Gail Simone's Blog, page 858

Hypothetical Question

And this is GENUINELY hypothetical, I post it because I think it’s interesting for readers to face the kind of odd scenarios that actually happen pretty regularly for comic book and other writers of licensed characters.

Okay, you are a writer, you have a name for writing licensed characters, doesn’t matter if it’s comics, television, games, tie-in novels, whatever.

Now, there’s a character or set of characters you love. And recently, they seem to have taken a turn you strongly disagree with, and that is in canon, you can’t change it.

And you are offered a job writing those characters.

Would you:

a) Take the job and hope to explain or mitigate the recent canon stuff you disagree with, even if you can’t change it, or…

b) Avoid the characters even if you really love them because of the canon addition, or…

c) Some other option.

Again, this is hypothetical, I am not talking about a book I’m writing, have written, or will write.

I’m just curious. Even if you are pretty secure in your ethics, questions come up all the time that require lots of thought.

So, in this situations, what would you do?

I Rarely Ask This But...

…if you could choose any character from any comics company for me to write, that I had not had an assignment on before (so no Bop, Superman, Atom, Deadpool, etc.), whom would you pick?

You mentioned male rape recently, which reminded me of something--what's your opinion on Dick Grayson's rape and how it was handled? I know it's probably not even canon anymore and you've said you respect the author, but..."For the record, I’ve never used

I found the whole thing baffling. I’m not sure what she was going for there. It seems a definite misstep at the very least.

A Slightly Frustrating Thing...

desaturated-toast:

Thank you.
Even without the sexist angle it’s still fucking annoying as a student artist who is busting their ass off to try to draw art that is dynamic and full of motion while STILL keeping things anatomically accurate that these artist have made a living drawing shit like this for YEARS, ESPECIALLY when you consider how many brilliant ametuer artists who can strike a balance between dynamic, even sexy art that gets across the idea of ACTION and keeping things correct ARE out there, unable to break into the industry. 

That’s ANOTHER point, that this stuff sort of trains the expectations of editors and publishers to hire MORE people making these same artistic choices, so that people who actually draw women more like human beings, even idealized human beings, in human poses, can end up being less in demand.

maverynthia:thepatches:themarysue:APE IN A CAPE: A Slightly Frustrating...

maverynthia:

thepatches:

themarysue:

APE IN A CAPE: A Slightly Frustrating Thing…

gailsimone:

…about the wonderful http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/ and http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ .

I think these sites do something hilarious, something I’ve tried to do my whole online history, which I think of as ‘mocktivism,’ that is, activism by mockery. You showcase how absurd something is, you take away the excuses and the labeling and you nakedly show how ridiculous some things are that desperately need changing. It’s a way of getting at the entrenched nonsense by making fun of it.

Making the egregious laughable.

All well and good, I’m thrilled these sites exist.

But what’s bugging me is that there are still goofballs out there who are taking away the wrong message. The narrative is growing that, contrary to all indications, the people behind these sites are just humorless feminists who hate anything sexy.

GUYS. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

That is NOT what’s happening. These people are exposing something that is intrinsically disturbing, but they are doing it with more humor and wit than the original drawings EVER displayed.

But beyond that…it’s irritating and incorrect to imply that pointing out something stupid makes you anti-sex, anti-sexuality, or anti-sexy art.

Most feminists I know LIKE beautiful women in their comics, they LIKE sexy characters and sexy content.  Every con I’m at, women line up for sketches of women by artists like Adam Hughes, Amanda Conner, and other artists with a gift for drawing gorgeous, sexy pin-ups.

I for one love when a gifted artist draws a beautiful, sexy woman in a comic (guys too, obviously, but this topic is about female portrayal).

It’s just that the definition of sexy isn’t broken-back swivel-torsoed caricatures of balloon-esque underage demi-teens with perpetually frozen sex doll expressions and Penthouse poses. Usually while they are making coffee or turning on the television.

It’s not the SEXY that is at issue. It’s the competence. It’s the lack of understanding of how women work, the lack of concern about alienating huge chunks of the readership. It’s mistaking ‘ugly’ for ‘sexy.’  It’s taking empowered characters and displaying them like a standing rib roast at the butcher shop. It’s making women adornments instead of characters with souls and will and agency.

It’s bad comics. It’s bad illustration.

And most of it even fails on this basic goal…it is bad cheesecake.

No one wants to take away the sexy out of comics. Most would be fine with a lot MORE sexy in comics.

They just want to be included and not actively discouraged, they want to see women treated with the same kind of care and fun that the males are, they want to see good art done well instead of distorted for a market that never grew up.

Making fun of bad art doesn’t take away the sexy. If anything, it encourages artists to do sexy BETTER.

Like it or not, women are going to have a voice in comics. And in this case, that means making fun of stuff that absolutely deserves it.

GOOD.

Ladies and Gentlespoons: GAIL SIMONE. *standing ovation*

Eh? Even if the women were drawn right, that means pretty much EVERY woman has to be sexy all the time and I don’t want that either. If the men aren’t being sexy I don’t want to women to be sexy. It just sends the message still that women are just sex objects. There are times for sexy and times for not sexy.

Wow. No, that’s not what it means at all. What the hell?

I’m addressing something very specific, which is the charge that the sites like these want to ‘take the sexy away’ and other such nonsense.

I specifically said how ridiculous it is to have these hyper-sexualized women doing everyday things like making coffee.

I talked about the sexy thing to address a specific bit of crap that has been leveled at those sites. I have no idea where the idea would come that that means ALL poses of ALL women have to convey sexuality.

I'm curious about something that anon mentioned regarding the catalog of rape in Alan Moore works. They mentioned that rape is often used in an unthoughtful and demeaning way. Is there any way that rape can be used in a thoughtful and non-demeaning way?

