Dear Comic Book Guys - I Think We Have A Problem

I've been distracted of late, replying in my personal journal about issues of race and the fact that fans of color will not have white fans for breakfast, if they write fanfiction and get something wrong with a character of color. Maybe comic book fans of color do eat them some white meat, all raw and ripped to shreds. But fanfiction fans of color, or as my roommate has named us 'The FoCing Cabal' aren't bestial.

Moving from this back to a column idea that some folks have been pimping at me, I innocently start looking up various comic book artists, and googled phrases like 'realistic body shape in comic books'. Because I realized that I know a lot of DC artists, but not a whole lot of Marvel artists and I wanted to do something with an even playing feel.

Then I came across this in Comicbook Resources Forums

The Xenos

03-25-2005, 08:48 PM
For me the best looking and most realistic women[sic] in comics are by Greg Land. Yet Cho also draws some fine women and I love his art overall too. His dinosaurs, monkeys, and other creatures are also wonderfully illustrated. His women do often look at bit too much alike at times though. Part of this may be an obession with Linda Carter.

The best looking and most realistic women? Really? Based on what? The women in 'ButtSluts IV' ? The women in 'Bukkake & Bondage'?

Th recent WIZARD book about how to draw characters has had scans make it onto the internet. And it has drawn (puns are so cool) all sorts of furor. Dedicated Sidekick has a post up about how Poser6 thought he was crazy when he tried to mimic the poses generally done for women.

My first impulse in all this is to tell the artists to go rent some 70's porn. There'll be big women, little women, tall, short, big breasts, smaller breasts, small stomachs, a few flat stomachs, the really sexy little rounding that comes from a woman who's given birth; a cornucopia of shapes. If there's one thing the porn of the 70's had was silicone free, pubic hair wearing, flesh actually jiggling women.

How have we reached a place in society when Barbie doll looks are considered realistic by men? I know I've been paying attention to female self-esteem and teenage girl self-esteem. I know I've seen the various articles and reports about men who bodybuild too much because they have body dysmorphia. I know this unrealistic pinnacle on beauty on both sides is a false impression, put up on a pedestal by advertisers who want to convince the public that they're imperfect and flawed and this product will make it all better; eat this, wear that, smell like this, cover that, whiten this, darken that, exercise, jazzercise, weight train, rubber band train, highlight, lowlight, shave, wax, peel, microderm abrasions, anti-wrinkle, brush your teeth in an elevator, inject here, tan, don't tan, spray on tan, just one little tuck, cut, fold, clamp...



But didn't we used to be able to see the difference between plastic impossibility and real life good health? Didn't we? Has it all really been a steady slide down since the 80's? Has the illusion become the norm?; The only thing reflected in art and the mirrors we look at and the eyes we look out of when we view and judge other people?

Is the epitome of beauty, long straight hair, a thin roman nose, high cheekbones and light eyes with long dark eyelashes and a sleepy sultry look like there's always time for bedplay? Is this what the word woman conjures up now? Is the epitome of handsome, 2% body fat, tight corded muscle, and boyishness?

Has this all become standard because only one side is fighting against it? Women? And the men see it, and are unhappy and maybe angry that the wife or girlfriend or daughter they think is beautiful isn't according to popular culture but they don't say anything because.... Because of what? Why don't they say anything? Why do women only hear it when they start complaining, but not in a chant happening side by side when they go to confront some marketing campaign or beauty product?

And on a random but slightly related note - Is the quest for a woman with bigger breasts compensation for how small and thin they've become? Is the male hindbrain eagerly looking for a woman who looks like she could breast feed his seed, despite the fact that every other part of her body says 'I'm malnourished and will possibly die soon' ? Is it connected to the need to have something relatively soft against them when thin women have pelvic bones that can be felt grinding down through flesh in a painful manner?

In the next five years are women going to have to be going 'But baby, you don't need pec implants' ? / 'Your delts are fine the way they are, you don't need silicon in there!'

