Evilsexy

The fact that Grant Morrison or whomever would look at a character like Mary Marvel and decide that making her a pink-haired fetish queen (with stilted dialog that would seem at home with the second "Star Wars" trilogy) would be hilarious and ironic...that this is the best you can do with the character...

It's not the fact that she's turned evil that's the problem for me. Or that she was really good & now she's really bad.

But I'd like to see this with a female character where she's not automatically hyper-sexual as part of the bargain.

Take the "Dark Willow" storyline in Buffy The Vampire Slayer, for instance.


I know some of you might have your fetishes about grim women in loose-fitting black shirts and no makeup, but Dark Willow was not an overtly sexualized villainess.

Can't a female character be bloodcurdingly evil but not sexy? Can she express her evil in a way that doesn't mean really big breasts in a leather outfit? Or the need to seduce men?

Evil Mary Marvel doesn't need to wear sexy outfits. She could simply punch somebody's skull in. This was the same Mary Marvel who was sexually harassed in a "Supergirl" special and was pissed and wanted revenge. Would her evil side necessarily manifest as being a hottie with bigger boobs? That's all I'm asking.

See, I think the sex is added in to water down the threatening quality of this super-powerful chick. It's like, she's evil -- but she looks like a sex worker. She's evil -- but she could totally "do" you. She could beat your ass -- but you could totally enjoy it.

Nothing against "sexy" or leather corsets. It's just an observation.

(Oh, and for those who want to defend the iconic integrity of Fetish Mary Marvel -- I'm totally with you. Defend away. Just please don't specifically request that I retract my statements because you're obviously right and Grant Morrison is a genius who never makes mistakes.)

C.C. Beck on "What Comics Ought To Be"

The late C.C. Beck was the co-creator of Captain Marvel & the character's chief artist.

In "Alter Ego" #72 I ran across an essay he had written in 1986. Called "Originality In Art," it is his examination of basically what comic books ought and ought not to be.

Two passages stood out for me:

"Art -- or cartoon art, at any rate -- should not be produced for people with warped personalities, for psychopaths, for inmates in insane asylums or prisons...but for normal, average, everyday citizens. Just as average citizens would rather associate with other average citizens than with weirdos and perverts, average citizens would rather read about and look at pictures of normal, happy people doing things that everyone understands and enjoys."

and

"In my way of thinking, comic art is a form of entertainment. It should never touch, except very lightly, on serious subjects such a religion, sex, child and substance abuse, various kinds of perversions, and ethnic and racial matters. Few cartoon producers are qualified to handle such material, and even if they are, putting such matters into cartoon form trivializes them and doesn't entertain the kind of people who read comic strips and comic books (there are some people who don't, remember)."

Now, the above paragraphs could be written off as an "old timer's" view derived from a vastly different era. But I have heard variations of some of the above applied to everything from why rape should never be used in comic books to why gay characters can't be major characters to why Mary Marvel shouldn't walk around in a hot black sexy dress.

Your thoughts?

Fangirl Fridays

I first want to really thank all the people who have signed up for the message board. You've contributed some good topics and fine debate. Before we know it, it might even be as good as The Engine, or-or-or as...The Byrne Forums. Just something to work towards.

Strange Days

Let's see...freak pipe explosion in Midtown NYC, bridge collapse in Minneapolis, NY subway trains grounded because of flood, tornado in Brooklyn, my SO's co-worker hurt when elevator cable snaps...

Time to break out the "The End Is Near" sandwich board?

Or is life always this weird and unpredictable and this is just going over it with a neon yellow highlighter?

We've got the case in Pittsburgh of the comic shop owner/convention organizer accused of murdering his wife execution-style on his birthday. Not going to dwell on it, as the facts are not all out and the gentleman seems to be well-liked and respected in the comics community. But I'd be lying if I said that this story doesn't creep me out. And while I think the outpouring of support for the accused is awesome and justified, let's not forget that whomever the murderer, there is a woman dead -- most likely forced into a kneeling position before she was shot in the head, terrified, pleading for her life. And she died in a f**king comic book store.

