I Should Let This Go

Especially since the trolls have come out to play, but one or two things caught my attention about the Heroes for Hire cover.

The first is that some people seem to forget that a comic book cover is the first, last, and best advertisement for the comic within, especially for new readers. As such, the image that appears on the cover not only communicates what happens in a given story but also why a reader would want to read it. Which is why this cover is much more objectionable than a similar image would be if it appeared only within the book. Within the book, the image would suggest that a rape, horrible and cruel, might occur. As a cover, the image communicates that raped superheroines are something attractive to see, and that the value of female superheroes is entirely their sexuality.

Secondly was something I saw in the Beat:

Heroes for Hire... these sales are little short of atrocious.

This raises, in passing, the controversial topic of the cover for issue #13. There seems to a common assumption, both among publishers and among their detractors, that T&A sells comics. I wonder whether that’s really true. HEROES FOR HIRE has been distinguished by prominent cheesecake art from day one, and just look at its sales. The bad girl genre is virtually dead. MIGHTY AVENGERS, with Frank Cho’s art, is doing no better than NEW AVENGERS with Leinil Francis Yu - in fact, it’s actually the lowest selling of the three Avengers titles, although not by much. And when did you ever see Greg Horn’s covers on a high-selling title?

If this sort of thing is genuinely so popular, why doesn’t it sell better? Could it be that in fact, the audience for T&A comics (or at least comics which are quite so blatant about it) is actually quite small, and that chasing them is a waste of time on commercial grounds alone?

God, I hope so. I hope that treating female characters as more than just sex objects and saying that women can be heroes without needing to be wank material for men is also in line with better business practices.

And finally, I wanted to say kudos to Jason DeAngelis, President of Seven Seas publishing. Not specifically for canceling Nymphet per se, but for listening to the objections his fans and retailers had, re-examining the content he was planning on publishing, evaluating the audience he was planning on publishing to, and then taking full responsibility in an open letter. Things he did NOT do include deny that there was anything objectionable at all, hide behind the female creator of the sexist art, or explain that what we would find offensive in America is perfectly acceptable in Japan, as some other editor in chief did.

Catching Up

Sorry about that. I didn't actually intend to leave pseudo-pseudapod porn up for a week, but I left for my sister's wedding this weekend and found blogging in California surprisingly difficult.

So what did I miss?

Okay, so no one was exactly surprised that Joe Quesada's defense of the indefensible Heroes for Hire cover was a one-two punch of denial: "I don't see any rape here, so clearly there can be no rape here" and "A woman drew this picture, so how could it possibly be sexist?" As everyone else has pointed out, it doesn't matter how art is intended, it matters how art is read, and enough people have read that image as rape that Marvel needs to address the issue with something more that a "You're wrong! Now shut up and go away!"

Also, the defense that the objectifying aspect of the cover is necessitated by the plot falls apart fairly quickly once Lea Henandez demonstrates that, with relatively minor alterations (more assertive facial expressions, zip up Colleen's suit, remove the slime on Black Cat's breast), the Heroes for Hire can be tied up and menaced by slimy tentacles and still be portrayed as the "strong, lead female protagonists who kick major ass" Quesada seems to think we've forgotten they are.

It would be nice if Marvel actually made similar adjustments to the cover. They are not completely insensitive to cries of questionable content. When retailers objected to surprise Spider-Dingus in Spider-Man: Reign, Marvel took returns and offered a less objectionable variant edition. Perhaps if enough retailers, like Mike Sterling, explain to Diamond Distributors and Marvel that they'd be more comfortable stocking a less, um, rape-y cover, Marvel would actually take the time they have to produce a cover that won't actively offend a large portion of the comics reading audience.

Or am I pipe dreaming, because selling the rape of super-heroines isn't nearly as offensive to the average fan as a small sketch of a penis in a "Mature Readers" book?

On to other, happier matter:

---

I've been thinking for awhile that, now that the Vertigo imprint's biggest titles are no longer tied even tangentially to the DC Universe, it's time for the DC characters who helped launch the major mature comics publisher to "come home," especially Swamp Thing. It's just a shame Chris posted about it first.

---

Shane Bailey might be too modest to link to it in Blog@Newsarama, but his ode to the Hulk demands linkage and response.