Realistic. It's like the word doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean anymore. And if it doesn't, then super-realistic, super-physique, super-heroic will just get more and more ridiculous, won't it? Skinnier and more scantily clad females. Bulging and more distorted and disfigured looking males.

That's a sad future. I don't want that future.

Although, it does give a clue as to why we see women's nipples but never the shape, size and length of any super-hero's package. Just what would a super-hero package look like? And how would you determine who was bigger? Does the Hulk beat Captain America ? Thor beats Spiderman? Or is Peter Parker hiding some unique aspect of radioactive spider bites? If Wolverine and Cyclops really pulled it out to measure - who would win? And if that was really a factor in comics, as things get more and more outrageous, how soon would it be before compared to all the muscles any hero had, they all ended up seeming - small?

Why I'm Not Writing About Civil War

1) The Holocaust

2) Concentration Camps for: Gays, Gypsies, Poles

3) Japanese Camps in the US

4) The Shit List thrived arrests of members of the Black Panthers

5) Genosha

6) Wolverine's Adamantium Skeleton

7) The Mutant Registration Act

If the characters in Marvelverse haven't yet figured out that minority + list + numbers = great, stinking, suspicious, potentially explosive, pile of shit - that's their problem. I studied my history. If the smart ones can't tell the not so smart ones why it's a bad idea without making an 'event' out of it...

Yes, I know, writers and artists and high muckymucks thought this was a good idea. Well, sometimes people have brainfarts. You don't pay them for the chance to take a big whiff.

Head's Up

To any and all of you out there who've read this journal/blog and were impressed or thought I was insightful - I just want to let you know I'm gonna fall flat on my face maybe three or four times sometime soon. It's the law of averages. Don't be too disappointed. Also don't make too much fun. ;p

Fanboy to Fangirl: Beginnings of a Dialogue?

Highlander over at The Miserable Annals responded to my thoughts about the argument between male fans of comics and female fans. He's been given food for thought. I replied to him, twice, but his blog's moderated and I didn't save the first response. Not knowing when I'll see my responses (because RL happens) I'm also putting my second reply and the main thrust I remember of the first, here.

__

Firstly, he had this to say:

...These superheroines are supposed to be intelligent, they're supposed to be competent, they're supposed to be among the finest physical athletes and martial artists in the world. And they're dressed like THAT?

It seems more than a little ridiculous, I have to imagine. In fact, it may well seem so ridiculous as to be offensive....

And this:

The fact that these female characters behave like admirable, wonderful, fabulous people while dressed as porno starlets is, on a fundamental level, confusing and offensive to female comics readers. It causes them, to say the least, some emotional conflict.

And I told him he got it. With those statements acknowledging that there is a conflict, he got it. And I challenged him since he's about to become a father (to three girls), to look at the new Supergirl and imagine his youngest dressed up as Supergirl and defending it because Supergirl is a hero. 'And you like comics Dad'. Would he look at her and think he didn't want some grubby fanboy thinking that all there was to his beautiful, talented, brilliant daughter, was the skin she showed? (There was more - I believe I mentioned a male character in his entry being dressed like he should lick boots and like it - but I've forgotten the rest. When the comment shows I'll edit and add)

But there was another aspect of his entry. And it took me a while to figure out what bothered me about it and if I wanted to respond to it. I decided it's not a knee jerk reaction.

Him:
And it doesn't matter how nuanced their dialogue may be, or how many kids we see them pull out of how many burning buildings at great risk to their own life and limb, because no matter how courageous or competent or valorous or noble they are, the fact remains, they are dressed in costumes specifically designed to give any man seeing them a gigantic woody, and most women have nothing but (perhaps merited) contempt for any woman who specifically dresses simply to provoke that kind of reaction in men.

