Redo!

Fantastic Fangirls' most recent Q&A asked:

What comics story do you want reimagined or covered, and by whom?

I'm reprinting my answer here, possibly with a few more details, definitely with some pictures, because... it's my blog and I'll do what I want to. You would cry to if it - oh, wait.

Just a small music tangent: Lesley Gore's iconic songs, "It's My Party" and "You Don't Own Me" were given an extra layer of interestingness (flickr invented that word, don't blame me) when she came out as a lesbian in 2005, and said she'd been gay since her late teens. Seriously, go check out those lyrics.

Anyway, my answer!


I'd like to see someone redo Camelot 3000. I really enjoy the idea of the story, but the 80s' idea of the future is... laughable now. I didn't read it until about six months ago, and the art and story both seem dated. I feel like a modern writer/artist team could give it a spin that just feels more correct and holds up better with time. I love retro-future ideas, but most of the ones from that decade just don't hold as well as the ones written in the 50s and 60s. I liked the struggle of the knights to find themselves in the 40th century, but I didn't feel like the 40th century reflected well enough on the 20th century that the writers were coming from.

As for that writer/artist team. Hm. I'm currently enamored with Greg Rucka and Gail Simone. I think Rucka does really interesting things with mythological constructs (I'm basing this on the Crime Bible stuff) and I just like the way Gail Simone thinks about and writes comics (there's a great interview with her on AfterEllen that really piqued my interest in her writing) and I think between them they could put out a good story with interesting characters and a good adapted mythos. I will absolutely admit to mainly wanting to see the Tristan/Isolde story retold by a modern writer, but the rest of it would be great, too. Also, maybe we could ignore the tired old Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot thing. Granted, the resolution in the original was fairly cutting edge, but I think by the 40th century they could just all get together and be happy.

Another tangent: David Franzoni's/Anton Fuqua's weird-but-enjoyable (Sarmatians? Really?) take on Arthur, the one that finally had a Celtic warrior woman (who needed a sandwich, but still), did a good modern twist on that triangle, making it Arthur and Lancelot who were the unrequieted tragic lovers. Not, like, on screen (because Heaven forfend men be in love in an action movie), but the undercurrents were pretty clear. To me. And even if they weren't, Lancelot was very obviously more interested in Arthur than Guinevere.

And artists, hmmmmm. I know less about artists. I really enjoy the more realistic style of Stuart Immomen, whom I recently discovered, and I think it would work well for that kind of story. Also a cover or two by Alex Ross would be iconic and amazing.

That art as it is is... well. Dark and strange. With odd detailing and accents. I'm sure it was very good for its time, but it's definitely not a style I enjoy. It reminds me of Heavy Metal and Ralph Bakshi settings. I don't like Ralph Bakshi settings, because they do the dark-and-bright-at-the-same-time thing in a strangely surreal way that removes me from the story. Seriously, have you seen War Wizards? WTF. I guess it has its place in fantasy (and I certainly like surreal artists like Peter Chung, so maybe it's more that I prefer surreality in science fiction over fantasy) but I'd rather see Camelot 3000 done with a more realistic, modern bent.

Besides Stuart Immomen, I also enjoy the artist doing Batwoman on Detectice Comics right now, JH Williams. Like I said before, I like his noir style. And while Kate Kane may be a bit vampiric, he's certainly capable of adding pigment to people, so I think that'd be fine. A neo-noir Arthurian story would be sort of cool, really. Like Blade Runner meets Sin City meets, well. King Arthur.

So that's my personal answer. I was an Arthurian geek before I was ever a comic geek.

abtkcn92z6

My Lesbian Senses are Tingling

That was slightly dirtier than I had planned for a title.

Since the introduction of Kate Kane during 52, I have patiently been waiting for... well, this Wednesday. I just didn't know it until a few months ago. On June 24, there's going to be a lesbian headlining a major imprint's major title for the first time, um. Ever? I'm not a comic historian, so I'm going to say ever, and someone can correct me in the comments if I'm wrong.

Yes yes, Crime Bible, but it wasn't a major title. We're talking Detective Comics here, people. The title that's been running for over 60 years, gave the DCU its name, and introduced the world to this guy named Batman. I hear he's popular with the kids these days.

This is sort of a big deal.

I'll save my actual reactions until I read her first issue, but other than looking freakishly pale, I'm excited for Kate Kane to kick some ass, take some names, and romance some ladies. I'm hoping this whole "closeted socialite" thing doesn't last long, because: blech! So we'll see. Her brief appearance in Crime Bible gave me hope! Who knows.

