|
|
Post by TealProductions on Dec 30, 2014 10:07:32 GMT -5
It would be cool if someone from the show could verify this...but I believe the name is pronounced tine-in not tin-e-in. Sorry as big as he is getting to be we should be sure to get the name correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by theboogieman on Dec 30, 2014 10:18:00 GMT -5
No, they voted for a lot of things I don't think are very good. They discuss lots of stuff I think isn't very good. What the previous amounted to was ranting and picking, however. Criticism is fine, but I don't act like it's 'depressing' that they like things or that I'm disappointed in them for their opinions. THAT is bullshit and frankly an elitist line of thinking. It's your opinion, fine. But when you want to essentially change a large portion of the show, go start your own podcast because it's no longer a product you're really interested in. They don't do a podcast to agree with everyone's opinions on comics. Non-one said they wanted to change a large portion of the show, people were just expressing their opinions. I never said or implied anywhere that they should agree with everyone's opinions on comics, I don't know where you got that from. But thanks for starting to invalidate what you're saying anyway, through attempting to insult those who are merely having a civil and interesting discussion. I would take what you're saying into account, but why should I or anyone here bother to take what you're saying seriously at all when you're just going to insult them, and talk down to them, merely for raising valid points of discussion? If you're going to resort to talking down to people for raising valid points of discussion, rather than expressing your disagreement in a thoughtful and balanced way, then clearly you don't have anything of any real import to contribute here. |
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Dec 30, 2014 10:30:02 GMT -5
No, they voted for a lot of things I don't think are very good. They discuss lots of stuff I think isn't very good. What the previous amounted to was ranting and picking, however. Criticism is fine, but I don't act like it's 'depressing' that they like things or that I'm disappointed in them for their opinions. THAT is bullshit and frankly an elitist line of thinking. It's your opinion, fine. But when you want to essentially change a large portion of the show, go start your own podcast because it's no longer a product you're really interested in. They don't do a podcast to agree with everyone's opinions on comics. Non-one said they wanted to change a large portion of the show, people were just expressing their opinions. I never said or implied anywhere that they should agree with everyone's opinions on comics, I don't know where you got that from. But thanks for starting to invalidate what you're saying anyway, through attempting to insult those who are merely having a civil and interesting discussion. I would take what you're saying into account, but why should I or anyone here bother when you're just going to insult them? I'm a lot more blunt than most who post on this site; you can choose to write off what I type if you want. There's very little I can do about that. I will just post the first thing that started this off: How does this get a conversation off to a good path? The premise is that it's depressing that the two biggest companies are being discussed so much; the implication being that this lessens the discussion and the choices made. That's a value judgement not just on what's being picked but on the people picking them, that somehow they have a duty to mention and congratulate the Big Two due to services rendered. It's an assumption that's fairly insulting to those who hold different opinions than the one who posted that and places that person above the one they're criticising. |
|
|
|
Post by theboogieman on Dec 30, 2014 10:49:42 GMT -5
Non-one said they wanted to change a large portion of the show, people were just expressing their opinions. I never said or implied anywhere that they should agree with everyone's opinions on comics, I don't know where you got that from. But thanks for starting to invalidate what you're saying anyway, through attempting to insult those who are merely having a civil and interesting discussion. I would take what you're saying into account, but why should I or anyone here bother when you're just going to insult them? I'm a lot more blunt than most who post on this site; you can choose to write off what I type if you want. There's very little I can do about that. I will just post the first thing that started this off: How does this get a conversation off to a good path? The premise is that it's depressing that the two biggest companies are being discussed so much; the implication being that this lessens the discussion and the choices made. That's a value judgement not just on what's being picked but on the people picking them, that somehow they have a duty to mention and congratulate the Big Two due to services rendered. It's an assumption that's fairly insulting to those who hold different opinions than the one who posted that and places that person above the one they're criticising. Well, that's a valid point of view. The main things I took issue with were the "dislike something about it, leave and make your own podcast" line of thought and then the condescension directed toward myself for pointing that bullshit out. That's in relation to the whole "they don't do a podcast to agree with everyone's opinion on comics" comment. As far as the whole comment about it being depressing that the discussion was beholden to the Big Two, whether that's insulting and detrimental to the conversation or not I dunno. Could be, or maybe not exactly. I don't know about that. |
|
|
|
Post by TealProductions on Dec 30, 2014 12:08:34 GMT -5
If the discussion is presumed to be a reflection of the hobby as a whole would not then it follow that the majority of the individual topics (creators, books, storyline) be centered on those companies that accounted for almost 70% of the volume of product sold in said hobby in the month of November? It's really hard to find a wide spectrum comic book podcast that doesn't talk about the two largest publishers.