My response:
I can't speak for most women. But I think the 'contempt' you mentioned goes right back to my thoughts on 'the cat fight'. You seem to be speaking of the characters being torn down unconsciously because of the way they look. I'm speaking of a history of explotative physical appearance. It's not that she's trying to make men horny so she's a ho and we don't like her. I know many women who're all about sex worker rights and the fact that some women do feel empowered by being strippers or porn stars. Their rights should be respected. It's hypocritical to say a woman's body is her own when it comes to abortion but then say a woman who chooses to be a sex worker is automatically ignorant of the politics or has been culturally brainwashed about her sense of self worth and needs to be regulated into doing something better.

There is a matter of choice here that real women have and I know that I tend to hope they make that choice from an informed station. That they're not going along because this is how they've been told women are sexy. And mostly I hope that they're not making that choice because it's the best way to get money, despite how they feel about themselves, their bodies and the job, because they haven't had opportunities to train for anything else.

I've never seen in character/ in canon references to why the heroines dress the way they do. No, I saw one. In Supergirl where Stargirl commented on the bare midrift they both shared and wondered if Supergirl was going for 'distracting the enemy'. And then they went on to mention that it wasn't dangerous for Kara because as a Girl of Steel it'd take kryptonite to really hurt her.

But Huntress was shot. Baraba did lose use of her legs and Black Canary was once so badly beaten she lost her cry. How in the face of those circumstances can Helena and Dinah continue to wear flaunting clothing? What's going on in their heads?

You said that men just go 'The artist was smoking crack' when they see a hero wearing something that doesn't match up to his personality or his job. Fangirls do think the same thing. The problem is that the artists are always smoking crack.

If our (female) heroes are drawn like that it's because it's appealing to men, and no thought is given to whether these particular strong women would really expose themselves in that manner. That's doing them grave injustice as characters.

Your original post about Catfights mentioned that the female roles seem to be generally subordinate to the male roles. My complaint is that the female roles seem to be subboridnate to the artists. It doesn't matter if Barbara Gordon, who was shot and paralyzed, would arguably have something to say about the safety of her agents, especially if they were injured before. So it would be logical for her to insist and / or discuss with them, them wearing clothing that protects them. The artists want to see skin, so they show skin. Dinah and Helena and all the rest never got to make a choice.

And given the history of the world it just makes the analogy of 'Man = puppet master, Woman = puppets' all the more distressing in an industry that's allegedly saying 'But wait, is a bird? A plane? No it's Supergirl! She'll save the day!'

(And yup I did catch my typos in this repost)

ETA: I've realized one of my comments to Highlander, re: his daughters was kind of creepy. And as soon as blogger stops being broken, I'll appologise.

One Fan's Problems With Recent DC Events

This blog isn't just about women in comics, it's about characters of color in comics too. I've just been too busy whacking off my inner femmnist (She's had a lot to say). But for now Read This: "Honey, the new canon is built on a steaming pile of racist, misogynist shite."


It's, to paraphrase my roommate's own link post, about how fan Te ran away to the whitest of white fandoms - Batmanverse, only to find see it recently invaded by the same "Spork in the Eye*" cliches as everywhere else.

*Spork-in-the-eye, trademarked to my roommate.

If The Fanboys Think We're Jealous, How Do We Win?

In my entry "Beyond The Catfight Fantasy" I brought up my concern that fanboys (generic catch all term) may read feminist stances against over-sexualized female characters in comics, as a catfight. They might very well see our objections as us trying to bring down the 'prettier than us' fictional characters. of Maid of Might sums it up pretty well in her comment here, quote:

Because that would explain perfectly the average, unthinking fanboy response to complaints, which generally boils down to "But don't you want women to look good? Surely you don't want the women to look ugly?!"

The Pretties vs The Uglies. That primary school scandal raises it's ugly heads. Even if you weren't a part of it, even if weren't paying attention to which side you were on; the boys were paying attention. And they didn't just see it on the playground, it's everywhere. Women tearing down other women who're more successful than they are, or younger, or more beautiful. Sometimes those women don't even realize what they're doing when the claws come out.

