I'm Confused

So, I was stalkinglooking at my stalkersreaders via Analytics, and most of my search hits are pretty normal. You know, stuff I type about. And hey! No new porn searches in the last week! I feel unsexy.

But . . . there was this search and . . . I don't even know what the hell it means:

"my flow's make sense because i mention cras and i mention chicks"

. . . what's 'cras'. Um. Does anyone know? Is this hip lingo I'm not getting? What's . . . I have no idea. I'm . . . so confused and torn between just eyeing the screen and laughing.

Kirk's popped me up on his sidebar (all official and things, I'm quite pleased) so I'll take a moment to toss all of you at his blog, Weekly Crisis, which is much more Marvel savvy (and consistent) than mine. And DC savvy as well, but my appreciation dedicates itself to the Marvel savvy, because I'm still completely lost wading through who everyone is and why I should be surprised at Secret Invasion. Or not surprised.

And to make this a somewhat relevant comics post:

Back with a vengeance.

Previews up tomorrow as my week gets back on track and all things Batman begin to consume my brain. Is it too geeky to put up a counter to count down days/hours/minutes/seconds until Dark Knight?

Maybe?

Also: I watched the Doctor Who finale. And . . . consider me thoroughly owned by it and all things Doctor. God, Sci-Fi, catch up so I can talk to my friends about it.

There's a fascinating article up at CBR, Friday's Editorial Conference by Greg Hatcher that deals with the snafu DC is dealing with--or rather, not dealing with at all--in regards to the continuity that was shoved aside by Morrison, the departure of Dixon and a reflection on editors and their jobs.

The article itself is fascinating and wonderfully written. Dixon himself is commenting in the comments section, saying some interesting little things about not-named-at-all-but-totally Didio and the way he's running DC right now. Hmmm. Someone does sound like he's eaten plenty of Bitter Bars for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but I somehow don't think he's too far off his statements.

My take is this: Didio is dropping the ball in very, very large ways by not letting his people do the jobs they were hired for.

When a writer is hired and told that they will have the run of their characters/story line/whatever, that writer is going to write it. Dixon and Morrison have both done that. Morrison had Final Crisis #1 finished(ish) sometime in November and rumors say that Dixon had scripted out the Robin storyline for months and months and months in advance, as we all know he is wont to do with everything (productive bastard) and that R.I.P. fuckered with the entire thing of it. A good clue as to why there might have been a butting of heads in DC Central, though I'm still not certain why that would lead to Dixon Not Quitting. Unless he had nothing to write.

I smell a Robin In Pieces. Or something of the sort, considering we didn't get a sneak peek in the September solits.

It's all very botched and it should all reflect on Editor In Chief rather than the editors of each individual book--when hands are tied, after all, there's only so much stretching someone can do before their shoulder pops out of joint. And is thusly useless.

It's a shame to see Dixon go--politics aside--there's a definite home in the Batverse for someone who built Tim Drake up into the excellent character we see now and who has contributed so very, very much to all of those characters.

It's more of a shame, however, to see a possible collapse in the DC staffing. Wait, no, not possible. The evidence is right there--Countdown was a complete fiasco, to no one's fault but Didio's.

If you're going to tell a 52 issue story, make it good. Make it important. Don't make it fodder for joke cannons and irritated blog posts about how clearly DC's right hand isn't paying attention to what the left hand is doing. And when you have a massively big event planned for the summer and already know what is going to occur in the fall, make the 52 issue story reflect it. Enhance it. Set it up. Don't kill Orion in three different goddamn books. Don't piss off your readers and when one of your prominent, popular writers opens his mouth on a massive comic book news site and says "Oh, hey, by the way, forget everything that Countdown told you and all those stupid tie-ins" do us all a favor and have the editors do some damage control.

Hey Didio, it's alright to be wrong. Really. We're a sort of forgiving sort. Well, the ones that have moved out of their mother's basements are a forgiving sort. And Didio, you know, it's also okay to screw up and then admit it. For definitely. It's comic books! They're supposed to be fun!