The point I'm trying to make is that there aren't exactly a lot of lady lovin' ladies that are in big comics. I mean, this makes sense and it doesn't. On one hand, we've got a genre that loves to titilate (teehee) its (generally and stereotypically) young, male audience with scantily-clad women that are very very non-proportionally endowed (I'm not saying this would be a good way to get female same sex relationships into comics, I'm just saying it's a motivation.) . On the other, we've got things like comics codes.

There was this movie that came out about 15 years ago (wow) called The Celluloid Closet. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the history of movies. It goes into great detail about all the years of moviemaking where filmmakers would slip in references of homosexuality for viewers to pick up on, because the Hollywood Production Code. Except the only viewers that were meant to pick up on it were part of the "culture" in the first place.

This is what I call subtext. And I have graduated from the Xena School of Subtext, my friends. The one where you dissect every single episode/issue/scene for something, anything that proves that the particular character you think is a GLBT character is actually a GLBT character. And is probably having hot lady-sex with her sidekick.

Ahem. Also, they kissed a lot. Usually to bring each other back to life. I don't know.

Where was I?


Comics. Right. So I've read Camelot 3000, and that's definitely explicit. After 15 issues of self-hatred and misogyny, Tristan finally man's up (pun intended!) and realizes no one in the 30th century cares about same sex relationships (oh, dated socio-political statements, how I love you).

And I don't deny that there are some definite lesbian (erm, I'm just going to use the term lesbian from now on to refer to a relationship where ther are two women of the same gender who are in a pairing, whether they're bisexual or gay or whatever) storylines in V for Vendetta and Sandman, but when I sit down and ready my usual haul of comics, there's not much there for me. Um, Mystique I guess, but let's be honest: an evil lesbian is one of the Big Three Lesbian Clichés. (Yes, she's bi. That sort of makes it worse, because then she's the insane bi woman who preys on men but tragically loves a woman. Blech.)

[For the record: 1) Lesbians wanting to be mommies more than anything else, and then being defined by those mommy storylines (ER's Carrie Weaver). 2) Lesbian in love with straight friend, goes insane and kills straight friend's boyfriend and/or straight friend (High Tension, anyone?). 3) Lesbian can't handle lesbianness and offs herself.]

So lesbians kind of get short-shafted (absolutely no pun intended there) in the main imprints. Luckily, I don't need much.

There are some easily-brought-to-mind subtextual (practically maintextual) lady-couples in comics. I think Poison Ivy and Harlequin are my favorite (of course we can argue about whether this started in the DCAU or the DCU, but whatever, they're in comics now and I'm definitely going to be picking up Gotham Sirens and so should you). I know I'm not alone in this, because when I googled "harley ivy" to get a nice picture of them, the first thing that came up was most definitely NSFW. And there were no men. Thank you, internet.

Speaking of the DCAU being awesome, Paul Dini not only made Harley, but he made Renee Montoya, too and she is definitely one of the most interesting lesbian characters out there (I have no comment on that travesty that is Anna Ramirez from The Dark Knight Returns). (Also, check out Montoya's newer, gayer haircut.)

I think I digressed again. Oh, I was going through a mental list of the women in comics I think ought to be lady lovin' with each other. Emma Frost and Jean Grey (c'mon, that'd be awesome). Supergirl and Power Girl (if you can get over the whole "we're genetically the same" thing, which I can understand if you can't). Barbara Gordon and, sweet merciful crap, um, anyone? Dinah Lance, for sure. I could see Babs with Helena, too. And after reading the Manhunter co-feature last week, yeah. Totally with Manhunter.

Told you I don't need much.

Some people might call me crazy (or desperate), but when you're given so little for so long, you will latch onto the slightest thing and run with it.

Of course now I've got a main-title heroine (and her co-feature) to latch onto. Will that stop me from finding subtext in all the right wrong places? Nah.

But it's nice to have a hero I can identify with. And not just in an allegorical "hey, mutants are second class citizens just like black people/disabled people/gay people/etc." kind of way. This is srs bdnss, this is a lesbian kicking ass and taking names while wearing a big ol' Bat symbol on her chest.

Cool.

Oh, and since I this is a post about Kate Kane, I'll end it with the pretty-popular "Her Sex is on Fire" image (by Phillip Tan; for Crime Bible, I believe). Because it's awesome. And you totally know that's a question mark. The rest I'll leave to your imagination.