But if it's made such a huge impression, if it's become coded behavior, how do we uncode it so that the fanboys running and working in the industry listen to our actual points and not just see the whole thing as noise. I don't agree with James Meeley's points about needing to have patience and not shouting. But I do wonder now if his response was what it was because he was also reading 'catfight' into what we feel is righteous anger at misrepresentation and exploitation.

So now what do we do? How do we win the pre-fight? How do we shift perception, if this is the perception, away from a sterotyped understanding and towards our real points? How do we set up dialogue? What language do we use?

The fanboys point out over and over again that male characters are over muscled, and unrealistic and they don't object. Is it machismo? And if so, do they think we're whining? Are they really saying they aren't inimidated by heroic figures so why are we? If their stance is - we're men, we know we're not heroes, we don't expect to see heroes just like us - is that why they can't understand that we do expect to see heroines who remind us of our mothers, sisters, teachers and other important female figures?

I don't think fanboys are that blind to inspiration. They like Batman's unwavering goals. They like Superman's epic heroism - as in his essential goodness. And those characteristics are displayed within figures who are larger than life, thus muscles and broad shoulders and tiny hips and intensely low body fat. But the men are still men. They're still men fanboys can relate to and understand and feel represented by. If they had superpowers and worked out that hard and had the time, money, energy - they too would do right for the world and try to juggle a private life or social life or any life at all. (Reverse that if they're a villian loving fanboy with private plans for world conquest)

I might not be able to think of a single individual in my life who I see in Mystique. But I do know I admire her survival instinct and her pure mettle. They're attributes I can recognize in myself and women I admire. I admire Helena's pluckiness and grit. She'll go to the dark place, she'll deal with the scum to protect the greater good. That's something I can admire. But Huntress stops being a woman I can recognize when, without super powers, she flaunts her body's weak and vulnerable spots even though she's been previously injured. That's not me if I had the super dedication and worked out hard and had the time, money and energy.

What language do I need to communicate that more clearly than I just did? I know I'm not in competition with a two dimensional representation of a heroic female. I know that it's a fantasy. But it's a fantasy set in a real world analog. Real world dangers apply. People can die or become critically injured. People can be tortured. Science has a level of similarity as well from medical to fissionable. Gravity apparently works the same if they're on planet earth. So what are the right words to use to show the difference in wanting that potential role model and icon to show due concern for her personal safety and self image without it seeming like I'm comparing myself to some norex wearing 'beauty queen' and wanting the bitch to go down?

On GenderSwitching

I've been thinking a lot about genderwitching. A comment here led me to a conversation elsewhere where the Harry Potter Universe characters were genderswitched. And following that conversation led me to create a discussion on a different community about what happens when all the players of that fandom, which we love but currently don't enjoy, are switched around.

The initial reactions were that people didn't think the books would have been published at all if it were a man who suddenly had the power to make people want him, even against their own will. And yes, this is an Anita Blake / LKH community I'm referring to. But then in Seeking Avalong, had had this thought in reference to cat fights: I don't even really think the fight was about Scott, even. From the telepathic confrontation, we got a good look at Emma's inner psyche, we got a good look into the Phoenix and what it is/represents, and we got a confused/uncertain Scott Summers finally standing up to his distant wife.

I've mentioned before that when I was younger I thought of Scott as 'the girl', that I'd found him boring. (Do note the past tense) If I switch genders now however:

"I don't even really think the fight was about Scarlett, even. From the telepathic confrontation , we got a good look at Emerson's inner psyche, we got a good look into the Phoenix and what it is/represents, and we got a confused/uncertain Scarlett Summers finally standing up to her distant husband."