---

Yes, I'm just as happy as everyone else that Supergirl is going to be written and drawn as a teen girl and not a tarted-up nymphet wearing a frilly belt, half a shirt, and no internal organs. Now comes the hard part: assuming the book's any good, you have to buy and get other people to buy the portrayal of Supergirl that we as a comics community demanded. If the sales tank, DC's marketing is going to learn the wrong lesson, and we'll see a lot less Birds of Prey and a lot more, well, Heroes for Hire.

---

Speaking of Nymphet... you know what? I'd rather not. Someone else can handle this one.

---

and finally:



Someone celebrated an anniversary! (image by Kevin)

Why the Cover for Heroes for Hire #13 is Wrong

I find it hard to believe that people actually don't understand what's wrong with this cover:

Those are our Heroes (for Hire) being threatened with rape on the cover.

The selling point of this comic is that you might see one of these busty women raped. By a tentacled beast. That's just repulsive.

If you don't object to this cover because you don't recognize it as rape, you're either blind or in denial. I mean, look at it. Red-eyed voyeurs watch while grotesque phalluses strip Colleen Wing on the right and drip white slime on Black Cat's exposed cleavage on the left. The image could not be more explicitly sexual and threatening while still being displayed with Amazing Spider-Man.

Maybe you do recognize it as rape, but say, "so what? There's racks and racks of tentacle porn manga being sold. Why is this cover wrong?" Because this isn't a porn comic! It's a superhero adventure comic, and the image doesn't even match the solicitation copy. Which means it's just false advertising, playing on the worst desires of fan boys.

These aren't La Blue Girl, who exists to be tentacle raped. These are supposedly superheroes, people who protect others from rape. To show them as potential victims, to make their (potential) rape a sales feature, denies them of their capability as heroes and their existence as developed characters, and makes them into sex toys, to be leered at.

You want to know how you know it's wrong? Because a cover like this would never grace a book about men. You just wouldn't see a cover where Danny Rand hangs naked from a chain while a tentacle wipes itself off on Luke Cage's bare chest.

I mean, take a look at these Marvel covers from last year (a few covers down, where Spencer Carnage presciently forecasts Marvel's turn to hentai). They all feature heroes being threatened by tentacles or snakes, but all of the men are fighting back! Are these women fighting back? No, of course not. They're passed out or frozen in terror or cowering in fear. And it doesn't help that Black Cat, the cowering woman, was recently revealed to be a rape survivor. I mean, that's just wrong.

Look, I'm not one who says rape flat out doesn't belong in superhero stories. I actually enjoyed Identity Crisis and the "Trial of Starfox" arc in She-Hulk. But I do feel it's a very emotional issue and should be used sparingly and carefully and most importantly, should never be a sales feature unless your comic actually is porn.

Two Views of Ms. Marvel

Most of what I know about Ms. Marvel I picked up from the blogs. I gather that she's a super-strong powerhouse and leader of one of Marvel's premier super teams with a confusing back story and, um, a generous endowment. Basically, she's Marvel's Power Girl. But nevertheless, I'd like to take a moment to consider how Marvel is presenting their blonde bombshell to the potential comics buyer (as taken from their July Solicitations):

First up is the cover of Ms. Marvel #17 by Greg Horn. I know Horn mostly as the cover artist on She-Hulk, where a reputation for bad cheesecake poses didn't stop him from producing some really awesome covers.


First off, I like that after photo-referencing the face, Horn went ahead and photo referenced the hair too, giving the finished image a more natural look (rather than looking like a real person wearing a yellow foam wig). I also like how the lighting and speed lines emphasize her smile and the flaming bits of debris suggest how powerfully she broke through. The head seems maybe too big for her body, but the rest of her seems reasonably well proportioned. Over all, this is a very good representation of a strong woman who really, really enjoys beating the crap out of doors.

And then we have Frank Cho's cover for Mighty Avengers #5:


Oy.

I don't mind that Ms. Marvel is shown getting shot in the back; I assume that's a scene in the comic itself and seeing the leader and strongest member of the team taken out on the cover shows the seriousness of the threat. It's that she's shot off to the side, facing away from the viewer, while Ant-Man--Ant-Man?--gets to look badass front and center.

Okay, we get it. Frank Cho likes to draw women's butts. But this is getting ridiculous, especially after the ass-tastic covers for Mighty Avengers #3 AND Mighty Avengers #4. Why can't Ms. Marvel face the viewer, so we can see her reaction to the attack? Why can't we empathize with her, rather than gaze at her?

Is she a character, or is she an object?

Greg Horn has his answer, Mr. Cho. What's yours?

