Holiday Blogosphere responses to Joe Q

PeterLaundry HTsml 1 Holiday Blogosphere responses to Joe Q
While the holiday weekend has left people more interested in barbecues and outdoor exposure, a few developments. First J. Bone has posted the above image.

But see also this (!).
51ZhzzZdTzL. SS500  1 Holiday Blogosphere responses to Joe Q
A few responses from the blogosphere.

Laura Hudson:

Oh, Joe Q. How could anyone read anything perverse into this picture of bleeding, half-naked women strung up in chains, with drops of moisture glistening on their breasts as probing tentacles creep towards them? You heard it from the man himself: this is a totally innocent picture of kick ass women fighting the Brood, and you’re a dirty, dirty pervert for thinking anything else. Also, I particularly like how he tries to cash in on some sort of feminist cred by citing the woman who brought us Drain, a story about a sexy Asian vampire named Chinatsu who likes to lez it up with other sexy female vampires, and decapitate dudes while making jokes about “head” and licking her loooong sword. But you know, I’m probably reading too much into that too.


Kalinara

That said, there seems to be the prevalent idea in these defenses that the product isn’t offensive because the producers did not intend it to be so. That the product is being “misconstrued” as sexist.

It doesn’t work that way.

Adam Hughes does not get to determine what of his work offends people. Joe Quesada does not get to determine what covers set us off. No one gets to make that decision except the person who is offended. To that person, the work is offensive.


Peter Sanderson

Hughes asks, “is it really a sexist or misogynistic act if it wasn’t intended that way on the part of the people doing it? . . .are you seeing something that’s either not there, or that the artist never intended to be there?” First, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of human psychology. Certainly, a person can be subconsciously sexist or misogynistic. Certainly people can consciously hold prejudiced opinions without being aware they are prejudiced: they consider their opinions to be correct. D. W. Griffith was reportedly surprised that his film Birth of a Nation (1915) was attacked as racist, though today that is the unanimous opinion of cinema scholars. There’s that song in the musical Avenue Q, “Everybody’s a Little Bit Racist.”

Moreover, even if Hughes did not consciously or unconsciously have sexist intentions, that does not mean that people who interpret the statue as sexist are wrong. Certainly artwork can be interpreted in ways of which the artist was not consciously aware. A Freudian interpretation of Oedipus Rex is not invalid simply because Sophocles died centuries before Freud devised the term “Oedipus complex.” If an interpretation fits the artwork, it is justified whether or not the creator agrees with it. This is a basic principle of criticism, long accepted in academia, and comics writers and artists had best wake up and take notice. (Not surprisingly, Neil Gaiman recognizes this principle, as can be seen from his introduction to The Sandman Papers, Fantagraphics’ 2006 anthology of academic essays about his work.)


J. Caleb Mozzocco:

Beyond the fact that Quesada doesn’t see a problem with the cover (A state of affairs I had imagined and found perhaps just as bad if not worse than an intentional use of the imagery to stoke it’s most negative and perversely sexual connotations), I was surprised to hear him say publicly that he’s not a “deep follower” of manga.

Um, should you really be the Editor-in-Chief of one of the biggest American comic book publishers and not be “deep into” the most rapid-growing and widely-read type of sequential art storytelling? Admittedly, it does explain why Marvel’s dozen or so attempts to attract the manga audience have all fallen flat (with a few vestiges of such initiatives seemingly succeeding despite Marvel’s efforts, like Runaways surviving the doomed “Tsunami” line or Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane lasting as long as it has and racking up rave reviews), but, Jesus, if I was Quesada I’d have copies of Fruits Basket and Naruto under microscopes in a big Marvel lab somewhere, with Marvel staff scientists studying the things around the clock and I’d be calling once a day to ask if they’ve managed to identify and reverse engineer whatever it is that makes kids love those things so much.


Also Lea Hernandez has remixed the cover to make it a little less hentai and Misty Knight ethinically accurate.

Comments

  1. Yargh says:

    The remix certainly looks better, but still! Those blasted faces! Blargh!

  2. Yargh says:

    Wait, never mind, apparently the faces were fixed in the second remix.

    Its still a horrible looking thing. And where’s that Karate guy in there anyway?