With the thousands of comic book podcasts available I feel that 'find one you like better' is always a viable option and not a cop out.
Now in all honesty the 'hey a woman did something' feeling is starting to wear thin for me as well but not enough to ditch the show. Just fess up and openly admit that proselytizing that is focus and lets all move on.
Manga discussing is sorely lacking on the show as well and I keep hoping that changes. Time will tell.
|
|
bpp
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 74 
|
Post by bpp on Dec 30, 2014 13:49:31 GMT -5
Non-one said they wanted to change a large portion of the show, people were just expressing their opinions. I never said or implied anywhere that they should agree with everyone's opinions on comics, I don't know where you got that from. But thanks for starting to invalidate what you're saying anyway, through attempting to insult those who are merely having a civil and interesting discussion. I would take what you're saying into account, but why should I or anyone here bother when you're just going to insult them? I'm a lot more blunt than most who post on this site; you can choose to write off what I type if you want. There's very little I can do about that. I will just post the first thing that started this off: How does this get a conversation off to a good path? The premise is that it's depressing that the two biggest companies are being discussed so much; the implication being that this lessens the discussion and the choices made. That's a value judgement not just on what's being picked but on the people picking them, that somehow they have a duty to mention and congratulate the Big Two due to services rendered. It's an assumption that's fairly insulting to those who hold different opinions than the one who posted that and places that person above the one they're criticising. You're 'not 'a lot more blunt', you're just a lot more 'couldn't care less that people on here have been asked to conduct themselves in a respectful manner'. You're also a lot more 'not really able to understand basic written english' as nothing in what you quote is a judgement on 'the people' behind the choices. Its ridiculously hyperbolic and confrontational to suggest such. Your whole pablum and 'if you don't like 'our' podcast' jingoism is very much against any spirit of these forums whether you like to think of yourself as 'blunt' or not. You're not blunt, you're just rude. |
|
|
|
Post by Huw on Dec 30, 2014 14:37:42 GMT -5
I'm starting to think this is getting a little out of hand now and is straying from the original topic of conversation.
Please keep a level head, folks. We're all here for the same reason and we all share the same passion for comics. Let's not forget that!!
If people think the big two should be there, that's cool. If people don't, that's also cool. Let's keep the conversation about why Marvel/DC should or shouldn't be on the list, whilst being constructive and respectful as is our commitment as TC listeners.
|
|
|
|
Post by theboogieman on Dec 30, 2014 16:04:37 GMT -5
Hmmm... on the one hand I think I left this discussion on a satisfactory and more peaceful note, and don't want to jump back into the whole vortex of this. On the other, I do have to admit that I kind of find myself agreeing with much of bpp's last comment. Then again, I was already getting at that before, so maybe I'm just revisiting ground that's already been covered in this discussion, but maybe bpp's articulation was better.