I'm a Sucker

No, I didn't pick up the World War III "mini-series" (but if anyone who read them tells me they're any good, I still might).

No, I'm an idiot for buying Justice League of America #8. I had dropped the series with issue 6, when I figured that a Brad Meltzer Justice League just wasn't for me, but then they go and have a crossover with Justice Society of America, which I am enjoying, so I thought, what could be the harm?

Oy.

This comic pissed me off in so many ways that it's hard to know where to start. As always, the most frustrating thing about Meltzer's writing is that it is has so many good ideas running through it that my hopes get raised, only to be dashed against the rocks of piss poor writing. For example, this issue has a fist fight between BATMAN and KARATE KID! (EDIT: better link here.) Unfortunately, it happens ALMOST ENTIRELY OFF-PANEL so that Meltzer can devote nearly seven full pages to Arsenal being unable to play capture the flag without breaking his neck!

(Update: the fight is actually seen in Countdown #50, which published one month later)

Other things that pissed me off include (but are not limited to):

The cover.

Michael Holt, Mr. Terrific, is, in fact, smart enough to beat BOTH Black Canary and Green Lantern at chess blindfolded without resorting to a trick I learned when I was seven. That's the kind of stunt Robin should be pulling. When the World's Third Smartest Man does it, he just looks like a chump.

That two page spread of the two teams "just hanging" by Shane Davis is just awful. First off, if this is such an emergency that they called in the full roster of both teams in under twenty minutes, maybe they shouldn't be standing around swapping stories and drinking, god help me, espresso out of dainty cups. Then there's the blocking. Though the dialogue suggests they're just milling, they are all facing front and turning awkwardly to talk to each other. If this had just been broken up into four panels on each page, it could have looked so much better.

And then there's the mis-characterization on that page. I know Meltzer has a reputation for "knowing" these characters, but he doesn't seem to here. Why is Stargirl gushing over Wonder Women? They've met before. Heck, they've eaten Thanksgiving dinner together. Twice! Why's Black Canary shutting down her old boyfriend Dr. Mid-Nite? He's giving her a compliment, not hitting on her. Why does Power Girl know Batman's real name? And for the love of God, why is Hawkgirl self-conscious about being at a JSA/JLA team-up? This ain't her first rodeo!

But all of that pales, PALES, in comparison to that last page. (Once again, I lament the lack of a scanner and ask for the aid of someone else in the blogging community. Thanks, uh, Wizard!)


Honestly, it's like a When Fangirls Attack nightmare. Ostensibly, it's supposed to show off the two new chairpersons of the JLA and the JSA, with the kicky awesomeness that both are former Birds of Prey! Yeah, you've come a long way, babies!

But let's face it, that's not the way it plays, is it? First, there's the sub-Greg Land photo referenced faces, which don't match the bodies they're attached to. They're not porn faces, exactly, but Power Girl's come-hither glance and lush, slightly parted lips don't scream leadership either. Black Canary's okay... but she's literally pushed into the background by Power Girl's swinging hips and bulging chest. Are these the leaders of the greatest heroes on Earth, or a couple of party girls?

And then there's the head shots. I know the roll call's traditional, but the five squares with question marks in them makes it look less like a comics page and more like a JLA/JSA fighting game with unlockable Legion of Superhero characters...

... nevermind, I would totally buy that game...

No, what pissed me off was the JSA roll call. Obsidian isn't on it! It's bad enough he was reduced to "wallpaper duty" in the first four issues of Justice Society, now he isn't even on the team? That sucks! Where the hell is he? Where's Todd Rice?

... oh, he's over here in Manhunter. Oh good. Now there's a title that's worth the price!

"Lance"? Really? "Lance"?

I'm not a fan of the theory that every comics character with the same last name is related to one another. I understand it, since everyone with MY last name, "Padnick", IS related to me (ah, Ellis Island), but "Gordon" is a common name, so the Commissioner of Gotham City and the original host of Eclipso aren't necessarily related at all. AND I don't see how it helps the story to know that Jim Harper, The Guardian, happens to be the uncle of Roy Harper, The Red Arrow.

...

...that said...

If there is any justice in the world, it should somehow get back to the rest of the Green Lanterns that Guy Gardner is somehow, someway related to LANCE Gardner.

Oh please oh please oh please....

