There's too much science in my fiction!

This isn't actually a post about comic books, technically, but I thought it was worth writing out. A lot of comic fans (this is a totally scientific estimation based entirely on my own opinions and experiences, and should therefore be completely respected and not argued with) seem to like science fiction, too. There's a lot of overlap, after all. Did you know Superman is an alien? Truth. And that the X-Men are genetic mutants? Seriously. That's, like. Science.

The real beauty of science fiction is that it tells universal (hah!) stories through a medium that makes it easier to, I don't know, deal with the infinite. Or our relationship to technology. Or each other.

So, long story short: I watched Virtuality yesterday (it's streaming on Hulu.com). This is straight up sci-fi (not to be confused with SyFy, which is just confusing): it's a bunch of brilliant people on a deep-space mission to save the planet. Classic. This isn't Fringe sci-fi (or The X-Files sci-fi, which is Fringe sci-fi's gender-neutral parent) or LOST sci-fi, or even Pushing Daisies sci-fi. This is outer space. And science. And, oh yeah. Cameras.

I hear it tanked.

That's sort of a shame. I like having straight sci-fi. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the police procedurals or dramas set in modern times that just have Wierd Stuff Happening. But I dig outer space. I like technobabble. I like wondering wtf is wrong with these smart people going into airlocks without their helmets, or how anyone in the future can seriously say that VR doesn't count as real, so raping that twenty-four year old girl is just, you know.

Fantasy.

Yeah, so everyone else got shot or pushed off a cliff or knocked into a reef; very impersonal, if brutal deaths. But the youngest crew member that's also a woman got tied up and raped. Collective WTF time. Meanwhile the straight couples (even the filanderers) are all over each other, but the gay guys mostly hug.

I think I went off on a "the representation of violence against women, women in general, and homosexuality in this show sort of sucks" tangent.

The funny thing is that for as much as I love straight sci-fi in books (though most of the sci-fi I've read in the past few years has been cyberpunk, steampunk, or vampirepunk) and tv that go into the future or outer space or both, in my comics I'd rather see them on Earth. I haaaaaaaaate how outerspacey things can get. One of the reasons I enjoyed Singer's X-Men adaptation (and one of the reasons I think it did so well) is that it really just... stuck with Earth. Granted, they sort of screwed that up with the Phoenix saga, but... that wasn't Singer, and it was still better than a giant space bird (THE GREAT BIRD OF THE GALAXY IS RODDENBERRY, AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT) that has wreaked havoc on the characters for thirty years. Giant. Space. Bird.

This, by the way, is why I'm sort of down on the whole New Krypton storyline happening throughout the Super-titles. Hey, look, I wrote about comics!

Seriously, though, I'm not sure why I prefer my comics to be Earthbound. Or at least Humanbound. Maybe because I feel that writers use the medium - which allows for pretty much anything - to push the boundaries visually and the reason I'm reading is to relate to characters and find analogies to my own life. And also good stories. Alienness does not make a good story.

Sort of like just having lots of cool tech and a neat out space idea doesn't necessarily make a good story. Which is probably why we won't be seeing any more Virtuality, and why Firefly and Battlestar Galactica were so damn good. It didn't matter that they were in space or in the future, it just mattered that good stories were told. Virtuality had an okay story, and maybe it was hurt by the fact that it should have been a pilot (seriously, the most interesting thing happened in the last minute) as opposed to a stand-alone. But still. If you've got 127 minutes of fiction, I shouldn't think 126 of it is throwaway.

Also I don't get why the Captain couldn't speak with his natural accent (Danish) when the Brits could.

Sometimes the future just makes no sense. Sure can't wait for it, though.

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

More Lesbians! Well. The same lesbian. Then some flirty non-lesbians. You know.