Rounding out strange news, I turn your attention to the latest YouTube viral video: "Reptile Girl." This video supposedly depicts a normal-looking woman hanging out in her kitchen who suddenly morphs into a snake-like creature. Doubtful? Yes. But I only got about ten seconds into the vid before I saw an eye expand and I just the damn thing off. I don't know, maybe I don't want a call on my Blackberry saying, "7 days!" But if you have the stones to watch this whole thing, let me know if you think we are being invaded by Skrulls.

"Mars needs comics!"

Hulk Buzz

If you want a healthy, narcotics free buzz akin to 50 cans of Red Bull with a steroid chaser, read issues 1-3 of "World War Hulk" really fast at 1:00 in the morning. It's beyond mere comic entertainment; with sledgehammer-impact renderings by John Romita Jr. and effective (not gratuitous) use of motion-blur color effects, "WWH" is an experience.

As for the tie-ins...yeh & meh. Some a good. Some are clearly filler. I like the "Iron Man" crossover issues because Christos Gage and Butch Guice put out a good solid old-school read on the level (IMHO) of Brubaker & Lark's "Captain America."

Personally, there is a lot on "WWH" that reminds me of an extended 911/Iraq metaphor. If and when I decide to touch that metaphor with a ten-foot-pole, I'll let you know.

Zudammit?

Is "Zuda"' a dastardly plot by DC to co-opt & destroy the webcomic market while at the same time greedily stealing IPs like a coked-out Grinch under a Christmas tree decorated with lapsed "Valiant Comics" trademarks?

I understand the anti-Zuda points about creator's rights and all that. But DC is a business. The argument "they should morally know better than to want to control rights to characters they didn't create" and so on is really nice, but ignores the fact that DC is a business. I know a business asking "what's in it for me?" sounds evil and greedy. But if you were sitting in the chair of Paul Levitz and staring at stacks and stacks of financial reports and had Time Warner periodically checking in with "hey dude, whassup," I guarantee you would ask on behalf of your company, "what's in it for me?"

A lot of this is perspective. Yeah, DC & Marvel are real evil corporate monsters until you get that deal to write for them. Then they are ok. "Blah-blah-blah sexist" until you get that deal to write "Cottoncandy Lady" for Marv-DC. Then they're ok.

It's not hypocrisy. It's just that this industry is too f**king small. I'd rather see the good as well as bad in the corporate comics rather than just build myself a bamboo tower on the "Lost" island, and damn any comics publisher bigger than Top Shelf.

Telling an aspiring webcomics creator or female writer/artist to eschew Zuda or DC right off the bat "on principle" is like telling them to cut one of the arms off of their personified career.

That said, when travelling it always helps to carry a flashlight.

"Black Adam" the "Titus Andronicus" of the DCU?

There seems to be a bit of negative buzz surrounding DC's "Black Adam" mini-series, especially concerning its depiction of cannibalism, grisly murder, gore, and nudity.

I haven't read the book but I'm picking up a copy today. I've worked with both the series writer Pete Tomasi and artist Doug Mahnke, and I've enjoyed their work in the past. So I'm giving the book a chance.

However.

Issues surrounding "tainting" the Captain Marvel franchise with dark topics aside, for DC not to put "mature readers" labels on a book like this not only does a disservice to its readers but to its creators. Tomasi and others have every right to pen adult material like "Black Adam." And there are readers who cotton to that sort of book -- me included. Heck, I'm a horror movie fan. But horror movies have ratings so (in theory) a seven-year-old doesn't watch a woman pulling out some guy's intestines in "Saw."

If DC really wants to compete with Marvel -- put some $%@#$@ ratings on the covers of your books!


Supergirl in: "NO MORE CAMEL TOE FOR YOU!"

Whatever happened to the good old days of superheroine upskirt shots where the naughty bits were clearly defined underneath her sheer undies? Why must DC continue to "punish" their "hardcore" Supergirl fans by not offering up her nubile young flesh to the altar of the same crowd that types search terms like "Dakota Fanning barefoot?"

Luckily, Mary Marvel is there to pick up the slack. Maybe she's not as high-profile as Kara. But she has boobies. And she's a little "slow."


And There Is A "Johnny DC" Comic Coming Out About The Marvels, Too!


Yayyyyy!!! Great timing!


Girl-Wonder Auction

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, Girl-Wonder.org is having an auction in October to help fund the organization and possibly get a scholarship started.

They have an open call for donations of art and etc to help with the auction.

