liked what I saw: first issues for free and a healthy library of decently priced, older titles. IDW could stand to gain from increased attention in the App Store as a smaller publisher, so I was surprised to discover how carelessly the group had broken down their products for their pixelated recreation.
This Wednesday's batch of releases includes the comic tie-in to Bioware's hit title Dragon Age: Origins. While most video-game comics draw the irk of fans for their vapid fanwanking, Dragon Age was among last year's greatest RPGs, and was well-received for its progressive depiction of gay characters, so I could see where this site's readership could get behind buying Dragon Age #1. Still, I must urge you, Pink Krytonians, please, please, do not buy this title. As VorpalBunny pointed out earlier on GayGamer, EA thought it would be best to employ that Orson Scott Card guy to flesh out their most forward-thinking franchise. He may be the author of Ender's Game, but he's also a raging homophobe and vocal opponent of same-sex marriage.
Biased paranoia aside, Card is an acclaimed author who knows what he's doing with world-building, but you have to consider that regardless of how great the series may potentially be, any support for the run may benefit the writer and his cause as director of the National Organization for Marriage. EA Comics went for a bigger name to garner sales, but compromised the worth of its most sexually inclusive universe yet.They've dropped the ball here; For a title that so many players remember for its gay elves, an open-minded isn't expected, it's necessary for keeping the maintaining the spirit of its canon. And while it isn't likely that Card will explicitly include homophobic elements in the story, this is yet another example of the author's Mormon values-fueled hatred where he flip-flops on viewpoints without any logical justification. He defends communism, yet attempts to incite popular revolts against the fight for equality. His fictional characters can freely practice idolatry and witchcraft condoned by the book of Mormon, but they can't express and explore the affections that Origins embraced in its storytelling. As a community united, it would be wrong to extend him our patronage. Buy the DLC, read the novels, but when it comes to comics, save your cash for the professional work.
Detective Comicsrecently won the GLAAD award for outstanding comic book, with most interpretative commentary skewed towards celebrating the "Elegy" and "Go" storylines from the past few months, though there' hardly a nod at The Question second feature which appeared in those books. Sure, Kate Kane is DC's undisputed kickass lesbian, but Renee Montoya has had her share of female empowerment, both in her side feature and in her Detective #859 cameo. And yet, awesome as their realistic portrayals might be, these characters owe a lot to Gotham City itself for enabling their storylines. Batman's turf have evolved beyond its crime-ridden alleyways to become a bootcamp of sorts for the emerging gay hero.
Besides the stunning examples of those two lovely ladies, there's Gotham's new DA, Kate Spencer, who has her gay co-counsel Damon Matthews, and gay-in-the-making son Ramsey. Gotham's a fair venue for such a large gay supporting cast; Characters who operate within it benefit from its notoriety. Manhunter relied on Crisis tie-ins to make its sales, her co-feature in Streets of Gotham pits her against Harvey Dent and makes a better story than whatever this Abuse fellow is doing in the main story. Gotham works that way, it's got Arkham and its architecture that give it a certain taste, the backdrop neccesary for a hero's coming out.
Even the most perverse reboot wouldn't be able to out a character from rural Metropolis. Imagine Jimmy Olsen as a fashion photographer, to regurgitate one possible stereotype. It can't even begin to work as well as the characters closer to the Wayne estate could actualize. The Batman villains represent subversions of Batman's realistic elements, corruptions of fear, wealth, law enforcement. Going back to Metropolis, the only place capable of generating the same buzz within the DCU, we have villains that do battle with idealization. They're the smartest, or the shrewdest. Gay characters, regardless of their heroic alignment, need to be challenged by flawed counterparts to develop the depth that can make them stable and established characters. Gotham is more than a springboard for those minor characters vying for the mainstream, it's what makes these realistic men and women the "accurate and inclusive representations" that GLAAD is looking for, wholeheartedly deserving those laurels from the gay community.
If I had written this article for a comic book centric website, then I would have said "Top Ten Gay Moments in SUPER HERO Comic Book History" But for a larger audience, "Comic Book" still means "Super Hero."
...
This wasn't a list based on quality, otherwise the awful Rawhide Kid series or Alpha Flight's coming out issue wouldn't even be here. Those stories got headlines in the mainstream press. Stan Lee went on CNN to talk about their "gay cowboy" book. Rictor and Shatterstar were all over sites like Perez Hilton and similar ones.
Which is where he loses me. You could argue that the overtones between Batman and Robin caused a media frenzy when they were more prominent, but to argue that they're significant, or even mildly relevant to LGBT(QI) acceptance in comics simply can't be a honest statement. Doonesbury is a syndicated strip with an expansive readership, and exposed thousands of readers to heartfelt commentary in Andy's battle with AIDS, which, while we're discussing semantics, is much more of a "moment" than the haphazard pairings and character names that appear on the list. No one can blame Diaz for trying to expose his readers to these admittedly prominent, gay characters, but the article would've hugely benefited from additional, comprehensive research and more selective diction. What comics do you think would better fit the "Important Gay Moments" mantle?
Second alternate: Do Tea Parties Happen In Tea Rooms?
I keep trying to articulate the brain-freeze that sets in every time I consider the Tea Baggers' collective finger-waggling at, of all people, Captain America of late. If you follow comics blogs or, in some cases, non-comics political blogs, you've probably heard: Captain America and Falcon went to rural Idaho in issue #602 and found themselves in the middle of a "tax protest" which was transparently a Tea Party protest. Lots of Palinites got their collective knickers in a knot because in that issue Falcon notes that he - a black guy from Harlem - probably isn't going to fit in well with them. In response, Joe Quesada apologized on behalf of Marvel and promised that reprintings and trade paperback collections would have the most obvious hallmarks of Tea Party identity removed from those scenes.
