|
Bobby being gay was a huge fan thing in the aughts, the sort of thing that you'd see on scans_daily although as if with many interesting and enduring things from s_d it was in some ways an exercise in creative reading as much as anything else. I presume that most writers from at least Stan Lee through Louis Simonson with the slim possible exception of DeMatteis and Gillis were writing Iceman as a straight guy without giving it too much thought, but the theory was circulating for at least a few years before Bendis had him come out and it did have a fair bit of fan traction. I think Marjorie Liu is the first writer to say she was explicitly writing him as a closeted gay man although iirc that may have been a bit of backtracking on her part. Post-Lobdell-- who had a little road-trip subplot between Iceman and Rogue that often seemed like it was setting up some kind of big disclosure on Bobby's part-- a lot of writers flirted with the idea while hewing to a degree of plausible deniability. Chuck Austen has him go out on a date unwittingly with Northstar, PAD has him briefly flirt with Shatterstar, etc.. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Feb 12, 2021 |
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Skwirl posted:I guess when I think about Storm and her relationships with other women the three that come mind most readily are her and Kate Pryde, which is a mentorship thing, Jean Grey, two peers who respect each other deeply, and Callisto, which is a frenemy/respect thing, Callisto acknowledges that Storm beat her in that sewer and Storm acknowledges that no one else has ever come as close to beating her. It's a pretty long-distance shot so it might just be a slip-up but I believe in the first panel post-Crucible in the most recent Marauders you see her standing on the beach without an eyepatch. Of course she has one on in a close-up on the very same page so who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
I've seen a few derails recently asking about what the state of the comics medium was in the 90s, if it was really that bad, etc., and it made me realize how avidly I like to come to that vexed decade's defense whenever this issue pops up. Would people read/post in a thread exclusively about gems of the 90s? Maybe it could be a rotating things where we cherish and adore various decades at different times. I get defensive about my sweet baby 90s and would love an opportunity to wax rhapsodic about Naughty Bits or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
I would want it to be more of an appreciation of good comics but I guess I can't account for taste. Like I think just posting crummy splash-pages is deeply boring but on the other hand I've seen people like Michael Fiffe do really eye-opening re-appraisals of 90s pencilers who used to get lumped into that post-Image coterie so I suppose an honest encomium on Tom Tenney could be cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
I would feel extremely comfortable categorizing Body Bags as bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
I like it but it's quite PAD
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Oh definitely. You know there were precisely two people clamoring for more Pantheon content, and those two people were PAD and me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Then boy do I have great news for you about Maestro: War and Pax
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
I've found something interesting that I was initially going to just post in the Comic Strip thread, but since Bechdel is probably just as known as a graphic memoirist these days I figured I'd drop it here too. I was helping a student find sources for a paper about Fun Home and found myself trawling the back issues of small press lesbian journals from the 80s, which is how I wound up browsing around the Winter 1982 issue of Common Lives/Lesbian Lives. This was a quarterly journal that mostly published short pieces of autobiographical writing from lesbians, and it had a reputation for giving a rare spotlight to lesbians who lived outside of the coastal publishing cliques. Anyway, I found this brief piece of memoir, "Episodes," which seems to be the earliest piece of Bechdel's work that I've ever seen (her little bio blurb at the end says it's her first published work but that doesn't always rule out juvenilia in school journals and stuff)? In any case, check it out, some very very early prose by a major comics figure!     