If you're reading this and a comic artist and you might have time to knock out a piece for the auction or donate a piece of original art, contact Girl-Wonder and let them know.


One-Shots

Yeah, I know I supported those Jenna Jameson "Porn Star" graphic novels last year, but I have to be honest and say that reading about her collaboration with Virgin Comics really knocked the publishing company several pegs down for me.

Um..things don't look that great for MJ right now, do they?

I really want to buy that Captain America Omnibus. But I want to buy a lot of things.

You know, if DC decided to put "Countdown" out of its misery now, I don't think the retailers would hold it against them.

Batman #667 Cover:
Alright, alright, I get it -- "childhood's end," life is darker now, our candy-colored illusions of yesterday are splattered with the cruel reality of the world we live in. Got it.

The real reason the new "Dr. Who" is so popular is because he's hawt. (runs)

And lastly, I want to take this opportunity to publicly say how much I adore my Sweetie, and how I hope we stay together forever in happiness and bliss -- though of course if he was a superhero most likely we'd be divorced or I'd be killed off in one of several interesting ways or I'd be a drug addict/prostitute or I'd turn evil and kill other spouses of superheroes or turn evil and become an alien nymphomaniac or have imaginary babies and go insane.

That's why I like real-life. Don't you?

Oh No! Are Ze Boobies Ok?!

From Wizard Universe's coverage of "Countdown" #38:

"Just look at what happened to my shirt, Zee! It’s all ripped! Oh, fiddlesticks, now I’ve spilled massage oil all over myself! What a day!” Something about bringing attention to a teenage girl’s chest is making us a little uneasy, especially since the girl in question is innocent little Mary Marvel. Leave the gratuitous cleavage for Power Girl and Starfire; we don’t want anyone ending up on the next episode of “To Catch a Predator."

Hey, I've had my doubts about Wizard in the past, but they're all right. You know, until the next "how to build a zombie Mary Jane in daisy dukes" custom action figure piece in Toyfare.

"Bad Girl"

Is there anything hotter than taking a character known for her virginal innocence and filling her with darkness and evil?

I see nothing wrong with these plotlines per se. Provided that the writers don't go the route of making "Dark" Mary Marvel not just "bad" but "naughty schoolgirl" bad.

I mean, with Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" she turned bad but not into a nymphomaniac. On the other hand, I'm not sure of what happened in the comics, but in the X-Men 3 movie Phoenix/Jean Grey seemed not only "badddd" -- she was horny.

"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."

"Bad" seems to have two different meanings when referring to female characters. No such ambiguity, as far as I know, follows Luthor, Doom, or the Mole Man around.

Here's Jerry Ordway's take on the whole Mary Marvel/"Seduction of the Innocent" storyline, from Comic Book Resources (via Fanboy Wonder)

“I had issues with the time that Peter David “borrowed” Mary Marvel for a Supergirl crossover, and immediately wanted to have her sexually molested in his story. Then Keith Giffen wanted her to lose her virginity in Formerly Known as the Justice League! Now it looks like the movement to gritty Mary up are finally getting their way in Countdown.

“I know there are fans out there who are disdainful of any character who is wholesome and good, and dream of dragging that character through the mud just for spite. I go to comic stores, and have heard it all.

“As to the dark Mary Marvel– it’s just playing into a few fans’ hands. Whether it turns out well or not will play out in Countdown. I have 3 kids who like different stuff, and variety makes the world go round, but I do steer them clear of most of the mainstream comics.

“They can read what they want when they are older, but I have introduced them to appropriate material first. But having every comic book feature dark, moody and self-centered teens or adults is shortchanging the marketplace of positive, heroic, self sacrificing HEROES. With dark, you must have some light. The Marvel Family and Superman were heroes to look up to, because they did the right thing, even when that choice meant sacrifice from them.

“I’m no prude, but if you want to “violate” the intent of a character, create a new damn character, will you? Just my opinion.”

The Comic Where Mary Marvel Got Sexually Harassed

The Comic Where Mary Marvel Got Sexually Harassed

A recent commenter on this blog asks, to paraphrase: "what exactly consititutes sexual harassment? If I tell my co-worker she is wearing a nice blouse, will that be interpreted as sexual harassment?"