Anti-Neutral

In this post, I argued that in modern context, a character who is straight, white, and male is read as a blank slate, neutral, with no connotations attached to him. It's racist, sexist, and heteronormative, but it's true. Asked to describe the Spirit in issue one of Darwin Cooke's series, a character calls him a "big blue average with a distraction stuck on his face." He's not, of course. He's tall, well muscled, has brown hair. But he's straight, white, and male, and therefore "average."

A "big blue average with a distraction stuck on his face" is also a pretty good description of The Question. He has a mask that erases his face, takes away his features. His schtick is that he really could be anyone. That is, anyone who is a straight white man...

But that's not true anymore, is it? That Question, the Vic Sage question, died, and his replacement is, a ha ha, Renee Montoya.

A Gay Latin Woman.

A gay latin woman with no face.

Does that work? I'd be really happy if it did, because it'd mean that being gay or being a latina is NOT your identity or your definition. That the face, the individual, is what's important, and take that away and Montoya becomes nobody, could be anybody.

Could this be the new neutral?

Great Responsibility

It's the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In honor of my sister, the most fervent defender of a woman's right to control her own biological destiny I know, I feel obligated to post something to explain my own views on such a simple but divisive issue. But then I read Ragnell:

As an adult, I can't be anything other than pro-choice, because adults make decisions. And adults don't make other's decisions for them.

And I realized I didn't really have anything else to say.

Yeah, I know that linking to Written World is something like spitting in the ocean, but if you are somehow reading me and NOT already reading one of the smartest, funniest comics critics on the net, you really must. Because for every insightful, deep reading of the text like the one above, she throws in one like this to remind us why women REALLY read comics.

Opposite Man

After reading this interview with Chuck Dixon (which is very good considering it could have been nothing more than a puff piece but instead gets into some real issues) I am a lot more impressed with the man as a writer than I was before. Not for his stance against writing sexual superheroes (a prudish and limiting attitude towards superhero stories that he himself has broken in order to write about teenage pregnancy), but for his ability to NOT inject his own politics into the story he needs to write.

Specifically, he states that he's pro-death penalty, which surprised me, because Joker: The Devil's Advocate is one of the best arguments against the death penalty I have ever read.

Now, I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a Dixon fan but Devil's Advocate is a cut above. Not only does it feature some of Graham Nolan's best art ever, as well as a Joker that is intelligent, vicious, crazy, and actually funny, it presents the ultimate test case for the death penalty: The Joker.

The Joker is guilty; he's irredeemable; he offers nothing to society (which Lex Luthor arguably does or could); and he's a credible future threat. In short, if ANYONE deserves execution, it's the Joker.

And yet... and yet the punchline of the book is that the Joker is actually innocent (of these murders, if not all the other ones) and that executing him would be a mistake! And therefore executing anyone, even the Joker, when you are not 100% certain he did it, would be a mistake as well.

I've used this book as an argument against the death penalty, and to find out its author is actually PRO-death penalty is... surprising, to say the least.

It gives me some hope for the Grifter/Midnighter series, that Dixon can convincingly write a character whose motivations and causes are so different and antithetical to his own. Perhaps more writers should do the same, just to prove that they can.

Maybe they'd learn something.

Kate Kane, Why Can't I Quit You?

The DC Comics Infinite Holiday Special is worth picking up, even if they did COMPLETELY blow the pun that made me want to buy it in the first place, for all the reasons Chris mentions, and for the first solo adventure of Kate Kane, the new Batwoman.

The plot is, unfortunately, not very good. Some obtuse silent panels near the end made me re-read the story three times to figure out what was going on, and once I did, I was kind of disappointed with the simple plot.

But as a character study, it's really good short story. We learn lot about Kate as a person, who celebrates holidays quietly with her father and would rather avoid confrontation with her step-mother entirely than make a scene at the big party, who visits an elderly friend with no family, who cares about tradition and family, while not particularly caring about "traditional families", and as Batwoman, has a Frank Miller-esque violence streak that I can't say I disapprove of. (oh, and yes, in fact, she IS Jewish).

Interestingly enough, as the character was first introduced to the general public as "a wealthy, buxom lipstick lesbian", none of those facts really come into play. Her money and her sexual orientation are only alluded to in passing, and her bust size barely affects the plot at all. Heck, even her own religion isn't as important as the religion of her friend, which is a nice way of adding a character wrinkle without making it the POINT of the story.