  3. I’ll have something up on my ComicMix column this Wednesday as well.

  4. M. Lusk says:

    God forbid Quesada step up and take responsibility.
    He and Pres. Bush should go play miniature golf together.

  5. Lea: Love the remix!

    Now that’s what a female American artist who knows the AMerican market could do.

    Look as a guy I like to look at the occasional hentai image as much as the next guy (it IS nicely drawn and painted) but the context it’s in is wrong. It’s a mainstream comic after all. But it IS MArvel who still commmisions Greg Horn covers (although his She-Hulk covers are not bad and toned down on the porniness) , Greg Land porn shots. Did we forget the child porn covers on the X-men and NYX?

  6. Thanks, Mario.

  7. Sphinx Magoo says:

    I agree how Joey Q. should be studying manga a bit more. One of the titles which has defied cancellation many time, Spider-Girl, has what I believe are very strong manga sensibilities while keeping its feet strongly in the Marvel Universe. Joey’s gotta wake up and smell a new cup o’ joe.

  8. I have to say that I am very disturbed by the “re-mixing” of the HFH cover. Wether we like it or not (and I’m more offended by the forum in which this cover is displayed and not as much by it’s content… the content is just offensively stupid) no art should be altered without the consent of the artist. It should not be our roll, in a free country to start telling people what their art should be. It is even worse to start taking liberties with it ourselves, just because we don’t like what we see. No matter how good our intentions be, it still smacks of censorship, in my mind.

    As far as Joe Q goes, he’s the captain. The captain has to stay with the ship, in all waters. I think he’ll be a little more careful where he sails, next time.

  9. I cited the original artist, C.M., and called the alterations a “remix.” I’m not claiming the original is mine, nor am I censoring it. My aim (as I’ve said many times already) was to illustrate what the cover could convey with changed expressions and the characters dressed.

    I am not telling anyone what their art should be. I am, however, calling it like I see it when art is over a line, and this cover most certainly is. It is not a cover that belongs on a book supposedly for readers aged 9 and up.

    I am sick, and have been for ten and more years, of the fauxcore porn that has been cluttering comic store shelves. H4H is yet another tiresome example. What distinguishes it just how disgusting it is.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I’m not entirely sure how “remixing” another artists’ work so that it no longer crosses your personal line is all that different from video stores who offer “clean” versions of Hollywood movies they view to be inappropriate.

  11. >> I’m not entirely sure how “remixing” another artists’ work so that it no longer crosses your personal line is all that different from video stores who offer “clean” versions of Hollywood movies they view to be inappropriate. >>

    You’re only partially sure?

    The video stores offer the product for sale or rent, that’s what’s all that different.

    You will not be able to buy a copy of that issues of HFH with Lea’s cover, though, because it’s just an illustration in an internet column critiquing and commenting on the cover, not a variant product for sale.

    kdb

  12. Anonymous says:

    All right. In which case, I’m not sure that the motivation is entirely different regardless of the commercial aspect.

  13. Torsten Adair says:

    Coincidentally, the new artbook featuring DC’s covers of female characters was just released. With an introduction by Adam Hughes. A nice selection, but mostly featuring covers from the 90s and 2Ks.
    hmmm… Superman and Batman get there own cover books, but Wonder Woman has to share space with all of the other women of DC, Vertigo, and Wildstorm. And so it goes.

  14. Torsten Adair says:

    Oh, and as an amateur writer of erotica for my female friends, I find that one of the best stories to be as follows. The female protagonist comes home after a hard day at work, university, whatever. She finds her lover in the kitchen, preparing dinner. A bubble bath awaits, and she is served a cocktail and horsdeourves while she soaks. A fluffy terry cloth robe and cosy slippers are her formal wear, as a candlelit dinner of fondue (cheese, meat, and chocolate) is served.
    And thanks to a German mother, I wash windows, cook, do laundry, vacuum, and most other household chores. Of course, like most people, I prefer not to…

  15. Heidi, here’s yer next cartoon controversy. NO TITS ON THIS ONE. Ironically, that’s what makes it so offensive.

    http://manstreamcomics.livejournal.com/4043.html?mode=reply

    And you thought 15-year-old Supergirl was bad.