I forgot to mention this before, probably because I was so overwhelmed by Kate Kane's albinism: she's not a stick figure with giant breasts, she's a proportional woman with curves. Also she's got nipples. Seriously. They're, like, poking out of her costume. And I don't normally pay attention to these kinds of things (really!) so it was pretty noticeable. Why does she have nipples? Are they going for the Clooney look? I guess constantly-erect nipples are better than gravity defying breasts of doom (a.k.a. gigantobreasts).

Right?

Yeah, suck that Power Girl, Batwoman is anatomically correct.

Speaking of someone sucking someone else's something, the other big pick up for me this week was Gotham City Sirens. I just sort of went along for the objectification ride on this one. I love the way Paul Dini writes Harley and Ivy, and I literally LOLed at a couple of scenes. Which is nice. Sometimes I don't mind comics being funny! (Page 10 is the best, and I will scan it and insert it here as soon as I get a chance.)

Now, I'm not saying that it's automatically objectification if a man is writing or drawing female characters. Not at all. I still like Greg Rucka! But the title of this, erm, title is sirens. Here, let me sum up the wikipedia article so you don't have to read through it: three women who use their sexuality to seduce and kill men.

Remember back in the seventies, right after the second wave of feminism, when women retaking the streets, using their sexuality to get what they wanted, and being just as violent as men was an entire subgenre of movies? No, me neither, but I know those movies exist. Right? Well, Pam Grier was in a lot of them, but then we get into blaxploitation and there's no way I'm going there right now.

I just don't find it subversive any more.

What I do find interesting is the idea of Harley and Ivy legitimately caring about Selina's well-being. And I certainly enjoy the three women's dynamic. And Harley is one funny lady, despite her thing with the Joker.

Oh, hey, while I'm on the topic (or not)... where did Holly go? Was that ever explained? She should go to L.A. randomly! Because that's where lesbians go when they leave Gotham for no good reason. Viva Los Angeles!

So I liked Sirens enough that I will keep reading it. I like this post-Bruce Gotham that's been established, and I like the writers and artists working in it. For the most part. I seem to like the non-central titles more, but I've always been like that.

By the way, to come full circle, none of the women of Sirens have nipples.

Maybe Gotham isn't that cold after all.

The Wait is Over! Lesbians! And other women, too.

Ladies and gentleman and genderqueer compatriots: Kate Kane has arrived. She's tough, she's smart, she's got an extreme lack of pigmentation, and she's the goddamn Batwoman.

[Spoilers!]

So Kate Kane is really sorta gay. And if I had a scanner, I'd scan the proof. The tattoos, the music posters, the vests... wow. Gaaay. And openly gay. Which is cool. And openly gay with an (ex) military father, which is even cooler. Suck that, DADA (Don't Ask Don't Tell, for the non-acronyming among you). I'm definitely glad femme-socialiate-extreme Kate is gone, but I'm not sure what to make of the Kate left behind.

Besides the fact that she looks like a vampire. Seriously, would it kill you guys to give her some skin color? I thought it would be an as-Batwoman-only thing, but nope.

I enjoy the contrast between the black/white/red (all over, heh heh heh) panels of Batwoman and the more colorful panels of Kate (especially when compared with The Question's panels). It gives the Batwoman scenes a really great neo-noir feel, which is a lot of fun to have with a female lead detective. But I knew they were hyping the extreme red of her costume and hair for a reason... and that reason is apparently going to be an Alice in Wonderland themed story arc, with a villain named Alice that is very very white. Like. White Queen versus Red Queen. GET IT? GET IT?

I like that the Religion of Crime is still around, though their name is still stupid, but seriously. Alice? Really? Bleh. And if they're around, why the hell is Montoya in Los Angeles?

Anyway. Those quibbles aside, I liked the issue for what it was: an overview and introduction to the "new" Kate Kane. There were some broader things I didn't like, that I think reflect the theme of women heroes in comic books, which I will happily rant about now, after once more saying that I did like the issue and I'm still looking forward to Rucka's run with Kate on Detective Comics.