So, yeah, I'm happy with the results. While I'm not pushing for a Batwoman ongoing just yet, I'd buy a four issue Renee Montoya/Kate Kane miniseries (Rucka, Brubaker and Lark, in a dream world, but I'd accept Rucka and Bennett in the real one).

Here's the pitch: "She's an ex-cop from the barrios of Gotham. (and a lesbian). She's a Jewish socialite by day and high-healed vigilante by night. (and a lesbian). Together, they fight crime. (and beat the ever-loving shit out of James Dobson)".

I'd buy it.

The All Nude Atom

After yesterday's post, I think it important to point out that DC isn't limiting its reader education program to the female anatomy. From the cover of the All-New Atom #8:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

the penis!

Jesus, Gail, enough with the naked superheroes!

(thanks, Dorian, for the catch!)

Dear Maxine Hunkel

I'm looking forward to meeting you.

I like your influences, both the original and the robotic Red Tornadoes, and from what little I've seen of you, you strike me as a fun character, a cheerful presence that the Justice Society and the DCU in general just doesn't have enough of.

And let me tell, I LOVE your costume. It might just be my thing for redheads, but well, look at you.


Your hair is shiny and voluminous, your wrap is playing in the wind, and I like the tornado symbol on your chest. You even remembered to smile for your portrait, which is more than I can say for that grump Hawkman.

Though, if I can offer some advice: I know you're super excited about joining one of the big teams and having your own superhero codename ("Cyclone," I like), but please remember to put on some underwear before going out to fight crime.

No reason for Solomon Grundy to get a peak at your secret garden.

(by the way, three makes it a conspiracy, so I have a new tag)

Not to Sound Ungracious, or Anything...

On Tuesday, I posted about how happy I was that two of my favorite characters, who have never met despite having linked origin stories, were going to fight for the first time, written by one of my favorite writers. And I got linked to by When Fangirls Attack.

Which is great (sweet, sweet hit count), but honestly surprised me. Usually, I know when a post is going to get linked to, sometimes I practically beg to get linked to, but this was just me squeeing over a possibly Apokoliptian rumble. In retrospect, I should have expected it, because, after all, Big Barda, Knockout, and Gail Simone are all women. In comics.

Which meets the technical definition of an on-topic post, of course, but not, as I understood it, the grander vision. It wasn't really a post about "women in comics." It was more a post about a writer and characters who happened to be women. (I didn't even make my Secret Six joke that if Simone was writing about superpowered redheads fighting, they almost certainly were going to be fighting in the nude.)

Is this good? That's an honest question. Is it good to emphasize the mere presense of women in comics? I mean, it bugs me when people call Simone "one of the best female writers." No, she's just one of the best writers, no qualifier. This isn't the same thing, I know, but...

Was it because it was all women? I post about the Justice League all the time, which includes a woman or two, but that doesn't usually get linked. If Mark Waid was going to write the proposed Barda v. Knockout brawl, or if it was going to be Orion vs. Knockout instead, would it still have gotten linked?

Or was it just that Ragnell liked the post and wanted more people to read it? (which would be TOTALLY COOL!)

Anyway, the point of this post was that I really like When Fangirls Attack, I like the writers behind When Fangirls Attack, and I LOVE getting linked to by When Fangirls Attack, but I was kind of curious about what gets linked and what doesn't, sometimes.

And to guarantee that this post gets linked to as well, here's the ickiest daddy/daughter relationships found outside of Cinyras and Myrrha, courtesy of John Rogers, who's totally a comics writer now, so it counts.

Zero Irony

The Obligatory Heroes Post

I didn't want to like Heroes going into this season. It looked like yet another Smallville, a superhero show by people embarrassed to be doing a superhero show, so there wasn't going to be any costumes and it would trade more on Joseph Campbell's hero's journey and less on Jack Kirby's clobbering time. It certainly didn't didn't help that the pilot is pretentiously titled "Genesis" and the show seems to be based around a variation of the mutant gene. (as in, Mutant Gene, Why I Hate).

But it was the show on before Studio 60, which I was looking forward to (disappointingly), and I'm still as sucker for superheroes, so I tuned in to the pilot, where my low expectations were met. Except... it had that last minute twist that I honestly didn't see coming, and it had Hiro Nakamura, which made me just interested enough to catch the next episode, which made me just interested enough to catch the third, which kicked off with a moment that sealed the deal for me, but more on that later.