I turn now to "Perceptions," a story written by Peter David that was published in "Supergirl Plus #1." In it, Mary Marvel gets sexually harassed by middle-aged divorcee cop Lenny O'Hara. However, the way David presents the story, things are open for interpretation, like the old optical illusion that could be seen as either an old lady or a baby.

Of course, during the course of the story Mary (this is before her "stupidification" by my otherwise fave writer Keith Giffen in "Formerly Known As the JLA") has a jones to kick this guy in the nuts, with Supergirl having to talk her out of it. The story ends with everybody deciding to take the case through the proper channels, and O'Hara pleading innocence right up to the very last scene, where he kind of gets shaky and says something like "I couldn't have done that...c-could I?"

Unlike robbery or murder or other crimes, it's very hard, unless you have witnesses, to present a clear-cut case for sexual harassment. It all boils down to the situation in "Perceptions," with Mary saying he did it, and O'Hara saying he didn't do it. The ultimate answer may lie with either party or (as presented in the story) somewhere between the panels. Only God and the two parties know for sure -- the rest of us can only choose a side or make inferences based on indirect data.

I feel the person who has gone through this or other traumas definitely has the right to tell her (or his) story -- that it's part of the healing process and provides people going through similar situations with perspective & hope. Further, I think the topic of sexual harassment itself should be debated and examined thoroughly on message boards and forums everywhere.

But one thing that gets lost in the internet debate and gossip is just how goddamn sad sexual harassment situations are for everybody involved. They're fucking sad. There are no winners and losers. Everybody is a loser. Feelings on both sides are filled with agony and resentment and hurt. You have one side saying "nothing happened and you're liar" and the other side saying "I'm really really hurt" and it's like Iraq, there's no immediate clean way to resolve it. And then you have people caught in the middle who are pressured to take sides and it's shitty for them too.

But what are the solutions? How do we define "sexual harassment"? What precautions need to be in place in order to nip it in the bud before it festers into a civic Hiroshima?

I always thought I had a pretty thick skin about these matters. I gave my co-workers a "get out of jail free" card to say something stupid. It was my observation that about 30% of these men, even the nicest ones, even married ones, would say once and only once some really inappropriate thing. They would just blurt it out something like "I'll bet you'd look good in those Black Canary fishnets." Then I would just blink a couple of times like I didn't know what they were talking about, they never brought it up again, and a harmonious working relationship followed. I'm serious, this worked like 90% of the time.

I'm not here to "sell" the "get out of jail free card" approach to all of this. Some women would laugh off the Black Canary comment, and some would sue -- there's a spectrum.

On the other hand, clear guidelines set by management might have even precluded the need for the "get out of jail free card" scenario. Such guidelines protect not only the target but the aggressor, providing boundaries.

But then other people would say such strict guidelines would take all the "spontenaiety" out of the workplace, that it creates an antiseptic PC "fantasy world."

And then what about the guy who wonders if complimenting a blouse is sexual harassment? Is "nice hair" okay and "nice legs" forbidden?

What about a situation where co-workers are having sex with each other and things go south? Or a boss and an employee? Or an artist and an editor? How are those cases judged differently?

How about women who sexually harass men? Or men who sexually harass men, or women who sexually harass women?

What about a Britney Spears photo-manip on a work screensaver?

What about the drunk co-worker who humps your leg at a company function? Is this a case for the courts? Or should one simply get "Mary Marvel" on his ass?

Hey, if everybody would just respect everybody else and follow the rules we learned in Star Trek:

Spock: "Sexual harassment is not logical."
Kirk: "Uh..."
Sulu: "Do my actions while under the influence of alien viral LSD or conducted by my mirror persona count?"
Data: "I am not programmed to sexually harass."
Riker: "Baby, there's no need for me to sexually harass anyone -- I'm HOT."
Worf: "In our mating rituals the males stalk the females on horses and try to subdue them with long, clublike instruments...I believe you humans have a similar ritual, called 'polo.'"
O'Brien: "Well...why do you think I was really transferred to 'Deep Space Nine?'"

Anyhow, I'm not here to give any hard-and-fast answers -- I'm just throwing questions out on the table. I heartily encourage debate and dialogue on the subject, on the "comments" section of ths blog and anyplace else.

And I was kidding about O'Brien. I don't really know why he was transferred to Deep Space Nine.