  16. Anonymous says:

    “The female protagonist comes home after a hard day at work…”

    See, if only you’d added that you’d read to me from “The Female Man” while I was in the bath, then I’d be dating you right now.

  17. “It is not a cover that belongs on a book supposedly for readers aged 9 and up.”

    …and this is at the heart of why it is so offensive. I agree with you 100% on that.

    “I am sick, and have been for ten and more years, of the fauxcore porn that has been cluttering comic store shelves.”

    As am I. By the way, I love the word “fauxcore.” That’s very imaginative. Did you make it up, or is that a real one? Yes, there has been alot of that for years, and you’re right, it is sickening, but making a deference starts with you and I. Being offended can only take us so far.

    Thank you anonymous for bringing my point across even better then I did. Are you always the same anonymous, or are there more of you?

  18. I made up “fauxcore” to mainly describe Top Cow art.

  19. “I am not telling anyone what their art should be.”

    Er, yes you are. You’re not calling for censorship, admittedly, but surely by any sensible definition you’re telling people what their art should be. Or, at the very least, what it shoudn’t be.

    And what’s wrong with that, anyway?

  20. “You’re only partially sure?

    The video stores offer the product for sale or rent, that’s what’s all that different.

    You will not be able to buy a copy of that issues of HFH with Lea’s cover, though, because it’s just an illustration in an internet column critiquing and commenting on the cover, not a variant product for sale.”

    Kurt Busiek wins!

  21. Paul O’Brien Says:

    “Er, yes you are. You’re not calling for censorship, admittedly, but surely by any sensible definition you’re telling people what their art should be. Or, at the very least, what it shoudn’t be.

    And what’s wrong with that, anyway?”

    What’s wrong with it is that it is not Lea’s, Hedei’s or anyone elses place to tell one artist what to create or not to create. It is also not their place to tell people what they can and can not read. If you don’t like the product vote with your dollars don’t tell one artist what they can or can not do. Lets all remeber that no REAL people were hurt in the making of these comics. These characters could be killed tomorrow, resurected the next day and be turned into dudes by the end of the weekend. Such is the nature of the medium.

    Josh

  22. What’s wrong with it is that it is not Lea’s, Hedei’s or anyone elses place to tell one artist what to create or not to create. It is also not their place to tell people what they can and can not read. If you don’t like the product vote with your dollars don’t tell one artist what they can or can not do.

    Wait, so no one is allowed to express an opinion on a piece of art? No one is allowed to suggest that perhaps one piece of artwork isn’t the best choice for a particular commercial enterprise? The only way they’re allowed to comment is by choosing to buy or not buy the product featuring that art?

    That may be the most effective way to get through to the publisher, but can you seriously imagine a world in which no one discussed paintings, TV, movies, books, sculpture… or comics? That sounds awfully boring to me.

  23. Kelson Says:

    “That may be the most effective way to get through to the publisher, but can you seriously imagine a world in which no one discussed paintings, TV, movies, books, sculpture… or comics? That sounds awfully boring to me.”

    I hear and agree with you. Expressing your opinion is great and I encourage it from all. But the tone to this is not just “I don’t like this, it’s not for me.” The tone to this discussion seems to be “I don’t like this it is not for anyone” or “Marvel should not do this because I don’t like it.”

    That is my only beef, and maybe I am misinterpereting things that could be.

  24. Anonymous says:

    “I hear and agree with you. Expressing your opinion is great and I encourage it from all. But the tone to this is not just ‘I don’t like this, it’s not for me.’ The tone to this discussion seems to be ‘I don’t like this it is not for anyone’ or ‘Marvel should not do this because I don’t like it.'”

    Normally I’d be with everyone on the “Kurt wins” bandwagon, but I think Josh wins this round.

  25. No, the tenor is “Nobody should do this, because it’s misogynist.” Whether you agree with that proposition or not, it’s a rather different thing than merely asserting a personal dislike. It’s invoking a moral principle.

  26. >> What’s wrong with it is that it is not Lea’s, Hedei’s or anyone elses place to tell one artist what to create or not to create.>>

    Sure it is.