Well anyway, I don't think that Marvel and DC shouldn't be discussed, they definitely should be; TealProductions raises a good point there, with them being a huge part of the industry and everything. However, I still think the "dislike it? Then leave, or make your own thing" thing is quite a cop out, and rephrasing that into "find one you like better" sounds like a misinterpretation. The former is confrontational. Additionally, I've tried a few different comics podcasts so far, like about 5 probably, that I've stopped listening to since, since they really weren't at the level of quality of Talking Comics, and definitely weren't as fun to listen to. So, if I were to criticize the podcast, even heavily criticize it to the point where the discussion could be considered heated, it would be with the intention of constructive discourse, and trying to improve anything where possible (I say improve for lack of a better word- I don't mean that as in try to dictate to them what they should or shouldn't talk about). In other words, even if I were to heavily criticize any particular episode of the podcast, it would be coming from a positive place, as I am a fan of this podcast and wouldn't want to just "find another one", if you see what I'm getting at.
It doesn't appear to me that the original criticism here was intended to be malicious or really insulting, but probably comes from a more positive place, where because the people criticizing the podcast are fans of it, they feel that they should discuss anything they take issue to, or are maybe confused about. If these people weren't fans of the podcast, and didn't really like it all that much, then surely they wouldn't feel bothered enough to say anything, and they would "go and find a podcast they like better". I doubt anyone making these criticisms here feels so apathetic towards the podcast, and so negative towards it, that based on just some criticisms they have, they would want to simply move on to a different podcast, as opposed to discussing any points or criticisms that they might have.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironfist4270 on Dec 30, 2014 20:34:48 GMT -5
So maybe we should bring up something more lighthearted like religion or politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by toxicsooner on Dec 31, 2014 1:53:39 GMT -5
So maybe we should bring up something more lighthearted like religion or politics. LOL!!! If you really want to blow the roof off: Who wins in a no holds bar Thunder Dome match between Batman, Super Man, Captain America, Wolverine, Hellboy, and Lying Cat? I'm joking, just wanted to bring some levity to the discussion. As for the "lively" Marvel/DC discussion, it is a moot point and while I have an opinion, I'm not going to offer it here. Because regardless of whether you want to call it unethical, capitalism, poor buisness, or just plain greed, arguing about what to call it in a podcast forum isn't going to change the reality that "It is what it is". And rather than argue with you fine people about a topic that is irrelevent to me, I would rather discuss more interesting topics, such as the one stated above. All that being said, I would like to offer my opinion on the most recent podcast. It was nothing short of what I expected and have come to enjoy from our fine "casters". There were things I agreed with and things I disagreed with. But that's why I like this podcast (and this forum), they provide perspective outside of my norm. For that I say thank you and please continue. But seriously, how do Tocchini, Scalera, and Sejic not get any love for Breakout Artist??? BTW, Wolverine laces his claws with kryptonite and goes into a Bezerker rage killing everyone!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sammiecassell on Jan 1, 2015 14:13:29 GMT -5
Wow, I guess I should have paid more attention to the boards over the holidays, seems a lot of holiday cheer is not being shared. I feel there is a lot here to comment on so I'll try to be brief.
1st-some positives- I believe we DO have the power to change the industry. Just look at the example of the Batman book. DC was going to up it to $5.00, first they say, it's only that issue, then it's back to the regular price point, why?? Because the comic community as a whole rose up & hollered, which got the attention of the creators, which begat change. Capitalism is the back bone of our society. They have the ability to charge whatever they want, WE have the ability to NOT buy it. If it doesn't sell, they won't make anymore. Don't like "events"? Don't buy, don't like superhero books? Don't buy. Don't know how many cons y'all go to, but the last one I went to, all the books by creators were $4-5. Maybe being able to raise their prices HELPED them.
2nd-I also feel like the four hosts get stuck in a rut and all kind of jump on the same wagon. We all read the books we think interests us, and that's all we can do. Doesn't make any of us right or wrong, it just plays to our interests. This podcast has broadened my horizons. Before, I was almost exclusively a "Marvel guy" but through recommendations on here, I've started reading more Image books, more independent books, more stuff I never would have before. Now it seems like this year everyone has jumped back on the Big 2 bandwagon. But that's ok, now I'm on the independent bandwagon & I'll ride her until she bucks me. I think this is one of their goals (not to speak for any of the group). One of the other goals is not to exclude anyone or anything for any reason. And to bring awareness, I think it's over done at times and does get tedious (especially the female quotient), but it's their prerogative and their right to do so. It's taken me a while to get used to it, but I don't let it offend me or my respect for what they do.