Heroes is a really good show. Like all great shows, Heroes greatest strength it its cast. They are across the board strong, which is impressive in a cast so large, with the noteworthy standouts of Hayden Panettiere (whom I've loved since she voiced Kairi in Kingdom Hearts) and Masi Oka.

Its second greatest strength is that the sucker moves. In a season where half a dozen shows warn their audience that there would be no resolution until May Sweeps, Heroes promises to set off a nuclear bomb in Mid-Town Manhattan in time for Veterans' Day.

And there's the cleverness with the powers. Lyle at Crocodile Caucus noticed that the badass powers, rage-powered superstrength and a hyper-healing factor bordering on immortality, belong to the women, while the men have more passive powers, telepathy, phasing, vague premonitions. The special effects are well done, especially for television and particularly the flights, which has plagued TV Supermen going back to George Reeves.

There are weaknesses. Some they've overcome: the pretentiousness of the pilot has been largely dropped or mollified. Some they haven't: both of the women have been sexually assaulted in only five episodes, and "Save the Cheerleader"? I mean, she's indestructible. Why not "Save the Emo Nurse with the MySpace Haircut?"

But I can ignore most of that because of Hiro Nakamura, the sensational character find of 2006 (sorry, Batwoman). He's easily the standout character of the show. He brings an energy to the show that drives the whole thing forward. The pilot is slow and ponderous, but the moment Hiro shouts "I DID IT!" in the middle of Times Square, with the camera orbiting him in a mad frenzy, the episode and the series comes roaring into life. (Followed up by "HERRO NEW YORK!" which is probably highly offensive, but I laughed anyway.)

A lot of critics think Hiro's appeal is that he's the fanboy made good, who knows his X-Men back issues and is excited (but not terribly surprised) to learn a future version of him exists and carries a sword. But that's not exactly it. We've seen that character before and usually, we hate him. See: Wesley Crusher (sorry, Wil Wheaton). Others say it's that he embraces his power, while the others are scared or ashamed. But Peter Petrelli embraces his power too, but I don't like him much*.

No, what makes Hiro a standout character is that he embraces being a superhero. Peter wants "to be somebody." Hiro wants to save lives. The moment for me, the moment I realized I was in, was the start of the third episode. Hiro's come back from his time traveling adventure, where he's discovered both the nuclear threat and a comic that can predict his future. But he has to cut short because "a little girls life depends on us". And he says this with ZERO IRONY.

Which is refreshing. There's just no way Buffy could have pulled off that line, or any superhero post-Adam West. It's just too spot on, too "this is what we do." But Hiro doesn't find saving lives absurd. Or even that heroic. He doesn't want praise for it, or recognition. He knows he has a power and with that power the responsibility to help people. He's already disappointed with himself for not being able to save everyone he could, and a close relative didn't need to get shot or nothing.

If the producers of Heroes were really brave, the pilot would have been just Hiro, and it would have followed his story for an hour from discovery of his powers through witnessing the bomb going off. Sure, it would have been mostly in Japanese and left a lot of the other characters in the wings, but it would have gotten most of the themes and even major plot points onto the table while hinting, with a newspaper headline here, an internet video clip there, a brainless dead body on the floor, at the other storylines. But mostly, it would have given Masi Oka more room to play. He really is delightful every time he uses his powers or asks himself "W W S-M D?" I'd be perfectly happy if the show was just about him.

And Hayden Panettiere. She's super cute.



*okay, I didn't like him much, until they revealed Peter doesn't really have a super power, he has other people's super power. It was a perfect power for Peter's personality, and made me particularly curious what happens when he finally meets Niki (and Niki's evil other half).

Neutral

Hey Everyone! How ya been?

First up, thanks for the links, anonymous posters on The IMDB and Television Without Pity message boards. With your help, I cracked the 10,000 mark. (and while I appreciate being considered an "expert" on Lois Lane, the idea of "Chlois" just creeps me out to no end, possibly because it sounds too much like "Clor".)

And thanks to Ragnell for conscripting me into Beefcake/Cheesecake Week. It saves me the trouble of having to come up with a separate post. (and HOLY! Is this the kind of traffic you get everyday?)

This response from Robert Kirkman to the strong criticism of the death of Freedom Ring got me thinking. Kirkman cops to being too clever by half, basically, taking two really good ideas for a superhero ("being superpowered isn't enough to make you a superhero" and "being gay is not the beginning and end of defining a character") and muddling them both by combining the two. While clearly not his intention, a very clear interpretation of the result is that Freedom Ring was killed because he was gay.