Oh and hey, how about having all the editors for the Batverse books pop into a chat room to fill each other in on everything before the writers get insulted by being told, belatedly, that what they wanted to do and what they were hired to do isn't what they're going to be doing anymore.

Good show.

I'm Not Always Happy When I'm Right

Sky Dolls #1 is something that everyone should pick up. I found it adorable, the art gorgeous and fun and the writing embracing and hilarious. The characters are instantly attractive and interesting, the plot heads along at a nice pace and I'm very much looking forward to the next issue. At least snag the trade, people, this is as entertaining as Outer Orbit was, while having a distinctly more interesting and complex plot.

For months and months I have been looking forward to the first issue of Burn, and last week (or this week, I can't remember) it hit the shelves. I really love Camilla d'Errico's work--I have way too many of her prints up on my walls and have no plans of stopping. She's a great talent (you can recognize her from Nightmares and Fairytales where she started as the artist on issue 19) and is extraordinarily interesting and nice to boot. Also very busy.

Anyhow, I really enjoyed the art. And the story concept. I also really enjoyed the execution of the art, but less the writing. It's a first issue and from what I know, it's Scott Sanders first venture into published writing, so I'll give it a little bit to even out. I hope it does, though, because it could play out to be a great little six-issue book. Sanders' writing isn't terrible, but it's definitely superfluous in parts and a little clunky. Camilla's art does an excellent job of explaining what's going on and how the reader should feel about it, so any dialogue or thought captions should be sparing and vital. Sanders is a terrifically nice guy who does have a definite love for the story and comics in general, so I really hope his writing evens out and he hits the groove that gets hinted at throughout the first issue.

If you like manga, though, I recommend this for a read. I rec it even if you don't, but the audience it'll appeal to is definitely manga-first.

Titans #2 is complete rubbish. I thought it couldn't get worse, because I am a fool, and Winick did an excellent job of proving me wrong. Don't bother with it. I'm not letting myself go any farther with that because of the next review, that turns into a commentary on writing in comics.

There's spoilers ahead. Rampant. Beware. If you haven't read Robin #174 and would like to remain in the dark, head off.

. . . so. First, I would like to refer everyone here. And if you're still falling for it, shame on you. I'm certain there are an insane amount of people ecstatically happy that friggin' Stephanie Brown isn't really dead and I'm just as certain I am not ever going to be one of them. I hate to break in on any sunshine-happy-days, people, but this just looks like another device. A badly executed one at that.

Welcome to my disbelief.

Would Batman really not mention anything to Tim as for his reasoning behind not having a memorial for Stephanie the Plot Device Wonder? Really? Are you sure?

Would Batman really just welcome Stephanie back with complete open arms after telling her she wasn't good enough?

Can someone please pretend that this is the goddamn Batman and remember that he would at least throw some crazy-assed psychotic trial-by-fire at her before taking her back?

Why are the backgrounds behind Stephanie are magically colored? If I see one more damn pink panel I'm throwing up.

Technically-speaking, the build-up for the reveal took too long. By the time I got there, any suspense was gone. The reception played flat. The conversations were stiff and uninteresting, Tim's thoughts were amazingly non-reactive and I can practically see all of their puppet strings. It was all so forced.

But hey, maybe she can join the Teen Titans and get into three-way bitch fights with Wonder Girl and Ravager. Note: If there could be more scenes of Tim getting handcuffed by Ravager, I'd be the happiest Friday ever.

I understand the great big temptation for bringing this character back--she got a raw damn deal the first time around, was treated like crap and was basically an accessory for Tim's Great Big Angst. Don't mistake me here, I love Tim's Great Big Angst. But here's what I would have really liked to see and would have written if ever given the chance: A new girl. Not Spoiler. A new Gotham vigilante with an interesting back story that isn't she was a) raped b)pregnant c) used/abused by a man/father d)daughter of a villain (I am beyond sick to shit of this plot background) e) a hooker. One or two of these options added in? Totally okay if it's done right. Just please don't saunter up to the Buffet Of Abuses and over-fill your plate, Male Writer.