Okay. I know the answer people are looking for here is no, there’s no way.

But I disagree. There is ABSOLUTELY a way to tell a story with rape in it that is meaningful and thoughtful.

I worked at a crisis center as a volunteer for a long time. A lot of those women had been serially abused, often from childhood on.

I believe that stories of survival are extremely helpful to women in that position. Not all women, but definitely many.

If there are no stories where women survive being raped, no stories where children survive horrible things, even incest, I worry that that sends a message, too. That there ARE no survivors.

There has to be room for thoughtful, sensitive portrayals of even very ugly topics. Stories specifically where people try to cope, try to survive, try to have lives beyond what they experienced. Stories where they are able to regain their lives. What we don’t need is more voyeuristic bullshit.

The sad thing is, there AREN’T that many such stories that have achieved significant exposure without being exploitative.

I hope that makes sense.

EDITED because I made this question completely about women. Damn. Obviously, people all over the gender spectrum are abused and raped. Making the entire post about women is just completely wrong. My apologies, I posted in haste, dammit.

seinemajestat:Look at Babs scrapbooking Dinah’s...

seinemajestat:

Look at Babs scrapbooking Dinah’s accomplishments!

DAMMIT!

I love this. Where did it come from?

I want to get your opinion on something. For awhile now, I've been wanting to make an index of all the times Alan Moore uses rape, attempted rape or sexual assault as a plot device. (Obviously I'm taking a lot of inspiration from WiR.) Rape is used much to

It is one of THE most problematic things in Moore’s work to me (there are often issues of race that are baffling as well). 

Simply put, rape is WAY too often presented as humorous punchline or with elements of victim acceptance.

In League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the girls of Pollyanna’s school are raped by the Invisible Man, presented with a humorous tone. POLLYANNA, for Christ’s sake, beloved by little girls for ages, the eternal symbol of girlish optimism.

Which is one of the big reasons why I objected to some of the high ground Alan took for the Before Watchmen thing. I get him being upset. But he’s no stranger to doing grotesque things to other people’s characters himself, and that’s one of the grossest.

There’s some creepy ass stuff there. Being a genius doesn’t excuse it.

Yes, I think, always, that the truth is important. I think a fair, honest assessment is long overdue whatever the results are, vindication or condemnation.

Photo

A Slightly Frustrating Thing...

j33zits:

gailsimone:

…about the wonderful http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/ and http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ .

I think these sites do something hilarious, something I’ve tried to do my whole online history, which I think of as ‘mocktivism,’ that is, activism by mockery. You showcase how absurd something is, you take away the excuses and the labeling and you nakedly show how ridiculous some things are that desperately need changing. It’s a way of getting at the entrenched nonsense by making fun of it.

Making the egregious laughable.

All well and good, I’m thrilled these sites exist.

But what’s bugging me is that there are still goofballs out there who are taking away the wrong message. The narrative is growing that, contrary to all indications, the people behind these sites are just humorless feminists who hate anything sexy.

GUYS. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

That is NOT what’s happening. These people are exposing something that is intrinsically disturbing, but they are doing it with more humor and wit than the original drawings EVER displayed.

But beyond that…it’s irritating and incorrect to imply that pointing out something stupid makes you anti-sex, anti-sexuality, or anti-sexy art.

Most feminists I know LIKE beautiful women in their comics, they LIKE sexy characters and sexy content.  Every con I’m at, women line up for sketches of women by artists like Adam Hughes, Amanda Conner, and other artists with a gift for drawing gorgeous, sexy pin-ups.

I for one love when a gifted artist draws a beautiful, sexy woman in a comic (guys too, obviously, but this topic is about female portrayal).

It’s just that the definition of sexy isn’t broken-back swivel-torsoed caricatures of balloon-esque underage demi-teens with perpetually frozen sex doll expressions and Penthouse poses. Usually while they are making coffee or turning on the television.

It’s not the SEXY that is at issue. It’s the competence. It’s the lack of understanding of how women work, the lack of concern about alienating huge chunks of the readership. It’s mistaking ‘ugly’ for ‘sexy.’  It’s taking empowered characters and displaying them like a standing rib roast at the butcher shop. It’s making women adornments instead of characters with souls and will and agency.

It’s bad comics. It’s bad illustration.

And most of it even fails on this basic goal…it is bad cheesecake.

No one wants to take away the sexy out of comics. Most would be fine with a lot MORE sexy in comics.

They just want to be included and not actively discouraged, they want to see women treated with the same kind of care and fun that the males are, they want to see good art done well instead of distorted for a market that never grew up.

Making fun of bad art doesn’t take away the sexy. If anything, it encourages artists to do sexy BETTER.

Like it or not, women are going to have a voice in comics. And in this case, that means making fun of stuff that absolutely deserves it.

GOOD.

I think she is still missing the point. Eschergirls is partially about bad art, but it is also about pointing out needless sex display; how the boobs and butt pose is not only bad anatomy, but indicative of an underlying misogyny. More importantly, thehawkeyeinitiative is making fun of how female characters are portrayed by showing a male character in poses typically used for female characters to demonstrate the unnecessary sexual display they entail.

My tumblr should make it obvious that I don’t have a problem with sexuality (and my “art” is probably creepier than most). I like porn comics. However, I also like reading comics without porn. When I read comics without porn, it is annoying when the same art techniques designed to help guys jerk off are used in non-porn comics. It looks stupid, and makes people who enjoy comics look bad.

What if Sex and the City had been filmed with with the camera looking between the main characters legs, or if a number of shots in The Wild Bunch had been the camera slowly panning up Ernest Borgnine’s body, making sure to get a nice view of his ass? Yet we tolerate this kind of thing in comics without a blink.

I think I commented on that pretty specifically, in fact.