What I started thinking about was how Kirkman could have told the first idea without getting into trouble. (The idea of a superhero actually suffering and sacrificing to do his job, obviously, interests me.) And I realized the only way he could have done it is if Freedom Ring was a straight white male.

If Freedom Ring was black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or if he were a she, then Kirkman might have been accused (rightly accused) of implying that Freedom Ring was incompetent because he was black, because she was a woman.

But no one would reasonably say he would have died because he was male, or white, or straight. For storytelling purposes, a straight white male is neutral, contains no value that informs or overwhelms other, subtler personality traits.

It reminds me of something I read in... a book whose title escapes me now, but I'll remember later a book by Douglas Hofstadter. It said that you can't start a joke "a woman walks into a bar..." unless the joke was about her being a woman. If the punch line is "I was talking to the duck" then the listener is left wondering why you specified the lead as a woman. This does not happen if you say "a man walks into a bar..." "Man" is a blank template, and if his sex is not essential to the story, no one tries to figure out why you brought it up. For some reason, "man" is less specific that "woman."

Which is crap, of course. In reality, being straight, being white, or being male, DOES inform character just as much as being gay, black or female. So those traits SHOULD inform the writing and reading of characters just as much traits that aren't "neutral". Which is to say a little, but not entirely.

The solution, I feel, is just having more and more varied characters who are gay (or who are black or Hispanic or who are women), so that the "value" of "gay" is weakened until the unique person shines through.

But it does put Kirkman in a bind for writing a character "who happens to be gay," right now. Without counter-examples of competent gay superheroes to compare Freedom Ring to, it's hard to argue that the failure and the gay have NOTHING to do with each other.

He certainly shouldn't have told the story at Marvel, which has so few gay characters. It would have been better, but not much, in the DC universe, where at least Obsidian, Piper, Montoya, and Maggie Sawyer kick ass.

But in the Wildstorm Universe, where the two baddest bastards on the planet also happen to bone each other, Freedom Ring's story would have taken on an entirely different meaning. There, the lesson would be "being superpowered AND gay isn't enough to make you a superhero." And that's a story I can support.

What Else You Need to Know About Lois Lane

Lois Lane doesn't take shit from nobody.

Ragnell has a post about power fantasies for women, specifically inspired by a scene where a guy's a jerk to Witchblade in her civilian persona, and instead of slugging the guy, she demures while her male companion does the hitting for her. Ragnell felt the scene was terribly unsatisfying, and was angered by the implication that it was inappropriate for a woman to lash out in violence, but okay for her man to protect her, even if she didn't need it.

To see if I agreed with her, I tried to imagine a gender reversed scenario, where the male hero demures from defending himself so his female companion slugs the guy for him. And then I realized I didn't have to imagine it, that story already exists...

... in Action Comics #1.

That's right, Lois Lane does not hesitate to smack a guy who needs hittin'. It's not always the smartest move (i.e. her opponent in this case is a gangster who tracks her down and kidnaps her, prompting the most iconic image in superhero comics), but foresight has never really been Lois's strong suit. She's more of a "leap off the building, trust someone will catch me" type. For a character whose motivation and personality has shifted a lot over her nearly 70 year existence, hard-driving ball buster has been pretty consistent.

Even at her weakest, the "If I prove Clark Kent is Superman, he'll have to marry me" Silver Age crazy period, Lois doesn't let a simple thing like constantly and publicly being proved wrong deter her from her strongly held conviction that Superman and Clark Kent are in fact the same person.

(Especially because she's, y'know, absolutely right, and if Superman didn't have a large supply of Superman robots and time travel technology, she'd have proved it years ago. I'm guessing there's an Elseworlds or Astro City type story yet to be written where Lois is the only intelligent person on Earth who can see though Clark's flimsy disguise, and is desperate to prove it to the rest of the world, but Clark, through a series of increasingly improbable feats, keeps everyone else fooled in a sadistic campaign to gaslight Lois.)

Anyway, my POINT is that Lois always acts out, never compromises, NEVER demures. Boundaries are for other people. In fact, one could say, Lois always acts the way Clark only acts when he's in costume. That is, LOIS is the hero Clark wants to be.

And that's pretty damn cool.

(Hey When Fangirls Attack! and Meanwhile! Thanks for the link!)

Tomorrow's Comics: TODAY!

In which I put on the turban and do my impression of Carnak.