Mistakes like Stephanie Brown need to be left in the past. Taking a perfectly decent female character and turning her into a device is bad enough, but taking that perfectly decent deceased female character and bring her back is even worse. This is compounding the problem in not only women written in comics, but how comics are written in general.

The dead should stay dead except in very rare and very moving and very shocking cases. The more "amazing" resurrections there are, the less believable deaths are. The less believable, the less impact will be had. The rest of the road should be pretty obvious. This isn't a new concept, nor a particularly brilliant one.

So why does it need to be pointed out again? Are comic book fans really so lacking in their palette that they need to have the same regurgitated tripe fed to them over and over until they finally swallow the worm? Has the idea well truly run dry? Is doing something truly new really so terrifying a thing?

If comic book fans are lacking in their palette this severely, I recommend doing a very ballsy thing: Screw 'em. Write what is good. It's an "If you build it, they will come" sort of situation. Comic book fans are addicts and while some may be lost in the transition, most will stay true-blue after their "ohmygodchange" panic attacks and new ones will quite likely stray over.

When writing, the more walls built, the less creative the writing. Dixon has certainly demonstrated this to us via Robin, but I am seeing it nearly everywhere, in nearly every comic book. There is a fear of stretching beyond the accepted norm, a fear of embracing new characters and truly giving them room to grow so that the readers may grow with them. And I mean truly, not panicking when the 'numbers' aren't there and canceling or sabotaging the book.

I believe for that every four old characters, there should be a new one. Or when one dies, a new one enters. Something to ensure that some fresh blood gets pumped into the universes we all adore so much.

If this doesn't start happening on a consistent, believable level, ten years from now the comic book industry will discover they have some serious problems.

As it is, they have some serious problems now and I think I'll return to what was supposed to be the point of this entry and table that discussion for another day.

Stephanie Brown! I can't over-emphasize how unbelievable I find this all to be and because of that, I am also finding it insulting. As a woman who voraciously enjoys comics, I don't actually need a reward cookie in the form of a resurrected plot device who I found to be really, really annoying to begin with.

I wish I was overreacting because of my emotional investment and knew that in a few months I'd calm down about this entire thing and not erupt like Vesuvius every time this was mentioned. I also wish that I liked Supergirl. Or that I could look forward to the upcoming return of a Batgirl book, who is undoubtedly one of my favorite newer characters. Or that Power Girl interested me at all. Or that . . . well, anything not Wonder Woman or Birds Of Prey goosed my Happy Feminist Zones (note to self: name a blog that one day). Even THEN, there's this whole Manazon thing that just has me nauseous.

Stephanie should've gotten a memorial, because it doesn't matter what some people think about it, she was part of the Bat Clan. Even if she 'married' into it and sort of pushed her way in, imo, in regards to how Batman ended up treating her. But missing a character or really, really, really loving a character doesn't and shouldn't give people free reign to bring them back willy-nilly.

Argh.

This week I've discovered that I must have tea with Devin Grayson and discuss subtext and eroticism in length with her. New personal goal.

Looking For Villainy In All The Wrong Places?

I really love villain characters. Give me a good dose of the Joker, Luthor or Sinestro (and so on) and I'm one content chick. I love irredeemable evil. I love 'evil' that is motivated by a logic that you can actually understand--sympathizing with a villain isn't as awesome as almost agreeing with one is. I love completely random violence, so long as a girlfriend isn't being shoved into a refrigerator.

I find, however, that my love for villains and my love for equality in comics isn't exactly meshing well. I find interesting anti-hero women who I mostly like and have really great potential, but no true female super-villains.

It's . . . really frustrating. Even when women are bad, or 'go bad', it's thanks to the manipulations of a male character. See Ravager, Mary Marvel. And when females start out bad, I find the opposite to be true and they become good or 'better' through the lurve of a male character. See Catwoman or Talia or . . . crap, lots of people.

It's . . . really frustrating. I'd like some straight-up, no foam, no soy milk villainesses. . .eseses, please.

