|
NikkolasKing posted:
Chuck Dixon is a right wing guy and has become more so over the years as far as I know. Nathan Edmundson, who wrote a pretty controversial and pretty lovely Punisher series, is also in deep with various conservative positions, some of them apparently pretty extreme. Mitch Gerads, who penciled that series, also caught some flak but I don't know to what extent he kind of just got caught up in it. I do recall him doing some kind of design work for a group named after Chris Kyle, the guy from American Sniper and Ales Kot going after him for that. You could maybe make a case for Jim Shooter too-- whether they were politically motivated or economically motivated or whatever, his editorial policies about depicting (or rather, not depicting) queer characters could pretty fairly be read as homophobic.
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Chris Claremont was 25 at the outset of his Uncanny X-Men tenure and IIRC he already had a bunch of pretty decent-to-good series under his belt by then.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I know this is a huge can of worms and I'm gonna get a lot of poo poo from bringing it up, but believe it or not, Jane Foster Thor is the same kind of thing, because now the original Thor is unworthy and everyone in the book is going on about how great Jane Foster is and how she's the best Thor ever. It doesn't bother me that Thor is a woman, it just sucks that they have to poo poo all over the original Thor and have the new one be a Mary Sue who goes on tirades about politics. If they wanted Thor to be a woman, they should have just made him a woman. I mean, Loki's been a lady before, why not Thor? Jane Foster rules and if you're not reading the comics anyway I don't know how much room you have to evaluate her characterization or the quality of the writing in the book. Furthermore, the original Thor is still appearing in comics and is still doing cool stuff consistent with his characterization under Jason Aaron's entire run-- he very evidently has tremendous affection for both characters and is just as evidently telling a very long-game story. Secondly, in the interest of fairness I looked at your post history to confirm that you're the person who said they hadn't read comics in a while, and look, you're a giant transphobe who's egregiously cavalier about what constitutes abuse and uses "retard" as a pejorative in 2017, so I don't really care what you think about who's a nazi and who's not.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:People who think Alan Moore is actually a pedo are so loving moronic that they are not worth engaging with on any subject whatsoever. Right, I don't like Lost Girls much-- actually I think it's profoundly stupid-- but he's obviously saying something pretty thoroughly worked-out about the ideology of the construction of childhood and of sexuality in the 19th/early 20th c. (granted, like a lot of what he's concluded about that period I think he's off the mark, and really like a lot of what he says about sexuality I think he's not half as progressive as he thinks he is) and not just giving people something to jerk off about. It's like saying Salo is only for scat fetishists. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:He wrote a comics that describes sex between a minor and adults in a way that an actual pedo could crank to. Comics already have a seedy unbelly of weird fetish comics that do a decent part to keep LCS nerd dungeons the way they are. I think this is a bit reductive but it does touch on why I think Lost Girls-- and a lot of Moore's latter-day stuff-- is wildly flawed and its own worst enemy (I gave up on Providence VERY quickly because I'm fed up with Moore's treatment of sexual violence-- I think LOEG was when I first started noticing how hosed it is, and LG certainly falls within that perimeter). That being said, I want to own that as much as I feel ethically and reflexively repulsed by his sexual aesthetics as a victim of sexual abuse AND as someone who has a cursory understanding of how not to be a dipshit in 2017, Moore is capable of writing brilliant stuff with well-articulated theses, even if I don't want to wade through completely tasteless rape scenes to get to them. Like, again, I'm probably never going to read LG because it alarms and wounds me as a survivor of sexual abuse, and because I think that he shoots himself in the foot in trying to make the point he's trying to make. However if somebody I knew was writing serious scholarship on Moore I think it's absolutely a keystone text for that period of his career and I think WHY it fails is sort of interesting. To wit, it's trying to do two things at once: 1) present an example of "benign" pornography a la Angela Carter's Sadeian Woman for comics. This is good and bad. Bad because Carter is VERY wrong in that book for a bunch of reasons (while de Sade doesn't represent women as "breeding machines" he DOES EXPLICITLY represent them as pleasure machines-- this isn't just me picking nits-- it's me knowing when and how de Sade read la Mettrie; also she should have known better than to aver that de Sade was the FIRST writer to think about women this way, as it ignores centuries of works written by, uh, women), good because he's pointing at a real need in the industry to rethink how it treats sexuality, what it considers taboo and what it doesn't, and how sex can be made aesthetically pleasing, legitimately sexy, AND ethical in terms of representing consent and power. Which again, I think can be done, and I know a lot of women, particularly queer women, have comics that they find empowering and entertaining in that vein. But for Moore, in practice what this means is "my comic has interesting page layouts, the palette of a mix between Little Nemo in Slumberland and Bazooka Joe and the allusions to Egon Schiele are whatever are kind of amusing." 2) present what is, essentially, a sexual horror story. In it's own way LG is more terrifying and sickening than From Hell beneath the pastel colors and vaseline penciling-- each main character is shown to have their consent stripped away by men with power over them, and each character's testimonies of pleasure and jouissance is tainted by the half-suppressed memories of violent sexual trauma. Moore absolutely does not want people to jerk off to this book-- or if he does he's history's most virtuosic piece of poo poo-- because what he's trying to do-- I think-- is give his most damning portrait yet of how ideologies sexuality and adolescence worked in the late 19th/early 20th c. and how it irreperably hosed up a generation of young women and turned a generation of men into monsters. Unfortunately he fails. He doesn't need to have failed-- this kind of thing is pulled off pretty regularly in other mediums. Dennis Cooper made a career of it and Patricia Lockwood's big breakthrough was, rightfully, the long poem "Rape Joke." The problem is, of course, that you really probably can't have this particular cake and eat it too. It would be so, so difficult to pull off telling a serious tragedy about the repercussions of abuse, and intermingle it with very well-drawn, brightly colored pastiches of period-accurate smut. It doesn't work as porn because, as noted, it's depicting atrocious acts happening to subjects without any form of consent. It doesn't work as a serious indictment of Victorian/Edwardian sexuality because it's preoccupied with being formally fun n' flirty. It isn't sexy and at the same time it isn't serious. It feels trivial and glib at the same time as it feels self-righteous and ponderous. It just kind of makes you mad at Alan Moore-- and when a few years later he wrote a scene of Voldemort committing date-rape as a joke scene, I was like, yeah, ok, I'm not going to take him seriously about this anymore, and I'm going to pick what texts of his I keep up with extremely cautiously. Honestly when I read it I felt sick. I wish it was better than it is though and I think it's important to acknowledge what he was trying to do. I really wish I knew what was wrong with him, and for a long-time my thesis was that his read on sex is so filtered through gnostic and neoplatonic metaphors-- in which "marriage," for instance, isn't literal marriage, and "ravishment" isn't literal rape-- and he just happened to be completely clueless about how this looks to any other human being. But I reread From Hell recently and you can see the beginnings of it. His treatment of sex and class is thoughtful and nuanced there, but taken all together it starts to look a bit like slut-shaming-- like the punishment of women for having sex is at least in part karmic justice. So right-- it's thoughful and nuanced and effective, but it's still pretty lovely. My fear is that he just doesn't give a poo poo and that considered representations of women and sexuality-- actually let's go all the way and say morally sound representations of women and sexuality-- is just something he doesn't really give a poo poo about on more than a theoretical level.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 21:06
|
|