3rd- I do want to take a little issue with, what I perceive as, for the lack of a better term, "hypocrisy" that goes on in the forums and the show. Even though I don't read it, when all the hubbub started about Batgirl #35 (I think) and this "amazing" new artist Babs Tar, I decided to look into her. While she was entertaining in her interview, her style is not personally my thing (which is my perrogative just as its anyone's to love it). I thought the "hourglass figure" was passe & offensive? Then I did a Google search, her website is full of nudes, isn't that supposed to be degrading to women? On the same lines, Bitch Planet is being discussed as Book of the Year, and while I haven't read it, I did flip through it. Can any one say, honestly, that if Batgirl was done the exact same way, but have Greg Land's name as artist, or, a better analogy, Bitch Planet had Garth Ennis's name on it, they would be heralded as the tremendous books? Do they get a pass because they're done by Babs & Kelly Sue? As I always say, I'm not trying to create controversy, however I am trying to create discussion, which educates us all.
4th-opinions expressed on the podcast and the forums are just that opinions, everybody has one and most of them stink
and finally.....
5th- in the words of the great Corey Taylor "If I offended you, you needed it"
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 1, 2015 19:59:20 GMT -5
Wow, I guess I should have paid more attention to the boards over the holidays, seems a lot of holiday cheer is not being shared. I feel there is a lot here to comment on so I'll try to be brief. 1st-some positives- I believe we DO have the power to change the industry. Just look at the example of the Batman book. DC was going to up it to $5.00, first they say, it's only that issue, then it's back to the regular price point, why?? Because the comic community as a whole rose up & hollered, which got the attention of the creators, which begat change. Capitalism is the back bone of our society. They have the ability to charge whatever they want, WE have the ability to NOT buy it. If it doesn't sell, they won't make anymore. Don't like "events"? Don't buy, don't like superhero books? Don't buy. Don't know how many cons y'all go to, but the last one I went to, all the books by creators were $4-5. Maybe being able to raise their prices HELPED them. 2nd-I also feel like the four hosts get stuck in a rut and all kind of jump on the same wagon. We all read the books we think interests us, and that's all we can do. Doesn't make any of us right or wrong, it just plays to our interests. This podcast has broadened my horizons. Before, I was almost exclusively a "Marvel guy" but through recommendations on here, I've started reading more Image books, more independent books, more stuff I never would have before. Now it seems like this year everyone has jumped back on the Big 2 bandwagon. But that's ok, now I'm on the independent bandwagon & I'll ride her until she bucks me. I think this is one of their goals (not to speak for any of the group). One of the other goals is not to exclude anyone or anything for any reason. And to bring awareness, I think it's over done at times and does get tedious (especially the female quotient), but it's their prerogative and their right to do so. It's taken me a while to get used to it, but I don't let it offend me or my respect for what they do. 3rd- I do want to take a little issue with, what I perceive as, for the lack of a better term, "hypocrisy" that goes on in the forums and the show. Even though I don't read it, when all the hubbub started about Batgirl #35 (I think) and this "amazing" new artist Babs Tar, I decided to look into her. While she was entertaining in her interview, her style is not personally my thing (which is my perrogative just as its anyone's to love it). I thought the "hourglass figure" was passe & offensive? Then I did a Google search, her website is full of nudes, isn't that supposed to be degrading to women? On the same lines, Bitch Planet is being discussed as Book of the Year, and while I haven't read it, I did flip through it. Can any one say, honestly, that if Batgirl was done the exact same way, but have Greg Land's name as artist, or, a better analogy, Bitch Planet had Garth Ennis's name on it, they would be heralded as the tremendous books? Do they get a pass because they're done by Babs & Kelly Sue? As I always say, I'm not trying to create controversy, however I am trying to create discussion, which educates us all. 4th-opinions expressed on the podcast and the forums are just that opinions, everybody has one and most of them stink and finally..... 