§ One last kids comics are a teaching tool link, as Francoise Mouly was on the Brian Lehrer show on NPR yesterday talking about that very topic.
More links:
You have subscribed to Torchbearers, right?
Valerie D’Orazio interviews Martha Thomases on the Friends of Lulu blog about her history in comics, Dakota North, ComicsMix and so on:
It was harder to be taken seriously as someone who knew comics. I remember during my first year, when I insisted that Clark Kent getting engaged to Lois Lane was a bigger story than a new costume for Robin (both stories were being released on the same day), everyone dismissed my opinion because a new costume was so much more collectible.
§ Speaking of Val, she discusses the revelation that naked Wonder Woman Tiffany Fallon is actually a big fan of the character.
EDIT: I removed the pull quote I had here because, as a commenter pointed out, you need to read it in context. BTW, for the record, I don’t really care that a Playboy Playmate is a fan of Wonder Woman and shows her appreciation by posing naked with body paint. Fallon is showing her appreciation through her work; it’s what many people do. DC wouldn’t have ever approved this and whatever sociological impact it has are more related to the general impact of Playboy and naked women in general. It’s more interesting to look at things that DC has approved, and look at them in the context of what’s “official.”
That said, Greg Rucka sure didn’t like that cover.
§ The essential comics strip historian Bill Blackbeard profiled by Kristy Valenti at comiXology. And it’s only part 1!
§ Greg Burgas’s Best of ’07 list.
>> One last kids comics are a teaching tool link, as Francoise Mouly was on the Brian Lehrer show on NPR yesterday talking about that very topic.>>
Funny thing about that NPR piece is that Steve Ellis was listening to it yesterday, and he was less than pleased with Lehrer ‘s attitude on comics.
He posted his response here: http://hypersteve.livejournal.com/
As women, do we want to point a finger and say that a certain woman can’t play a superheroine because she’s “bad” for having posed nude?
Wasn’t Carisma Carpenter removed from the running in the Joss Whedon-written Wonder Woman movie because she posed for Playboy as well? I thought I remembered reading that eons ago…
>> How much of it comes from a Judeo-Christian “nudity is sinful” perspective? If as women we operate from the “sexuality is bad” perspective, are we unwittingly buying in to a mentality where the “sinful nudity” parts are intertwined with “women are essentially sinful” parts?
Her argument paints with a wide brush. Most people wouldn’t say that “nudity is sinful” — just that it’s appropriate in a certain context, and ideal when there’s a degree of trust involved (for men and women). These nude photos are of a comic book character who is a hero to my daughter. I think I’m allowed to find it distasteful without being accused of implying that all women are sinful.
Yes, I understand that Playboy is an adult context — and my daughter won’t ever see this cover. But if someone took one of my characters and depicted her in a way I didn’t approve, I’d be really upset.
I give up. Maybe I’m just out of touch? An overly sensitive father of a daughter — concerned that people may objectify her as she grows up, to only value her beauty and not her intelligence?
After reading the entirety of Valerie’s post (and not just the excerpt here), I can see that she’s not giving a stance, but more just presenting the arguments. I’m not condemning anyone — I wouldn’t go that far. I just think the photo shoot is in poor taste. Which yeah, yeah, it’s Playboy.
Excuse me, but wasn’t WW created by a bondage fetishist? Considering how many softcore t&a covers she and other female superheroines have graced in recent years – without sustained and effective outcry within the industry and fan press – this just seems like a lightning rod for wholly hypocritical complaining. Although I AM interested in exactly when a blatant critique of a fetish object legally crosses over into blatant copyright infringement …
For those of you keeping track at home:
Greg Rucka’s feelings on Wonder Woman snapping a man’s neck: Good
Greg Rucka’s feelings on Wonder Woman being linked to female sexuality: Bad
> wholly hypocritical complaining?
It’s an ad hominem argument to simply accuse people of hypocrisy, when they express their own preference. I don’t like seeing Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy. And I think DC should be upset as well.
I understand Wonder Woman’s history with bondage fetishes and such. I don’t think it’s hypocritical. When she’s tied up, it’s an *allusion* to sex fetishes, but not something explicit to a young reader. Playboy, in contrast, is pretty direct.
> I understand Wonder Woman’s history with bondage fetishes and such. I don’t think it’s hypocritical. When she’s tied up, it’s an *allusion* to sex fetishes, but not something explicit to a young reader. Playboy, in contrast, is pretty direct. >
It depends how you define “explicit to a young reader”, as a kid I remember finding covers with WW tied up or with her chest sticking out “interesting” even though I was unable to put into words why I found it interesting. Being 10 I didn’t realize there was a appeal to my lantent sexual intersest, (que Woody Allen in Annie Hall saying “but I never had a latancy period”), but I did realize there was something there. There are some child development professionals who would argue this is not a good thing.
I also realized, very early on, that WW “lost” her clothes way more often then Superman or Batman did. Granted, there was always a discrete shadow covering the “good parts”, but for the young male mind partial or implied nudity is almost as good as the real thing.
George Perez, when he did his WW reboot in the 80’s, had a lot of panels of a nude (but discreatly shadowed) WW, she used to prey to the gods in the alltogether in the backyard. From a story standpoint this made total sense, she’s from a island with all woman, she went her whole life without expriencing a learing male gaze, there’s no reason she wouldn’t be completely comfortable nude, but if you think such panels (tame in comparison to Playboy I grant you), didn’t have a titilation effect on young male readers, (and even, I suspect some old male readers) you’re wrong.
So yeah, one could argue some hypocrisy with an argument that claims “purity and good role models” and one hand and has tittliating panels of “bondage and nudity” on the other hand. Taking those panels out of thier story context, the only difference between them and Playboy is that Playboy features live woman and loses the Austin Powers effect. The “Pin up” appeal still remains.
My response was only in regards to the bondage aspects. I doubt my daughter would see this as anything more than “Wonder Woman’s in trouble.” Admittedly, I can’t do much to critique the nude (but discretely shadowed) Wonder Woman. It’s pretty blatant. I’m at a loss to find a mainstream super hero for young girls who isn’t a super sexy objectified triple D whatever — which I guess is why, in part, I wrote Emily Edison (sorry Heidi, not intended to be a plug).