    And it’s that artist’s place to listen or not listen, and agree or not agree, as he or she chooses.

    We can all tell artists what to create or not create. In fact, right here, right now, I’ll tell Phil Hester and Andy Kuhn to quit doing whatever the hell it is they’re doing these days and get back to producing more FIREBREATHER, like God intended!

    Whether they do it or not is up to them, but there’s nothing wrong with me saying that.

    And there’s nothing wrong with public critique of stuff — if it’s persuasive, then maybe it’ll persuade people, and if it isn’t, it won’t. But there’s no reason whatsoever to limit the public discourse to “buy it or don’t,” but don’t say “I don’t think they shoulda oughter done this,” or “They coulda done it better.” I’ve been telling people how AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON should have ended for years!

    Naturally, the fact that I disagree with you when you tell Heidi and Lea what they can and can’t say in public doesn’t mean I’m saying you can’t say it — it means you’ve proffered an idea and I’m registering a disagreement.

    That’s how we best proceed with public discourse. By debating things. That includes the ability to say “This cover is misogynistic, and a bad idea.” And even, “Here’s how I think it could have been done better.”

    kdb

  27. >> All right. In which case, I’m not sure that the motivation is entirely different regardless of the commercial aspect. >>

    I don’t think those video stores’ motivation is analysis and critique.

    kdb

  28. Anonymous says:

    >> All right. In which case, I’m not sure that the motivation is entirely different regardless of the commercial aspect. >>

    “I don’t think those video stores’ motivation is analysis and critique.”

    Well, I think it certainly is a form of both analysis and critique. They are analyzing a movie and using their own critical faculties to create a new version that conforms to what they perceive to be a better, less morally objectionable product.

    Is it legal to do so? In the case of such video stores, I believe there’s some conflicting case law at the moment. But I would never deny that what Lea has done is fair use, nor do I think that critiquing another artist should be prohibited.

    I’m only trying to make the point that in both cases the urge to transform a work so that if conforms to your own moral viewpoint appears to be the same. The fact that someone is passionately convinced that their moral viewpoint is the correct one doesn’t make me any more comfortable with the idea.

  29. Let me respond to a couple at once…

    Paul O’Brien Says:
    “No, the tenor is “Nobody should do this, because it’s misogynist.” Whether you agree with that proposition or not, it’s a rather different thing than merely asserting a personal dislike. It’s invoking a moral principle.”

    That asumes that your moral principals are everyones. In this case Adam Highes does not share your view on what is misogynist and what is not. He fealt his work was a tribute to classic pinups and explained a very valid justifacation for his work. It is the difference in two peoples impressions.

    Kurt Busiek Says:
    “We can all tell artists what to create or not create. In fact, right here, right now, I’ll tell Phil Hester and Andy Kuhn to quit doing whatever the hell it is they’re doing these days and get back to producing more FIREBREATHER, like God intended!”

    I agree 100%, we need more NOW!

    “Naturally, the fact that I disagree with you when you tell Heidi and Lea what they can and can’t say in public doesn’t mean I’m saying you can’t say it — it means you’ve proffered an idea and I’m registering a disagreement.”

    I understand and agree with you. What I am trying to say is that I do not have any problem with the debate. But it is the tone of it that I have found off putting. But I see what you are saying.

    I guess I still come down on the creative freedom side of things. I see this arguement everywhere lately, both from concervatives and liberals. They say they don’t want to censor or tell creative people what to do and yet at every oppurtunity they are. Weather it is a statue of Mary Jane, Ken Burns new documentary on WW2 or hollywood movies being edited to be more family friendly. It seems like a lot of people feel they should have things they way they want regardless of the artists desires or intention. I know it is important to have a civil society that respects all those in it, but I also feel creative freedom is equally important.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Josh

    PS – You are writing the best Superman title in YEARS. People should be just as excited about what you are doing as Grant Morrison, they are both very interesting looks at the character.

  30. “I’m only trying to make the point that in both cases the urge to transform a work so that if conforms to your own moral viewpoint appears to be the same. The fact that someone is passionately convinced that their moral viewpoint is the correct one doesn’t make me any more comfortable with the idea.”

    I’ll 2nd that.

