Sexism, Sexuality, and the DC Relauch

I've got a fairly comprehensive look at the sexual issues in last week's DC relaunch offerings up on Sequart. It's titled "Sexism, Sexuality, and the DC Relaunch," and it looks at Catwoman, Red Hood and the Outlaws, Wonder Woman, and Supergirl.

It was very hard to write, because I took great pains to be tough but even-handed.

This Week on Sequart

Sequart Research & Literacy Organization, which analyzes and promotes comics as a legitimate form of art, offers daily content on its website. Here's what's been going on there this week.

On Monday, I concluded my look at the French masterpiece The Walls of Samaris.

On Tuesday, David Balan discussed Scott McCloud's The Right Number.

On Wednesday, Cody Walker offered the brilliantly-titled "Whatever Happened to the Big Red Cheese?", about Captain Marvel.

On Thursday, Gene Phillips looked at Grant Morrison, Chris Ware, and comics culture.

Today, Kevin Thurman looked at Charles Burns's Black Hole and what its depiction of sexuality.

I do hope you'll read them all, not only my own contributions to the site, because they're all well worth the time. Thank you!

The Walls of Samaris on Sequart

Over on Sequart, the final part of my look at The Walls of Samaris went up today.

If you're not familiar with the book, this is a masterpiece of a French comic. It's the first volume in The Obscure Cities, a series of graphic novels of remarkable merit. Illustrated by François Schuiten with architectural precision, it's beautiful to behold. And writer Benoît Peeters adds philosophical depth, making this a perfect blend of philosophical depth and sheer beauty. It's truly a loss for American comics that the series isn't available in English translation.

But never fear, I'm here to translate it for you -- and to walk you through the series, its themes, and its genius. If you're a fan of the comics medium, you need to check it out.

You can start with my introduction to the series, or you can jump ahead to the first part of my look at The Walls of Samaris.

Keeping the World Strange Hits Comics Shops This Wednesday

Sequart has announced that it's book on Planetary, Keeping the World Strange, will be in comic book shops this Wednesday. Ask for a copy and tell them you're a fan of Sequart. Pretty please?

http://www.sequart.org/magazine/4885/keeping-the-world-strange-in-comics-stores-wednesday/

Corrections Department, with Thanks to David Uzumeri

I just want to give a quick shout out to David Uzumeri, who was awesome enough to point out an error in my Justice League International #1 review.

I misidentified a speaker as Booster Gold, when it was really a protester doing the talking. I think the blond hair was what did it, although Booster obviously has shades on, so I just wasn't thinking.

To make matters worse, I proceeded to be really snarky about the implications of my misreading. Which I thought was funny, but which really made me look like an ass when it was based on a sloppy misapprehension.

I've changed the review as a result. Not only did I alter the appropriate section (citing David), but I tweaked the whole thing, toning it down a bit. The mistake only changed my interpretation of a single scene, and my thesis remains the same. But I thought these mods were only right, after the reviewer had been exposed for basing his negative impression, at least in some small part, on a fundamental misreading. Don't worry: the integrity of the piece is secure, although I did tone down the invective just a bit.

On a more important note, this is exactly what any serious writer fears. Especially when delivering a scathing review, a responsibility one shouldn't take lightly.

But as much as the fear that one has made an error should haunt a writer, what's more scary is the idea that people -- possibly hundreds of people -- would catch the error and not point it out.

After all, it's not easy or comfortable to do so. No one likes to be told he or she is wrong. But people also don't like having to be the bearer of this particular bad news, especially when it's human nature to be defensive about one's own writing. It's far easier to just make a mental note that the writer's an idiot and go about your day. Which the writer could hardly blame you for doing, even though the result is that a mistake persists, deluding some readers and convincing others that the writer's an idiot.

So kudos to David Uzumeri, who's done me a great service. And please, if any of you spot similar mistakes in my writing or in that of anyone else, don't hesitate the point them out. It does help to do so diplomatically, as David did. But only a writer who really is an idiot will reply with anything but thanks.

Corrections are, unfortunately, part of the game. And if we are going to take comics seriously, we have to incorporate a correction-friendly culture into our writing about comics.

David Uzumeri did participate in a roundtable review of all 13 DC #1s offered this week, over at ComicsAlliance (a site I recommend). It's well worth your time, and I hope you'll check it out.

This Week on Sequart

Sequart Research & Literacy Organization, which analyzes and promotes comics as a legitimate form of art, offers daily content on its website. Here's what's been going on there this week.

On Sunday, director Robert Emmons updated us on Sequart's documentary film Diagram for Delinquents: Fredric Wertham and the Evolution of Comic Books.

On Monday, I offered my "Hollow Spectacle (or How Super-Hero Comics Warped My Logic Circuit)," which followed up on my Justice League #1 review by using one scene from that comic to illustrate how acclimation to super-hero cliches can warp our understanding of logical narrative.

On Tuesday, Daniel N. Gullotta found correlations between Spider Jerusalem and Friedrich Nietzsche.

On Wednesday, Cody Walker continued his look at Mark Millar's Ultimates, examining how Ultimate Avengers 2 (a.k.a. Ultimate Avengers #7-12) went off the rails.

On Thursday, Tim Bavlnka looked at the history of Beta Ray Bill.