Issue the first: getting Batman's permission. Oh please. Does he say "this one's yours" to every Bat-related person wandering around Gotham? And don't try to pass this off as a "it's Dick, he's new" thing. It was a thematic choice. Batwoman's okay with Batman, so she should be okay with us.

Yeah, she's okay on her own, thanks. She's dealt with the RoC (seriously, stupid name) before, had her heart almost cut out, turned into a Fury, and knows the score. Go away, Dick, and deal with Damian.

Issue the second: a female nemesis for a female hero. Tired. I probably don't need to go into it, and I'm sleepy and have the entire arc of the "Rise of the Olympians" (I waited) to read, but needless to say: blech.

By the way, I'm not sure how I feel about switching over from the "snooty, closeted socialite" cover to the "partying, sleeps-around lesbian" cover, but we'll see. We'll also see if Kate gets as much action as her straight counterparts, or if it's more like TV. You know, where people say they're dating, but mostly they hold hands or brush each others' hair.

Meanwhile, Renee is in L.A. working as, essentially, a PI with no face. Which I guess is consistent? I know she's just a co-feature, but considering how important she was in InfiniteLastUltimateWePromiseSuper Final Crisis (and the entire arc of the damn RoC, who are now main villains in Gotham), you'd think she'd be doing something more interesting. Maybe that will develop. Or maybe not. I'm actually okay reading Renee Montoya doing just about anything, so I don't know why I'm complaining.

Page 1 Panel 1

Renee is seated on an over-sized chair, chin in her right hand, watching paint dry. We look over her shoulder at the beige wall. There is no art on the wall and there are no windows in the room. It's lit from above by a single, energy-efficient light bulb. Renee is wearing a tank top and jeans, and her fedora rests on the left arm of the chair.

Page 1 Panel 2

Repeat of Panel 1

Renee Thought: This is interesting.

Page 1 Panel 3

Repeat of Panels 1 &2

No, really.

I'd read that.

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.

What is this internets of which you speak?

One of the first memorable experiences I had with comics as an adult was stumbling on my first webcomic. I have no idea what it was called, and I only vaguely remember the story. I wish I could find it again, because it was pretty awesome and ended on a cliffhanger. It was some sort of futuristic sci-fi thing with a female lead and some fantastic art. This was, wow... ten years ago? Give or take.

Anyway, I never really got into webcomics again because I had trouble remembering to follow them. Once RSS feeds came around, I... well, took another year or two to figure out how to deal with them. I'm still sort of slow. But a friend of mine asked me last fall why the Hell I wasn't following some pretty fantastic webcomics, and I had to admit that I had no good reason.

This last winter, I was at the Gallifrey One convention (it's for Doctor Who, for the crazies out there who wouldn't recognize the word Gallifrey) and went to a panel on writing comics. There were some great people on that panel, including Marv Wolfman (squee!). Pia Guerra was supposed to be there, but had travel issues, so the panel was entirely male (though they even remarked at one point about how there should be more women writing comics). Anyway, someone asked the best way to break into comic writing and/or drawing, and the answer (besides the obvious "just start doing it") was to look at the internet as a way to get your work out there.

Not that I needed anything to legitimize webcomics. I've been reading fanfiction since 1995 (Xenafic, yo), mostly because mainstream publishing didn't (and mostly still doesn't) have the sort of stories I'm looking for (the gay ones). And then the Trek series Dark Frontiers was released, and I realized that I could get superior femslash* for free on the internet as opposed to buying it from the people who tried (admirably, I guess) to sell it to me. So I'm all about the internet as a forum of both amazing writing (speaking of Doctor Who, I've got a friend or two who ought to be writing about that show, because sometimes they seem to get it better than some of the staff writers), and amazing talent of many other types (oh Flickr, I heart you).