Two psychics toying with a non psychic? Does it read that way now? Or does it read more of that Jack Grey was a distant, removed man and Scarlett went towards the warmth? But that points out more about Scott's situation that the point I'm currently worrying at so I'll leave that to a Scott essay #2.

I've seen people try to show the difference in uniforms with their own artwork examples ( for example); of the sexualized passive poses, the exposed skin, etc that happens with comic book heroines. Would a true gender switch of comics have to take that into consideration? Would we end up with some kind of amazonian woman's world were men felt marginalized and comic fan boys waved the issues in our faces saying it was fit more for a niche market of masochistic men with a jones for female domination that something for mass consumption?

I think I need to look at this in two ways. In the first I can simply turn gender around and then the powerful, non overtly sexualized characters would suddenly be women, and the passive, rape or sexual assault in their pasts, eye candy would suddenly all be men. Supergirl would become Superboy, in red-short shorts, and blue gloves, a cape-collar contraption, boots and nothing else. It'd be an outfit Clara Kent's father made for young Kryptonian Karl.

Wow, put that way I can't help but think Mark Kent is setting Karl up to know his place as eye-candy and meat in a world where women know the score and women are the heroes and it doesn't matter how much power Karl really has or could grow into. Being a hero in this world, vs being a heroine has a lot to do with appearance and Clara will help Karl settle in and introduce him to people, regular humans and heroes, who could help him understand Earth; as soon as Clara's finished sitting in a room with Brenda, observing how Karl stumbles around by himself trying to live up to a legacy.

But I need more than one example, right? So how about Wonder Woman as Wonder Man. He'd have the red star on a golden circlet. He'd have the cuffs and boots and blue star spangled short-shorts and a red shirt with gold armor. He'd want to help the Matriarchy, having come from an island where men could look after themselves and regularly walk around covered head to foot. He'd have a mission where he'd be trying to show this new world that all humans are equal and he'd end up having to continually prove himself and his views on balance to a group of....judgemental women?

Huh, there must be something wrong with how I'm turning the tables in this straight switch. Let me try one more time. Third time's the charm, right? Now, who to pick?

She-Hulk! With the Greg Horn covers. She-Hulk would just be Hulk. And the covers of his books would show him bending over the bathtub washing it, while dripping wet and in thin sports shorts, while looking over his shoulder and smiling to the camera? No wait. Hulk doesn't seem the best example. Let's not count Gene Walters Jameson.

Huntress (someone else come up with more Marvel characters). Huntress would be Hunter. He'd have been shot in the chest and stomach once in the past but still be wearing absolutely nothing protective on that area of his body. He'd have suffered from a brutal rape in his past, but feel empowered in his short-shorts, and gloves, and mask even though he rides a motorcycle and should probably be covered more in case of accident. He'd want very much to be part of Batwoman's team. But end up under Oracle instead and working with Black Canary, having fought for the right to weild his brand of justice. And he'd be known to need watching for uncharacteristic aggressiveness and be constantly be talked off of potentially killing criminals?

Ok, I give up. I can't do three in this category. Hunter just sounds like he needs serious therapy.

It looks like I can't manage a straight genderswitch properly. Maybe someone else will have a better go at it. But let me try the second way of dealing with things. If I switch around just the costumes, the artist styles, poses and the storylines given. Batman still lost his parents when he was eight. He still traveled the world to find the best ways of making himself capable of halting such crimes. And he still ended up taking the Bat as his emblem and hunting down criminals in the dark nights of Gotham. He'd still want to be a figure the public, especially its criminal element, is supposed to be scared of.

But would Batman suddenly look like a bondage sub boy? Shirtless, in tight shorts and a yellow belt and a hood and cape and our ability to tell when the weather's cold in Gotham by the peak or lack of peak in his nipples? If I add in the poses of arched back, hips thrust out, and one hand somewhere on the chest, does Batman suddenly look like he's for sale? Those powerful and iconic scenes of the cape billowing as he crouches on some gothic outcropping, peering out over his city would suddenly become Batman pressed up against a dirty building, cape falling silkily to his feet, his fingers looking like he's almost playing with his nipples in a kind of trance as he looks.... up into the sky somewhere while the city lights twinkle beneath him and his yellow utility belt hugs low on his hips, showing hipbone and making people wonder why he doesn't end up buck naked in the middle of a fight.