5th- in the words of the great Corey Taylor "If I offended you, you needed it" Sammie, I'm only going to address a bit of your post, and even that is only as information for everyone, as it's hardly anyone's place (particularly mine) to try to dictate someone else's tastes, even as we give our opinions on what pleases us. Also, as a child of the Sixties, I'll tell you that you should always challenge "The Man", but now as an alter cocker, I'd ask everyone to be polite in deference to my advanced age! Regarding "hourglass figures" and such, I would posit that there is an accepted historical and artistic gulf between the broke-back art of the Escher-girl school and the work of someone such as Peter Paul Rubens, whose paintings of full-figured women gave rise to the term "Rubenesque". In the world of comics, when I first came on board to Talking Comics, we had an interview with a fellow from Zenescope, whose covers I took some issue with. At the time, I showed Steve some work by Dave Stevens ( The Rocketeer), and he agreed that Mr. Stevens' drawings of nudes were more tasteful than the mostly-clothed fantasy figures being displayed on many current comics covers. This is not to equate Babs Tarr's work with either the fine art of Mr. Rubens, nor the pin-up mastery of Mr. Stevens, but having checked her web-site, while there are nudes, they are certainly more in the fashion illustration mode than anything else, and even when not, they do seem more "Good Girl" subjects than "Bad Girl" objects, which to my taste makes a world of difference. Solely my opinion of course; your individual mileage may vary As to Bitch Planet, I would say it is a book that on reading through it, a closer examination would reveal that the story would present itself as being on-point with the Third Wave Feminist notion of "taking it back", so in essence it turns the exploitation around on itself. Not suggesting that you spend your hard-earned on it if it didn't grab you on first blush, but it is layered in the same way Pretty Deadly was, so it's tough to judge on a quick skim. It is fair to suggest that the same book with a male author would face a more stringent litmus test, but I'd believe we'd be even-handed in our assessments, as I'd suggest we've been on praising Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman run whilst being unhappy with Meredith Finch's first two efforts? Happy New Year to all, lest I forget! |
|
bpp
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 74
|
Post by bpp on Jan 1, 2015 20:47:50 GMT -5
To touch on Bitch Planet's 'feminism' only... Bitch Planet's first issue is deeply flawed as any sort of feminist statement. To me it reads much more like a revival of the early 90s Riot Gurl movement than any sort of seriously considered feminist viewpoint. These are the points that struck me immediately as to any feminist claims
1) not all women are equal - bitch planet completely ignores the validity of the decisions and actions of the 'younger' wife. Without any depth or understanding she is portrayed as a unjustified whore - her youth and virility replacing the old tired wife who we should 'side' with. It seems clear that story is done and we won't revisit that love triangle. Positing women as either cooperating with power structures or 'feminists' ignores feminisms critique of the powers that compel choices of all women. The books audience is meant to cheer on 'their' females over 'other' females. That is deeply flawed.
2) feminism vs structuralism. I enjoyed BP's twist but again for a feminist statement it fails on every level because it shows no understanding of how the husband is also powerless (he gets the girl but it costs him all his assets, he is basically rendered powerless by what he must pay to get a 'fault' in the system 'rectified'. Remember this fault isn't connected to what actually happened with the ex wife, it's simply a clerical error devoid of gender bias. BP is too busy making the craven husband 'the bad guy' to see he (and his new bride) are just as much victims of the society.