So I've got my webcomics. I feel like most of these are pretty non-obscure, but I don't know.

xkcd - because I'm a geek.
Penny Arcade - see above.
Questionable Content - which I'm still about 500 behind on, but which I love, because it's like. Life.
The Abominable Charles Christopher - because it's amazing.
Married to the Sea - because it literally makes me LOL about 4 or 5 times a week.
A Softer World - Not sure if it counts, but it's in panel format. And I love the photography and the irony and the randomness.
Dr. McNinja - I feel like the title of this makes it self-explanatory. Though I have to remember to go read it, because I've never found an RSS feed (seriously, I think I'm developmentally delayed in this department).
Curvy - [Explicit sex warning, yo.] This is my latest add (another recommendation from that same friend). It's awesome, super gay, and kind of fun. It's probably the most obscure of the webcomics I read, but it's one of my favorties.

So. That's it, really. I've noticed that webcomics tend to have a different feel to them than published comics, which makes sense. But I still miss that very-serious first webcomic I stumbled on a decade ago, that was basically a comic like I'd find in the store, but on the internet (Abominable Charles Christopher is like that).

If anyone has any recommendations for good webcomics of any sort (I'll try anything once!) let me know in the comments.

Space Girls Gone Wild. For Real Real.

Okay, I admit that I have very little familiarity with Power Girl. I have never read any of her stuff before, and only know the history I've read about her either on the internet or in various TPs or other comics where it's mentioned. I know her chest size is some kind of running joke, which... grates, but. Whatever. "Eyes up here." Yeah, it's just so funny every single time. Har har.

SoI have to ask. Is the entire title meant to be a commentary on feminism, an attack on feminism, or is it just stupid?

Because. Seriously.

DC released its September solicits on Monday (?), including this gem of an arc title: "Space Girls Gone Wild". (Okay, okay, this started in the August solicits, but I didn't read those. And it didn't have a cover with the "trio of sexy alien marauders".) Cool. I mean, it's not like Girls Gone Wild is a misogynistic series of videos that takes advantage of inebriated and peer-pressured young women for the voyeuristic pleasure of men (and some women, maybe?). Sure, they've got their staged porn scenes with actors, but most of the draw are the real women that do various sex acts for the hordes of men watching in person and at home.

So I'm really excited for this arc, needless to say. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the actual videos and more to do with having a catchy tag line, but really DC. If I were your target audience (a horny guy?) I'd probably still be annoyed. Or maybe I'd be busy watching GGW. I don't know, because I know I'm definitely not your target audience (let's talk post Detective Comics, btw).

Like it's not bad enough that Power Girl's chest is still a running joke in 2009?

So I went into PG #2 this week already in a bad mood. And what do I get? Bestiality! A giant ape (get it! ape! like! chest beating man!) that's really a dorky, sickly guy who's trying to overcompensate! Bestiality and blood play! Hysterical mom-scientists and rational guy-scientists! Jokes about how PG doesn't use her brain! Blondie remarks! Chest jokes!

By the way, I think I managed to get the variant cover, which didn't have a slightly-cranky looking PG with a ferocious Ultra-Humanite behind her (edit: that one was by the interior artist, a woman, thanks for the correction, Michelle). Instead I got an almost Alex Rosseque and statuesque PG with her fists on her hips and cape flowing in the wind (and, you know, giant breasts, because yeah).

I suppose I can take comfort in the fact that PG will eventually beat the Big Bad Ape-man. I suppose I can also take comfort in the fact that Karen Starr is sort of a kick ass liberal business woman (I don't know if she's a feminist yet, I haven't seen enough of her, but it seems like she is in the over-the-top way that men write feminists, you know... actually, this should be out of the parenthetical).

Just to grossly generalize (how's it feel?), men seem to have two ways of writing feminist characters in comics (with two exceptions): either as man-haters or as hard-working women just trying to get by who constantly (and I mean constantly) have to deal with sexism, but don't want to. Karen Starr seems to fall into the latter category. Nevermind the fact that there are many shades of feminism (which leads me to my exceptions, because I think Greg Rucka and Paul Dini both do great jobs with strong women that I think would be called feminists if everyone weren't so afraid of that word).

So if there are any long-time Power Girl readers out there, I'd really like to know:

WTF?