I think apologizing is pointless and editing the imagery in future collections is caving in for no good reason, but I also think the Tea Party reaction to this has probably involved enough pearl-clutching for all of us, so I'll (mostly) spare you the soapboxing. Why bother, anyway, when Brendan McGuirk of Comics Alliance has so clearly laid out exactly why Captain America and Marvel shouldn't apologize to anyone. I had gone in hoping that he would mention Cap's anger over Watergate, which he does. What I don't see mentioned is that the whole Civil War story arc at Marvel was clearly in some ways a reflection of the controversies and questions surrounding the Patriot Act in specific and our society's post-9/11 atmosphere in general and that Captain America was the leader of what could be read as either the liberal faction, the anti-government insurrectionists, or both. Captain America is not a safe, predictable hero who blindly accepts orders or allegiances - what one might expect from one who uses a defensive item as his primary weapon - and the Tea Party reaction, that Captain America is somehow "theirs" or exists only to exemplify the parts of America that are obedient and approving, is an irony too great for me to capture in mere words. These are people who, in the real world, shout down elected representatives at town hall meetings, take guns to political rallies and wave signs about wanting to "water the tree of liberty," an allusion to and complete misapprehension of a quote from Thomas Jefferson that seems to praise violent revolution. Now they want to stop everything and demand an apology because the Falcon said something that hurt their feelings?
Hang on to your fanboy knickers, there's a rumor that's all of a sudden exploded on comics blogs:
First there was the story that DC Comics Publisher and President Paul Levitz had personally prevented any Watchmen 2 projects, because, despite their differences, he believed that as this would be against Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' wishes, it would cause bery bad feeling in the creative community and would be a creatively bankrupt move.
[...]
I understand now that this considered a pet project of Dan DiDio, SVP-Executive Editor. That he is determined to impress new bosses by building on DC's biggest selling comic book of all time with multiple prequel comic miniseries and spinoff ongoing projects.
So what do I think? Read on for a surprisingly detached reaction.
All over the intertubes this week there are people talking about Marvel's remarkable new offer to comics retailers, completely outside the normal publisher --> distributor --> storefront lines of communication and product movement: if a shop sends Marvel fifty torn-off covers of unsold Blackest Night tie-in comics - the ones that got people like me those lovely plastic baubles a couple of months ago - then Marvel will send them an "extreme rare Siege #3 Deadpool variant".
Everyone hang on a second while my inner editor adds an -ly to the end of "extreme" in that quote. Again.
I'm reading a lot of hand-wringing and vitriol about this, ranging from amused disbelief to inscrutable anger. Some people are saying it's a joke. Some are saying it's an affront to shoppers who might still want a tie-in issue but haven't bought it yet. One of the most interesting takes I've read is from the GeekToMe blog at Chicago NOW:
If a retailer bought these books at a 50% discount, that comes out to around $100 invested in those books. And Marvel is offering ONE COMIC BOOK IN EXCHANGE. That means that if the comic shop owner wants to make a profit, that comic book will need to sell for IN EXCESS OF $100! In today's economy, do you know anyone willing to shell out a couple hundred bucks for a comic book? A comic that you'll be able to buy for four bucks with it's 'regular' cover is gonna go for over a hundred just because it has a 'variant' cover!?
As P.T. Barnum once said: "There's a sucker born every minute."
Marvel has taken the low road on this one folks. Instead of focusing on their own product and making better books, they continue to flood the market with overpriced and UNWANTED books like DARK REIGN and now THE SIEGE. And now they're trying to manipulate comic shops to literally get rid of their competition.
Whoah, Nelly! While you click past the jump, I'll be putting on my debunking boots.
Every now and then the wide net I cast with my Google Reader feeds turns up a genuine surprise. Yesterday it was this:
A southern California megachurch pastor has teamed up with popular comic book artist Rob Liefeld to create a graphic novel series on the end times.
Phil Hotsenpiller, teaching pastor of Yorba Linda Friends Church, describes the biblically-inspired series as "24 meets The Da Vinci Code meets Left Behind."
Reading a little further, I found it interesting that the series was described in two seemingly opposed ways:
It's not intended to be a theological book though Hotsenpiller has eschatological knowledge. Rather, it serves as entertainment both for Christians and non-believers.
vs.
With a professional artist like Liefeld and a story like the Bible, the megachurch pastor views Armageddon Now as a powerful tool for God's Kingdom and a "cultural key."
A few weeks ago I posted about two library employees in Nicholasville, KY, who have been fired for preventing an eleven year old from checking out a graphic novel. I was quite pleased to see some opposing viewpoints in comments, particularly the folks who pointed out that were the book in question The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier that they could understand not wanting to lend it to a child.
Because these things are never simple, there are two updates that have come out since then:
First, the book in question was Black Dossier.
Second, they didn't just prevent the child in question from getting it, they allegedly checked it out for a year and didn't let anyone read it.
So, yes, it was the worst possible book from that series, but it was a blanket ban that they seem to have applied to every patron of the library, young and old alike.
Read on for more stirring the hornet's nest editorial thoughts!
Review: Avengers: The Children's Crusade #1
I literally clapped my hands together and said OhMyGodYesssss when the friendly staff member at my regular shop held this book out to hand it to me. Allan Heinberg and Jim Cheung finally - finally - return to this title with a nine issue limited series. I will spare you paragraphs of pontification and cut to the chase: it's not just good, it's the best thing Marvel has going, period. Read on for the pontification and petty quibbles!...