I don't believe it's an unreasonable request. I don't believe it's an unfeminist request (I do believe, though, that I'm making up words) or that it's a stupid one. Women can be superheroes so the opposite must be true.

Equality, please. And while I do want a super-villainess, I don't want her shoving her DDD's into the panel, hip-switching around on four inch heels and sleazily coming on to every male hero during every encounter in an outfit that every female knows would never, ever stay on without copious amounts of super-glue. Hey, am I taking all the fun out of comics yet? (sarcasm)

I don't want her shoving her sex in my face, because Luthor doesn't do that to Superman (only in slashfic). Villainesseseseses don't actually need to slap men in the face with their breasts--they don't need to slap them at all, I'm a personal fan of the sucker punch or a bomb. Or a good nut-punch (sorry guys). Of course some people might be offended by an Evil Woman. But other people, myself included, are already offended at the superhero females that are being passed off, so we might as well broaden the horizon, right? I understand that villainy in women might be a rare trait to find, so I'm not asking for an influx, I'm just asking for one believable, consistently naughty, regular guest star in the main monthly's to have a vagina. Thoughts? Am I missing a glaringly obvious super-villainessssss that competes on the same level as our favorite villains in the DCU? (please note the specific DCU reference, as I am just now inviting myself into Marvel and am therefore knowingly ignorant as to the Ways Of Magic Did It)

There is nothing a good geek won't argue

Geek fight! The super funny (aside from an Aquaman Fatality joke) starts halfway down the page in the comments, c/p'd for your convenience.

Richie says: Batman is my favorite superhero and this can be an awesome game.
But Fyreblazer disagrees: He's not a superhero (keyword: super). Neither is Iron Man. Me & my friends have had this discussion many a time.
Pather COUNTERS for Richie: Good for you and your friends. Meanwhile, Batman and Iron Man just saved the world a few times and held their own against Superman, the Hulk, the X-Men, etc. Just because they don't inherently have powers doesn't mean they're not superheroes.
Ooooh, BURN on Fyreblazer!! But he has a rebuttal ready: Batman always carries kryptonite with him to keep Superman in check. Iron Man's suit is stocked with all types of shit that he plans ahead for. The word superhero inherently means that they have super powers. Ok, I'll tuck my nerd back in now...lol.
Pather, with the aid of a dictionary, is ON it!: super: adverb (as modifier)
especially, particularly
hero: noun
a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities
Hey, thanks Oxford American Dictionary! Sexist part "typically a man" aside, seems like the roots of superhero can be applied to those without powers. And even if you want to claim that when you combine it into one word as "superhero" it does imply powers, the fact that Marvel and DC have trademarked the term "superhero" means they can use it on anyone they want at any time, including their very popular franchises Batman, Iron Man, hell, even Robin.
Andrew jumps in with a succinct, maybe case closing comment: Batman and Ironman are both super heros. A hero is a firefighter that saves some kid from a burning building. A super hero flies around in a fucking rocket suit and saves the world. Case closed.
But wait, it seems the case ISN'T closed because Aahatimy confuses his/herself: Just because they don't have any superpowers doesn't mean they aren't superheroes. I'd still say Ironman is easily a superhero because with the suit he gets superhuman abilities and I can see where you coming from with Batman but I'd say he abilities come more from his enemies fear of him. The fact thsat he doesn't have any superpowers also means he doesn't have any superweaknesses as seen many times he is digging the rest of the JLA out of shit. Anyway superpowers doesn't equal superhero.
I've just confused myself.
And Yourself finishes the whole debate off VERY succinctly, thus proving comic book readers are highly verbose and educated: To pather: Not really sexist. Hero is typically used for a man because heroine is almost always used to describe female "heroes". Unless you're reading Y, that is. As for the "what is a superhero" debate, I'd say a superhero is someone who devotes their life to being a hero (thus including Batman and Iron Man). And any numbnuts that reads modern comics knows that Iron Man does has super powers, so stfu.


I LOVE THE INTERNETS!!!