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
Well, Cable is: a) a brickbat b) a Bowery tough c) so rough d) called from a cartoon pulled out of his pantaloons
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
My wife and I closed on a house today. That's right. I'm moving to Krakoa to be with my people. Edit: Well, I should say we closed on a house yesterday, I lost track of time. I also want to add in a comics related aside-- I wound up reading a bunch of Tijuana bibles while I was down a work-related rabbit hole (I will clarify here that the rabbit hole was about how queer physicality was represented in pre-1930s visual media) and I think they're actually a really amazing resource. As kind of the lowest of the low in terms of cultural prestige, they could really get away with showing stuff that even prose porn or early photo/film stuff couldn't about how people in the early 20th century actually imagined and fantasized about sex. There's one about Donald Duck that kind of like-- and this will sound outlandish-- reflects elements of the period's gay subcultures that are almost never mentioned in print outside of private diaries and letters that we happen to have preserved. There is also a surprising amount of rear end-eating, cunnilingus, even threeway sex with two male participants, stuff that a historian dealing strictly with print and film would say was absolutely nonnegotiably taboo for many American men in the early parts of the 20th century-- stuff they maybe did, but rarely talked or wrote about (a lot of men were very circumspect and bashful about going down on their female partners even in letters and private journals or diaries). And here it all is just happening to Popeye in these stupid gross little things! How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Bob Adelman edited a pretty good sampling of them in 1997 which I think is still in print. Otherwise as far as I know you can scrounge around online or book a visit to the special collections of a university that has some. Duke University has over 370 if you are ever up for a hot and shoddy time in North Carolina. There are many at tijuanabibles.org but hm, how to put this. They are not really.... "good." And they are not really sexy, and I don't know if they were ever really meant to be sexy. Like I don't know if any young bachelors were tossing and turning in their sheets in 1937 thinking like "ohh I just gotta see Fibber McGee's nut, rendered so poorly." I read them as more like a physical token of a particular kind of dirty joke a la Chaucer's scatological scenes or the x-rated limerick. It's less like-- oh my god, Barney Google is so beautiful right now, more like "ha, sex really is just earthy and common and weird, even Barney Google does the drat thing." So of course a lot of them are rough chuckles from the perspective of 2021-- full of racial and ethnic stereotypes, misogyny, weird homophobia (often concurrently with surprisingly frank scenes of gay sex), and dubious acts of consent. Another big problem is that like, practically none of them have solid textual histories, in part because they were printed cheaply and distributed covertly. It seems really rare to me that anybody can be like, "this one was drawn by <x> and came out in such and such a year." People can kind of guess, I think, from the drawing styles, printing techniques, and which characters feature, at vaaaaguely when a given bible was published, but it's a lot of just "and here's this weird thing." thetoughestbean posted:At least now we know that Popeye fucks Popeye is not a gentleman. 
How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
If the new thread title is too spoilery by some odd chance let me know, but I laughed too long and too loud at that post to let it slip away.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Hey everyone, I have a doctorate now so please let me know if you need a prescription... for comics and fun
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Splint Chesthair posted:It’s such a weird thing to me because, from a narrative perspective, why not say Reed Richards and T’Challa cured cancer? There’s hardly a good reason in-universe that cancer has to be a thing that still exists. (Mar-vell’s death aside.) Trans-dimensional travel is fine, but curing cancer is a bridge too far in terms of realism? I think a case in point is how over a year ago the X-books made a big plot point out of miracle medicine being distributed to most of the nations on Earth, curing a whole host of diseases and conditions, and it has absolutely not derailed the rest of the Marvel line because most Marvel books aren't about that stuff. They made that small leap of "this world is now markedly different from the real world in such and such a way" and it went fine. I really liked that.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Hey, so I'm writing a course on American culture through literature, and am doing a lesson on comics (both newspaper comics strips and comic books). I'm thinking of having an activity that charts changing values/concerns of the US through covers/panels of one superhero. Was thinking of Captain America, for obvious reasons, but am open to other suggestions. Does anyone have any covers/panels that spring to mind as very much encapsulating the time in which they were published? I did something similar in a course in queer AmLit, and one of the biggest issues I had was finding a way to work around large chronological gaps. I think your idea is really solid but would maybe benefit from being as big-tent as possible. Maybe tracking the evolution of the Sunday comics page over whatever window of periodization you're working with or just opening it up to superheroes in general or a specific superhero archetype rather than just one character?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
A fall's a fall! Feel better soon!
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Yeah, that's the one I read a couple issues of. You can get a lot of it on Comixology if you would like to read it digitally. It looks like it's missing a small chunk of issues in the first year and then issues #51-70. Edit: It looks you can get issues #7-9 if you buy the trades, they just aren't up as single issues. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jun 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
There has not been a new Peanuts in over 21 years so even "new Peanuts" is, at this point, pretty old Peanuts. And imo it's fine-- the strip is at its worst inoffensive. Read the old stuff, it's very good, stop when you find yourself getting tired of it, that's the trick for getting through any long-running daily comic strip.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:I made one ages ago but it's probably slipped into the archives by now. Ta-da! Thread necromance to your hearts' content.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2021 23:36
|
|