3) rooting for who? It's clear who the hero will be but issue 1 only introduces her, there is no flesh on those bones yet. Issue ones central story is the love-triangle. The older woman is portrayed as a victim and we are to root for her. But actually we're given no understanding of what reason she is actually being removed from 'Earth'. The need to hide it for the 'twist' and the failure to deal with it after means we are rooting for someone because (1) she's a woman (2) she's old / frail (3) she's weak. Actually she could well have been a mass murderer for all we know. BP uses her instrumentaly. To use Bob's phrase.. I've no idea whether she should be supported in her 'taking it back' because I've no actual information on why she is on the ship / prison and who she is as a person. Nor will I get that given the end of the issue. This is pretty weak sauce for any feminist critique, it's simply relying on the audience to buy the visual signifiers female/old/confused/frail/vulnerable.
As a bit of pulp I thought it was okay but as any considered statement I found it a mess. Plus... Why is this so hyped when Prison Ship Anteres did a much better job on very similar material not 12 months ago? Could it be because of the publisher and the power of social media / energy of unsophisticated thoughts? As far as I can tell BP is a competent but not fantastic retelling of something we've seen 100 times before (it particularly struck me as Alan Davis' Harry 20 on The High Rock) with a bit of Pussy Riot wrapping. It's fine but it's not even near the top 20 books Image put out this year.
And this is NOT an objection to highlighting female creators (Prison Ship Anteres is written by a female)' I actually appreciate TC's Spotlight on female creators.. I would never have picked up the excellent Femme Fatale without out it.
(As an aside... The only issue I have with Babs Tar's work is that if Milo Manara is going to get taken outside for a kicking then Babs has to join him.. Her work is very sexualised in non-sexual situations, mostly from her anatomical ratios that make female bodies look like thinspirational models. Not that either of them should be criticised in the slightest for that tbh. I don't see any reasons for her being 'breakthru' artist of the year but she's certainly very talented if fairly 'generic' in style.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sammiecassell on Jan 2, 2015 0:42:34 GMT -5
Wow, I guess I should have paid more attention to the boards over the holidays, seems a lot of holiday cheer is not being shared. I feel there is a lot here to comment on so I'll try to be brief. 1st-some positives- I believe we DO have the power to change the industry. Just look at the example of the Batman book. DC was going to up it to $5.00, first they say, it's only that issue, then it's back to the regular price point, why?? Because the comic community as a whole rose up & hollered, which got the attention of the creators, which begat change. Capitalism is the back bone of our society. They have the ability to charge whatever they want, WE have the ability to NOT buy it. If it doesn't sell, they won't make anymore. Don't like "events"? Don't buy, don't like superhero books? Don't buy. Don't know how many cons y'all go to, but the last one I went to, all the books by creators were $4-5. Maybe being able to raise their prices HELPED them. 2nd-I also feel like the four hosts get stuck in a rut and all kind of jump on the same wagon. We all read the ks we think interests us, and that's all we can do. Doesn't make any of us right or wrong, it just plays to our interests. This podcast has broadened my horizons. Before, I was almost exclusively a "Marvel guy" but through recommendations on here, I've started reading more Image books, more independent books, more stuff I never would have before. Now it seems like this year everyone has jumped back on the Big 2 bandwagon. But that's ok, now I'm on the independent bandwagon & I'll ride her until she bucks me. I think this is one of their goals (not to speak for any of the group). One of the other goals is not to exclude anyone or anything for any reason. And to bring awareness, I think it's over done at times and does get tedious (especially the female quotient), but it's their prerogative and their right to do so. It's taken me a while to get used to it, but I don't let it offend me or my respect for what they do. 3rd- I do want to take a little issue with, what I perceive as, for the lack of a better term, "hypocrisy" that goes on in the forums and the show. Even though I don't read it, when all the hubbub started about Batgirl #35 (I think) and this "amazing" new artist Babs Tar, I decided to look into her. While she was entertaining in her interview, her style is not personally my