But first, let's check in with my last prediction, that the mastermind behind the theft of the Red Tornado's android body is The Top. Well, we got another clue this week when the shadowy figure says he was stupid, but isn't any longer. That REALLY limits the possibilities, down to basically Dr. Light (who was mind-wiped and regained his memory in Meltzer's own Identity Crisis) and, well, the Top (who was brainwashed and regained his memory in Geoff Johns's run on The Flash). So my bet's looking pretty good.

As for the new prediction: Little Barda is Knockout's daughter.

Okay, there's been very little information given about the Big Barda-wannabe. Early speculation was that she was Avia Free, Scott and Barda Free's daughter in the Elseworlds Kingdom Come. This despite ANY evidence that Scott and Barda had a daughter (a teen daughter at that) and just failed to mention it. What we do know about Lil' Miss Thang is that she aspires to be Big Barda some day and has costume modeled on hers. A chance line from Power Boy indicates they are both actually from Apokolips, and not just humans with high aspirations.

Meanwhile, over in Secret Six, Knockout casually reveals that she had a daughter, but hasn't seen her since the girl was three (i.e. just old enough to have memories of her mother). And anyone who read Karl Kesel's run on Superboy knows that Knockout is herself a refuge from Apokolips who fled the Female Furies after being inspired by Big Barda's own escape.

Like mother, like daughter, eh?

Is Green Skin Some Kind of Turn On?

I have a longer post on Detective Comics #823 that I want to be very careful writing before posting, so in the meantime a thought I had while composing:

The plot depends upon Pamela Isley's ability to walk into a bar and pick up strangers. To which I have to ask, "don't they notice that she's, y'know, green?" Isn't that kind of a hint that she's POISON FRICKEN IVY, known killer and walking bio-hazard? That MAYBE it's not a good idea to go home with her?

Or are there a lot of green women running around the meet-markets of Gotham? Are there enough aliens, Atlantians, mutants, robots, and anthropomorphic animals running around the DCU that green skin just isn't that big a deal any more? Not just green, of course. Starfire's orange, Bulletteer's silver, Blue Devil's, well... and they seem to be able to have normal lives, outside of superheroing. I mean, Detective Chimp may get funny looks when he orders his soda in a French cafe, but they still serve him (and EVERYBODY gets funny looks in a French cafe).

So maybe the citizens of Gotham have just gotten used to the fantastic, and don't give the green skin a second glance. What's one more plant person, more or less?

Still, if she's walking around in her usual garb of strategically placed foliage, and looks like POISON IVY, then I just MIGHT consider hitting on the brunette in the corner instead.

Random Thoughts re:Justice League

Of the new line up, one is married, five are fathers. One mother.

Where did Clark get a Legion flight ring from? Oh, I know he probably got it from Conner (Kon-El) Kent, who was an honorary member of the Zero Hour Legion of Superheroes, or, failing that, from Supergirl, who's a "current" member. Heck, he might have even pulled it off Booster Gold's crispy fried finger. But I like to think the Legion of Superheroes gave him that ring when he himself was a member of the Legion as a teen. Infinite Crisis almost came out and stated that the adventures of Superman when he was boy are back in continuity, and this could be our first sign.

But the big mystery is who is the shadowy figure behind Felix Faust and Dr. Impossible who is going to such great lengths to keep the Red Tornado out of his robot body? If he was just looking for future tech, Dr. Impossible should have grabbed the Metal Men he disabled as well, so I'm thinking it's someone who actually wants to inhabit the Red Tornado's robot body. And since Brad Meltzer has said that Dr. Impossible is the only new villain, it's probably someone we know.

So who is it? Well, let's narrow it down to the dead, or recently dead. Someone maybe with experience body hopping. Someone smart. Heck, it's Meltzer writing, and it'd be stupid at this point NOT to tie it to Identity Crisis, so maybe someone who had been mind-wiped by Zatanna as well. Someone who specifically wants the Tornado body because it's fast, strong, self-repairing...

spins...

MANHUNTER PREVIEW

So it wasn't in the solicitations, but using my super double secret sources, I have obtained a preview image of the villains that Manhunter Kate Spencer will be facing when her title returns in November. Having, unfortunately, killed or crippled most of the villains she's faced so far, she will have to face a new challenge.

Well, new to her. This gang of macho men, who revel in their misogyny, has been around since the 30s! Who could it be? Surely not...

Oh no! Not them! Not now!

Not the...