  31. Phil Hester says:

    “We can all tell artists what to create or not create. In fact, right here, right now, I’ll tell Phil Hester and Andy Kuhn to quit doing whatever the hell it is they’re doing these days and get back to producing more FIREBREATHER, like God intended!”

    I can only obey! Andy’s been at work on the first issue of the new mini for a few weeks now. And, to avoid thread meaner, one of the subplots actually deals with body image issues for both teenage boys and girls. Thanks for the reminder, Kurt.

  32. Phil Hester says:

    I meant “thread meander”. Fat fingers.

  33. >> I’m only trying to make the point that in both cases the urge to transform a work so that if conforms to your own moral viewpoint appears to be the same. The fact that someone is passionately convinced that their moral viewpoint is the correct one doesn’t make me any more comfortable with the idea.>>

    The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with that urge. What you’re doing is demonizing what Lea did by drawing a comparison to something you think people disapprove of, and then hoping they’ll assume that both things are equally bad because they have something in common. I could do the same thing by saying that in both the case of some guy hiring out as an inker and some other guy hiring out as an arsonist, the urge to make money by contracting out one’s services appears to be the same.

    What people who object to video stores editing videos are objecting to is not that they edit the things, but that they then rent or sell the edited versions, profiting off a distortion of the moviemakers’ work. If you want to edit stuff yourself — whether as an example in a critique, as Lea did, or just because you feel like it, you’re entitled to, just the way my college pals and I edited all kinds of dumb jokes into our copies of the O’Neil/Adams GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW reprints.

    If Lea was offering for sale “cleaned up” copies of that issue of HEROES FOR HIRE, you’d have an actual parallel to what many people object to, but all she’s done is say, “I think it would be better if it were done more like this.” But the bit that people object to in the movie-store analogy isn’t there.

    kdb

  34. >> I guess I still come down on the creative freedom side of things. I see this arguement everywhere lately, both from concervatives and liberals. They say they don’t want to censor or tell creative people what to do and yet at every oppurtunity they are.>>

    I haven’t seen anyone’s creative freedom infringed here.

    What you seem to be arguing is that people shouldn’t object to things, because you’re equating, “I don’t think they should do that” with censorship. But it isn’t censorship; it’s the free expression of opinion.

    Nobody stopped Marvel from producing and selling that statue; they just said they thought it was a stupid thing to do that sent a negative image. Nobody has stopped that HFH cover from being printed.

    At best, all they can do is try to persuade others to share their viewpoint — if Joe Quesada were to be convinced, and change that cover, it till wouldn’t be censorship, it’d be persuasion. It’s exactly the same process you’re engaged in here, as you argue that what you find objectionable (the kind of critique you’re lobbying against) shouldn’t happen.

    Ironically, you’re trying to tell a creative person what she can and can’t do, in the name of not telling creative people what they can and can’t do.

    >> PS – You are writing the best Superman title in YEARS. People should be just as excited about what you are doing as Grant Morrison, they are both very interesting looks at the character.>>

    Thanks! Much appreciated.

    kdb

  35. >> I can only obey! Andy’s been at work on the first issue of the new mini for a few weeks now. >>

    Excellent!

    See? Sometimes when you tell people to do stuff, they obey! Sometimes they’re already obeying, and you just didn’t know it yet!

    Censorship? Persuasion? Coincidence? Or…monkeys? Hmm?

    kdb

  36. Sphinx Magoo says:

    … and thus The Beat gets the info on the new FIREBREATHER before anyone else! Huzzah!

  37. The Beat says:

    Thank God you’re here, Kurt.

  38. michael says:

    though I like the j bone pic, it does not really have the same reverse feeling for the atrocious statue that was presented. something much, MUCH more perverse would be needed to make all things equal.

  39. Anonymous says:

    “The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with that urge. What you’re doing is demonizing what Lea did by drawing a comparison to something you think people disapprove of, and then hoping they’ll assume that both things are equally bad because they have something in common.”

    I’m quite sure that I haven’t “demonized” what she did; that seems like a rather strong term when my only comment specifically regarding her work was that I could find nothing legally questionable about it and it seems entirely within the boundaries of fair use and critique. I did make the comparison with video stores altering movies to taste, and while commercial profit is not a factor here, I still believe that the motivation is essentially the same. Whether or not you think that’s a bad thing depends on your point of view, I suppose.