thing (which is my perrogative just as its anyone's to love it). I thought the "hourglass figure" was passe & offensive? Then I did a Google search, her website is full of nudes, isn't that supposed to be degrading to women? On the same lines, Bitch Planet is being discussed as Book of the Year, and while I haven't read it, I did flip through it. Can any one say, honestly, that if Batgirl was done the exact same way, but have Greg Land's name as artist, or, a better analogy, Bitch Planet had Garth Ennis's name on it, they would be heralded as the tremendous books? Do they get a pass because they're done by Babs & Kelly Sue? As I always say, I'm not trying to create controversy, however I am trying to create discussion, which educates us all. 4th-opinions expressed on the podcast and the forums are just that opinions, everybody has one and most of them stink and finally..... 5th- in the words of the great Corey Taylor "If I offended you, you needed it" Sammie, I'm only going to address a bit of your post, and even that is only as information for everyone, as it's hardly anyone's place (particularly mine) to try to dictate someone else's tastes, even as we give our opinions on what pleases us. Also, as a child of the Sixties, I'll tell you that you should always challenge "The Man", but now as an alter cocker, I'd ask everyone to be polite in deference to my advanced age! Regarding "hourglass figures" and such, I would posit that there is an accepted historical and artistic gulf between the broke-back art of the Escher-girl school and the work of someone such as Peter Paul Rubens, whose paintings of full-figured women gave rise to the term "Rubenesque". In the world of comics, when I first came on board to Talking Comics, we had an interview with a fellow from Zenescope, whose covers I took some issue with. At the time, I showed Steve some work by Dave Stevens ( The Rocketeer), and he agreed that Mr. Stevens' drawings of nudes were more tasteful than the mostly-clothed fantasy figures being displayed on many current comics covers. This is not to equate BabsTarr's work with either the fine art of Mr. Rubens, nor the pin-up mastery of Mr. Stevens, but having checked her web-site, while there are nudes, they are certainly more in the fashion illustration mode than anything else, and even when not, they do seem more "Good Girl" subjects than "Bad Girl" objects, which to my taste makes a world of difference. (Solely my opinion of course; your individual mileage may vary As to Bitch Planet, I would say it is book that on reading through it, a closer examination would reveal that the story would present itself as being on-point with the Third Wave Feminist notion of "taking it back", so in essence it turns the exploitation around on itself. Not suggesting that you spend your hard-earned on it if it didn't grab you on first blush, but it is layered in the same way Pretty Deadly was, so it's tough to judge on a quick skim. It is fair to suggest that the same book with a male author would face a more stringent litmus test, but I'd believe we'd be even-handed in our assessments, as I'd suggest we've been on praising Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman run whilst being unhappy with Meredith Finch's first two efforts? Happy New Year to all, lest I forget! Ahh, thank you Bob, this is why I brought this to the front. I also was not trying to gripe about female writers or artists as I have enjoyed Pretty Deadly and a myriad of other things Kelly Sue has written, and Louise Simonson is one of my favorite writers & I don't think anyone would complain about Fiona Staples on Saga or anything else. I did this for my own educational purposes, and anytime we can get a historica lesson from you is bonus.. And also for perspective, as mine is not always the best nor the most accurate by any means. I also hope that if my scenarios had played out, that you guys would have done exactly what you said and would give it its due. I'm afraid sometimes the best intentions can be subverted not by actual reality but perceived. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jan 2, 2015 3:29:23 GMT -5