Today, I examined how Grant Morrison's Action Comics #1 succeeds where Justice League #1 fails.

Then later today, I offered a "Justice League International #1 Review."

I do hope you'll read them all, not only my own contributions to the site, because they're all well worth the time. Thank you!

Justice League International #1

I've got a review of Justice League International #1 up on Sequart.

It's not positive.

And yeah, that's three posts this week. All substantial, several thousand words in length.

Help me.

Special Friday Article on Sequart Addressing Action Comics

In addition to my usual Monday article on Sequart, I occasionally offer additional pieces during the week, such as my review of Justice League #1 last week.

Today, I'm offering "This is Not Your Daddy’s Superman: How Grant Morrison’s Action Comics #1 Works."

It praises Action Comics #1, but it also draws careful distinctions between how that issue works and how Justice League #1 fails. In some cases, the superficial parallels are quite remarkable, although the tone and effectiveness are starkly different.

I would feel remiss if I didn't cover Action Comics #1, because I really don't want to be the curmudgeon who only bashes super-hero comics like I have Justice League #1. Nor the guy who only lays into the DC relaunch. I'm not that guy, really. Honest. And so I think it's important to praise where praise is due. But moreover, given the strong parallels between the two issues, talking about Action Comics #1 allows me to use a positive example, juxtaposed against some of the mistakes made with Justice League #1.

Check it out, please. Then tweet it if you like it. Tweet it twice if you hate it. I need readers.

More DCnU Quick Reviews

Was anyone even trying with Batgirl #1? Wasn't the whole point of making Barbara Gordon Batgirl again to return to her classic, smiling stories? Instead, despite the bright, smiling Batgirl on the cover, what we get inside is a dark Batgirl struggling with personal demons and fighting vicious murders. None of which is done in any unique way whatsoever. It's not bad but... it's not Barbara Gordon. I mean, there's zero reason why any of this had to involve Barbara Gordon at all, except that DC apparently wanted to list that under "alter ego" on a Batgirl information sheet.

Well, that's not entirely true. There's a flashback to The Killing Joke, which we knew would be kept in continuity. What we didn't know is how Barbara's legs would be restored. And guess what? We get no answer here. Instead, we get vague talk about it being a miracle, as if the characters don't even know.

Barbara does have a second flashback to her trauma, which plays into the plot. But if she spent three years in a wheelchair, as we're told she did in this continuity, why would that trauma be so fresh? Because she's adventuring again? It feels forced.

There's nothing bad here. Just shockingly, shockingly lackluster. Especially given the controversy DC engendered with its decision to restore Barbara Gordon as Batgirl. And given writer Gail Simone's promises to do Barbara Gordon justice. The internet is surely going to explode with every disability advocate and every Oracle fan screaming, "I told you so!"

See, when a company announces such a controversial move, it implicitly asks you, the consumer, to trust that company's wisdom. It assures you, its audience, that it has something in mind. Something worth the controversy. That's why it's so dangerous to publish lackluster material such as this. It's not just a lackluster issue of Batgirl. It's a loss for DC's credibility.

No one seems to have thought of this. No one seems to have noticed the controversy and thought, Gee, we'd better make sure that's a good issue. No one seems to have thought, Well, if we're bringing back Batgirl, we'd better tell a fun story that honors her past as Batgirl. You know, a story that you'd want to tell with Barbara Gordon, rather than a story that revolves around the same kind of dark murderers any super-hero could fight.

Argh.

Justice League International #1 is a by-the-books first issue. If it were written in the late 1980s or early 1990s. And even then, it wouldn't be good.

There's some awful dialogue. Especially squabbling about nations, on this international team. There are characters who know the word "yes" but then inexplicably add, "Da!" As if to remind readers, "Yo, I'm stumbling through English, but don't forget I'm Russian!"

There's a totally inexplicable scene in which Batman accosts Guy Gardner to advocate for Booster Gold.

There are two kids who blow up the Hall of Justice using a water cooler. Okay, there are explosives in that water cooler. But I'd be surprised if they could do more than blow a hole in the wall, even if they were military grade. And these are kid protesters. The scene has the atmosphere of a prank. And it blows up the Hall of Justice. This is probably the stupidest thing I've seen since Ghost Rider beat Galactus.

Oh, and the big climax? A giant robot erupts from under the earth.

Yeah.

No, that's not a joke.

It's unbelievable that this could be deemed fit for publication in 2011.

OMAC #1 is certainly an offbeat title in the DCnU. It's essentially a retro title, a riff on classic Kirby comics. Think Godland. If you like that sort of stuff, this is for you. Otherwise, you'll be quickly lost. Points for being different.

I really wanted to like Hawk and Dove #1. I've confessed that I'm a fan of the original Liefeld mini-series. But this issue is a nightmare of stupid super-hero stuff. Sterling Gates wrote it, and it seems like he tried to write a 1990s Image Comic, knowing Liefeld would draw it. He should have instead looked further back to that original mini-series, which had normal, intelligible writing.

Crisis on Infinite Earths in the DCnU

So with the entire DC timeline compressed into five (or six) years, what about Crisis on Infinite Earths? Did that even happen?

Among the many other events in Crisis was the death of the original Dove. And guess what? It's referenced in the new Hawk and Dove #1.