    “What people who object to video stores editing videos are objecting to is not that they edit the things, but that they then rent or sell the edited versions, profiting off a distortion of the moviemakers’ work.”

    Actually, I object to both aspects of such an endeavor, as do many people I know. Selling the bowlderized work is certainly rephrehensible, but it’s the need they feel to “adjust” such works to fit within their moral conceptions that I find troubling, regardless of whether I share those same conceptions.

    Look, I believe in the maximum amount of free speech possible. If the KKK want to publish a comic book, more power to them; and likewise, I should be able to publish a comic book that reflects my viewpoint that they’re all racist idiots. Or to just simply say so on my web page. So I’ve got no problem with either the original cover being printed, said cover being critiqued, or someone doing an illustrated critique to make a point.

    What I do find surprising is that some artists — usually a group of people who bristle the fastest at any perceived outside interference in their work — seem so quick to declare what is appropriate or within the bounds of good taste. It is certainly their right to do so, but I think when those attitudes are taken too an extreme then the results are things like the Mike Diana conviction.

  40. “Ironically, you’re trying to tell a creative person what she can and can’t do, in the name of not telling creative people what they can and can’t do.”

    Beat me to it. CURSE YOU, BUSIEK!

    (And afore you start yellin at me, I’m sending you scans of the old Cathedral Child intro pages. I realized just today I didn’t have to type the text out for you to add on. Duuuuuuh.)

  41. The Beat says:

    >>>What I do find surprising is that some artists — usually a group of people who bristle the fastest at any perceived outside interference in their work — seem so quick to declare what is appropriate or within the bounds of good taste. It is certainly their right to do so, but I think when those attitudes are taken too an extreme then the results are things like the Mike Diana conviction.

    Uhhhhh, yes, and that’s why INFORMED, INTELLIGENT discussion is the best way to find out where the the common good lies.

    People, you are not discussing the issues any more. You are just arguing about discussing the issues. Can we get back to intelligent, informed discussion please? Hey ya’ll, did you know that Gary Groth and Harlan Ellison are meeting with a mediator today?

  42. >> What I do find surprising is that some artists — usually a group of people who bristle the fastest at any perceived outside interference in their work — seem so quick to declare what is appropriate or within the bounds of good taste. >>

    I guess we disagree there, since I think they’re allowed to give their opinion just as surely as you are, and I’m not surprised when they do.

    I’ll note, though, that you’ve said you object to people editing movies even if they’re just doing it for their own use — which is objecting to something because it doesn’t suit your moral sensibilities, something you’re opposed to when others do it.

    kdb

  43. >> What I do find surprising is that some artists — usually a group of people who bristle the fastest at any perceived outside interference in their work — seem so quick to declare what is appropriate or within the bounds of good taste. >>

    I guess we disagree there, since I think they’re allowed to give their opinion just as surely as you are, and I’m not surprised when they do.

    I’ll note, though, that you’ve said you object to people editing movies even if they’re just doing it for their own use — which is objecting to something because it doesn’t suit your moral sensibilities, something you’re opposed to when others do it.

    >> I think when those attitudes are taken too an extreme then the results are things like the Mike Diana conviction.

    If anyone had even hinted at a suggestion that Marvel shouldn’t be allowed to publish this sort of thing, you might have something there. But there’s a conceptual difference between expressing an opinion and enforcing that opinion on others.

    Plus, of course, your opinion that people shouldn’t say that sort of thing, when taken to an extreme that also crosses that conceptual line, would also be censorship. It doesn’t and shouldn’t stop you, though, because you’re aware that you’re using persuasion rather than force.

    kdb

  44. Whoops! How’d that happen?

    Hey, Harlan and Gary, huh?

    kdb

  45. How many years will the mediation take?

    Also, C.B. Cebulski has responded to the criticism of the cover, even though he didn’t contract it (Or did he? No one at Marvel seems to know whose decision the cover was. It’s like they left out a pan of milk and the wee folk brought them hentai!):

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13

    (Scroll down to “Blogs in Pieces” and scroll a bit more.)