Ok, that's a wrong picture too. Let me try two other characters again, three tries for each point of view. Let's take Greg Land drawing.... Johnny Storm?

The Fantastic Four all wear full length jumpsuits, so there's no short-shorts for Johnny. But how tightly drawn would his suit be? Would we be able to count his abs and notice the weather situation in NYC as well due to his nipples? Would Johnny end up having scenes where fire licked along the length of his body, as he began to transform, with his hair alight and his eyes alight, and his body with a firey aura, while he arched in the throws of transformation, with one hand somewhere near his thighs and crotch and his body half twisted to show his ass in all round detail and the obvious cleft, given the skin tight blue uniform, and his mouth opened in the ecstasy of the transformation? Agony? His mouth just open and lips lush because he's alive?

Wait no. I must be reaching. I have to be reaching. I need another character. Logan. Our dear Wolverine. Forget any variation on the yellow suit. Let's just put Logan in tight fitting, well weathered jeans and a cowboy hat. That's pretty close to what he gets to wear nowadays anyway, right? So nothing much would change.

Except. How about that cigar? If posing, artists and storylines are to change, then suddenly Logan's fellatio-ing a cigar. And despite his origins, his story revolves around being back up for the heavy hitters. Sure there are interesting things to explore with him. But for the rule to stay true, that doesn't matter. What matters is that he has a couple moments of panel time and he's a shoulder for someone to lean on, an ear for someone to talk to....

Wait no. Even I can't do that to Logan. The fellatio-ing makes me want to stop reading my own damn artcle. And Logan's Bruce Wayne with claws to me. I've already gutted Batman in this. Let's move on. Alright? Alright.

Reboot for example three. Dick Grayson? Uhm no. He's got his own set of sexualized issues.

Captain America? Can anyone imagine Captain America holding a smaller shield, and wearing a full length body suit that for some reason has one bare arm and one bare leg? Would the Cap' look decisive at all? Like a leader? On the covers of his issues, or on crossovers, the shield would be leaning on him as he stood, hands unclenched, seen in profile so his package seems much bigger. Would we believe in the classic heroes following someone like that? Would we have ever gotten a storyline about his sidekick's return to life? Or would there be lots of guest stars in his comic, doing active things while he stood around looking patriotic and picture pretty?

On the plus side for those slashers among us, Captain America drawn by Greg Land, along side Bucky would be just rife with subtext, wouldn't it?

___ Epilogue___

I've decided that someone better at this than I might make a better point. I keep getting sidetracked trying to imagine the characters so different. I keep wondering about Power Man, and where the see through hole might go and how lost he would be and if it'd be possible to write that without emasculating him. Or wondering about Spiderman in Spider-shorts.

But given we've been hearing enough about him. I've had a thought on T'Challa.

T'Challa as a girl would be dressed in a black loincloth, flat soled shoes and let's say a t-shaped halter with mask. After her wedding to Storm, God of Weather, one of the most prominent mutants of all time, and now accepted by the deity that lends it's name to T'Challa, they'd go to Latveria on their honeymoon. Somehow in the middle of meeting the regent of the land, Lady Doom, Doom and T'Challa would get into a fight.

Storm, worried about his wife would interfere, only to have T'Challa ask her husband not to. She wants to handle this on her own. Just because they're married doesn't mean that Storm can just rush in and be over protective, even when things look dire. She's a hero too and leader of her people. T'Challa likes being able to stand on her own two feet even till the end.