To touch on Bitch Planet's 'feminism' only... Bitch Planet's first issue is deeply flawed as any sort of feminist statement. To me it reads much more like a revival of the early 90s Riot Gurl movement than any sort of seriously considered feminist viewpoint. These are the points that struck me immediately as to any feminist claims 1) not all women are equal - bitch planet completely ignores the validity of the decisions and actions of the 'younger' wife. Without any depth or understanding she is portrayed as a unjustified whore - her youth and virility replacing the old tired wife who we should 'side' with. It seems clear that story is done and we won't revisit that love triangle. Positing women as either cooperating with power structures or 'feminists' ignores feminisms critique of the powers that compel choices of all women. The books audience is meant to cheer on 'their' females over 'other' females. That is deeply flawed. 2) feminism vs structuralism. I enjoyed BP's twist but again for a feminist statement it fails on every level because it shows no understanding of how the husband is also powerless (he gets the girl but it costs him all his assets, he is basically rendered powerless by what he must pay to get a 'fault' in the system 'rectified'. Remember this fault isn't connected to what actually happened with the ex wife, it's simply a clerical error devoid of gender bias. BP is too busy making the craven husband 'the bad guy' to see he (and his new bride) are just as much victims of the society. 3) rooting for who? It's clear who the hero will be but issue 1 only introduces her, there is no flesh on those bones yet. Issue ones central story is the love-triangle. The older woman is portrayed as a victim and we are to root for her. But actually we're given no understanding of what reason she is actually being removed from 'Earth'. The need to hide it for the 'twist' and the failure to deal with it after means we are rooting for someone because (1) she's a woman (2) she's old / frail (3) she's weak. Actually she could well have been a mass murderer for all we know. BP uses her instrumentaly. To use Bob's phrase.. I've no idea whether she should be supported in her 'taking it back' because I've no actual information on why she is on the ship / prison and who she is as a person. Nor will I get that given the end of the issue. This is pretty weak sauce for any feminist critique, it's simply relying on the audience to buy the visual signifiers female/old/confused/frail/vulnerable. As a bit of pulp I thought it was okay but as any considered statement I found it a mess. Plus... Why is this so hyped when Prison Ship Anteres did a much better job on very similar material not 12 months ago? Could it be because of the publisher and the power of social media / energy of unsophisticated thoughts? As far as I can tell BP is a competent but not fantastic retelling of something we've seen 100 times before (it particularly struck me as Alan Davis' Harry 20 on The High Rock) with a bit of Pussy Riot wrapping. It's fine but it's not even near the top 20 books Image put out this year. And this is NOT an objection to highlighting female creators (Prison Ship Anteres is written by a female)' I actually appreciate TC's Spotlight on female creators.. I would never have picked up the excellent Femme Fatale without out it. (As an aside... The only issue I have with Babs Tar's work is that if Milo Manara is going to get taken outside for a kicking then Babs has to join him.. Her work is very sexualised in non-sexual situations, mostly from her anatomical ratios that make female bodies look like thinspirational models. Not that either of them should be criticised in the slightest for that tbh. I don't see any reasons for her being 'breakthru' artist of the year but she's certainly very talented if fairly 'generic' in style.) I'll be brief and try to opine on much of this at once, as it's 3:00 AM, and pardon me if I don't type well at this hour. Dawn (the "younger wife" does have a name) was portrayed as an "unjustified whore" in the three panels she appears in? Or in the words of Mr. Collins describing their affair? (Sorry about that, but I love a bit of the ole hyperbole as much as the next fellow, but...) I would suggest that where she speaks of wanting "...to start our lives together", it did create some sympathy, and poignantly, as she might find herself next out on the shuttle, considering the actions of her husband towards Marian, his first wife. For me personally, although I would say that the oppressor class on the whole could be classified as "victims" in the sense that an un-just society mars everyone, categorizing Mr. Collins and his loss of money and Marian's loss of personal liberty as equally victimized seems a stretch. I would bet that Kelly Sue DeConnick would self-describe this work as using familiar imagery and metaphors from past examples of this sub-genre, but with a different slant. As to where the story goes from here, taking Ms. DeConnick's other work in consideration, elements from this issue will more than likely crop up as we move on, so I'd not bet against seeing these characters re-appear. ps) I seem to recall us bashing Marvel for choosing Milo Manara for the Spider- Woman cover considering the targeted audience, but saying that he was outstanding in his field; perhaps I'm mis-remembering, as my thoughts are rather unsophisticated at this wee hour? rrr |
|