    Like Joe Q, he shifts blame, does not answer any of the substantial criticisms and questions about the cover image, and gives information that has nothing to do with with the Perfect Storm of Wrong that that cover is.
    UNlike Joe, however, he does take credit/blame as the writer for the content of the erotic vampire book (Drain) he and Sana are doing for Image.
    Apparently, Sana’s previous work on Marvel Fairytales and as a work-for-hire game designer in Japan paid/pays poorly, since C.B. says the cover was a result of him asking around for work for Sana “make a little extra cash.”

    There. Substance.

  46. “What you seem to be arguing is that people shouldn’t object to things, because you’re equating, “I don’t think they should do that” with censorship. But it isn’t censorship; it’s the free expression of opinion.”

    I guess what I am trying to say and maybe we just don’t agree on this point is that everything is not for everyone. Some things are not for me, I can except that and not partake in them. Fox news is a prime example, it is something I seriously dislike so I don’t turn in. I don’t spend my time editing clips of the O’ Reily show to make it more paletable to me.

    I guess that is the point I was trying to make only I did not make it well. I appreciate the discussion here and I have really enjoyed this (especially Kurt). I hope that none of my posts have come off as disrespectful.

  47. “Can we get back to intelligent, informed discussion please?”

    Indeed, the HFH cover is sexist. All men at one time or another will objectify women, in their own mind, at the very least. This does not mean that they disrespect women (in a small amount of the population, which I would like to count myself as one of) or think they are less then men are. We just have sex drives, and that’s why there are still babies being born. Sorry about that to any women who may find that offensive. Ultimately, what is offensive about it, is the forum in which it has been shown, which is comic shops. We should be doing everything in our power to make comic shops a welcoming place for women, children, parents, Negroes, Christians, Jews, and whatever other type of person you care to name. If we are not doing that, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. That and the cover is just juvenile, and stupid. I’ve always found that offensive, too. Oh, and Heidi… please don’t take this any other way then a simple complement. I’m happily married, and this is not some sort of sleazy on line pick up. I’ve always found you to be one of the most respectable and intelligent people in comic (man or woman) and very sexy, as well. Yes, I think you’re sexy.

  48. >> I guess what I am trying to say and maybe we just don’t agree on this point is that everything is not for everyone. >>

    I don’t think anyone in the discussion would disagree with the idea that not everything is for everyone. Heck, among the people critiquing that cover as inappropriate is a porn publisher, who is very conversant with the idea that not everything is for everyone. And Tamora Pierce’s critique is that the cover doesn’t remotely fit the material it’s covering, not merely that she doesn’t care for it.

    The objections to the cover and statue have been something other than “I think this should be for everyone,” and more “This is not how to reach out to the kind of readers they seem to want to reach out to,” or “This is not how best to present characters that seem to be about something very much else than this.” If what you’ve been getting is “This isn’t for me and everything should be for me,” then I think that’s a communication problem — it hasn’t been what they’re saying.

    >> I don’t spend my time editing clips of the O’ Reily show to make it more paletable to me.

    If Comedy Central was promoting THE DAILY SHOW in a way that made it appear to be THE O’REILLY FACTOR, might you suggest that they were mispresenting it? The cover is the face of the project, not the totality of it.

    >> I appreciate the discussion here and I have really enjoyed this. >>

    Likewise, sir.

    Plus, more FIREBREATHER! Wøø!

    kdb

  49. Excellent webforum!
    http://srubibablo.com
    The Author, you – genius…

Trackbacks

  1. […] I didn’t think I had anything to add to the discussion on the infamous Heroes For Hire #13 cover. (Some of those links possibly NSFW.) Something stuck in my mind, though. Typolad suggested that “you would never, ever see Marvel or DC make a cover like this with a male protagonist. Yes, a male hero may be shown in peril, but his face will be defiant. He won’t be shown as submissive.” Lea Hernandez’ remix of the cover alters the expressions to do just that. […]

  2. […] Mas acho que chegou a nossa vez de reclamar: […]

  3. Free says:

    Sexy cam babes, free live chat…

Speak Your Mind

*