T'Challa would defeat Doom and then on the trip to their next honeymoon stop, Storm would lean over to kiss his wife tenderly on the lips, only to see her still angry with him. A kiss can't solve everything. Storm had had no faith in her as a fighter. It can't happen again.

Storm retorts with a simple. "Hey, how do you know a kiss never solved everything. Have you tried kissing Doom?". There's laughter.

Why does it seem like in that scenario we, feminists and common sense, self accepting women, still can't win?
_____
[ETA: Link to Remix17]

Beyond The Cat Fight Fantasy

http://pandagon.net/2006/09/16/but-theres-titties-in-that-picture/#more-3762

So a group of conservatives are sexually harassing a young feminist blogger; making rude comments about her breasts and claiming she's some sort of kiss-ass, suck-up slut. All this based on a picture where she's standing next to Bill Clinton and has straight posture. The two main women involved are picking on and trying to pull down another woman and using sex to do it. They're encouraging men to make crude statements and to objectify this young lady; ; she's a whore, she's trading on her looks, no man'd ever be interested in her brains.

The hubbub got me thinking about the cat-fights in comics and whether or not they make sense. Not that cat-fights ever make any general sense. But are they internally consistent in a realistic way? Do do these heroic women ever turn to the man involved and go 'What are you doing'? No. A lot of the times they look at the other woman and go 'You Hussy!' and out come the claws. There's seldom a pause to think a deeper game might be playing.

Now, aside from the fact that men seem to like being fought over, what else does the cat-fight bring to the story? Really, what does it bring outside of wish fulfillment? Why should two powerful women fight over a man? Is he a pawn? Is he a prize?

• Emma vs Jean over Scott; In Ring One.



• Rogue vs A Cast of Women over Remy: In Ring Two



• Talia and Selina Over Batman: In Ring Three

I'm sure there are people who can think of more. Or perhaps the reverse, for example, Reed Richards vs Namor over Sue Storm. Sue's an object there and the men are fighting like neanderthals determined to disseminate their seed. But that's not quite the point I'm making.

In an industry that's so heavily dominated by men, what does it say when they have strong female characters ripping apart friends or even respected enemies, not over principles, but over a man? What does it say when one woman is jealous of another's looks and not her physical prowness and ability to do the job? Why isn't there an acceptance of talent and capability? Why is another woman on the scene a threat instead of a professional challenge?

Do the males in the industry think that our objections, to what we see as the unnecessary oversexualization of these female characters, really stem from some sort of jealousy? Are they so used to the concept of the cat-fight and its fantasy basis they can't hear the true objections?

Because I for one don't want large breasts, mine are bigger than I'd like actually. And while I wouldn't mind a couple extra inches in height, I don't want my feet to get any bigger. I would however appreciate an ass. I don't have one. It's a mystery - a painful mystery. But I wouldn't want to have to arch my back and push that butt out in some weird exotic pose in order to keep it. And I wouldn't want to wear a bathing suit when I headed into battle (Thank God in Reg Rucka's run, WW actually changed to varied battle dress when confronting Foes).

What I want is a woman I can want to emulate; one who can kick butt, save lives, take names and smile because she's done a good job. Isn't that the same thing the men who read want to feel about the male characters they like? Why is that so hard to believe, accept and understand?

Seeking Avalon; Title Explanation

This whole recent mess with James Meeley and the surrounding back talk about feminism had me thinking about my journal title and the fact that I'm probably the only person who knows what I'm talking about when I say 'Seeking Avalon'.

I moved from comics to mythology and the first myths I hit were Arthurian Legend. I hit them hard. I hit them repeatedly. I went to sleep with them under my pillow. It was an instant-hard-all consuming first love.

As I got older, however, I saw that the more developed the plots got in the various re-tellings, the more sidelined or evil interpreted the female characters became. Maybe my introduction to the myths were through my mother's college lit books. It's possible. I had a very young mother and I was a voracious reader. But I can still remember this sinking feeling in my gut; this thing mixed with confusion and the beginnings of anger that suddenly the Ladies of the Lake (and other Ladies of Power) weren't as important in the new stories I was finding. That in fact it was all about Arthur to such a degree that female protagonists were mixed, blended, reformed, vilified and all manner of things. Morgause and Morgan Le Fay are the best examples of two characters who were blended together into one; one substituted for the other; and then that new creation was made into the one who bore the evil son.

When I dipped into comics occasionally, trying desperately to catch up with what had happened, I started seeing some of the same things; Jean Grey was Dark Phoenix; Mary Jane was the clueless, ever loving, but slightly air headed model girlfriend; Captain Marvel was a guy instead of a woman in Avengers; And I didn't recognize Storm.

I'm not saying that there should be a comic retelling of the chars, ala M.Z. Bradley's 'Mists of Avalon'. Though as an AU that would certainly be interesting, as would a gender switch of major characters in most of the comics I love to read. I just want to get back to Avalon where it was ok for those female characters to be dynamic and powerful, beautiful and wonderful all over again, without having to be killed off immediately or otherwise tweaked.

Novelization: Inheritance _ Devin Grayson

I returned "Inheritance' by Devin Grayson on Thursday. I'd borrowed it from the library after coming across a blog or two that discussed it. The snippets seemed interesting. I kept hearing about Devin's start in fanfiction and how far she'd come and how much this novel seemed to read like fanfiction with all of it's subtext-almost-text.

I couldn't finish reading the book. I enjoyed Gotham Knights. I enjoyed 'Batman: Rise of Sin Tzu'. I'm fairly certain that any hand Devin had in the graphic novels of No Man's Land I'm likely to enjoy. But the only people I could get into in 'Inheritance' were the original characters.

Ow. Just, OW!!

I'm not an Aquaman fan, I basically know him from the cartoons: Superman in the 90's and JL / JLU in the 00's. But the person in the book I was reading didn't seem like either of the Aquamen I knew. And Green Arrow! Maybe Kevin Smith spoiled me on who he was supposed to be and how I was supposed to see him.

But Ollie was... Ollie was empty headed, glib. He wasn't the man I'd seen in the arc where he comes back to life and deals with his mistakes and his anger and bitterness and owns his maturity. I could understand the way the book's Roy treated him. Because I'd have hated a mofo like Ollie too, if he was as he was presented in the book. It was more than carefree and footloose and I kept wondering how come Batman didn't snap his neck.

Dick was.... the gayest thing I've ever seen! It was like in that universe if you looked up the word 'Twink', there'd be a picture of Dick Grayson's ass, followed by a picture of his side profile. The whole eagerness to please older men/need for affection/open walking wound/open mouth.... Dick was like if Greg Land drew men the way he traces women. It was perverse and scary in ways that have a lot to do with the depths of my Batman love and likely not a whole lot to do with anything else.

The original characters on the other hand felt like people. And Harvey Bullock seemed real as well. Whereas Jim Gordan felt like a shadow of himself and a fearful shadow at that.

I'm currently having difficulties reading Dennis O'Neil's novelization of Knightfall. But the problem there has more to do with me finding inside of Bane's head to be extremely boring and monochromatic and the fact that I don't like someone else getting inside of Batman's head for me. I very much like bringing my 'own' Batman to a Batman novel. The dissonance between the two makes for difficult reading and as much as I'd like a novelization approach to the tale I might have to just hunt down the graphic novels and trades.

But Devin Grayson and Inheritance was something painful. And I'm keenly disappointed. Because I'd hoped people who talked about it were exaggerating and that there was built up and context to those snippets they showed. But there wasn't. It was one long love letter to Dick's neediness, Batman's cryptic nature, Ollie as 'The Blonde Bombshell in Green' and Arthur as some kind of Atlantean English Nobleman with thought patterns mere humans could never understand.

Painful and sad.