Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Bill Maher And The Ruffled Capes of Comic Book Fandom: A Response


On the January 25, 2019 episode of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER, Bill took off on his "New Rules" segment to double-down on his own reaction to the passing of Stan Lee back in November 2018, by responding to the collective geek culturati and their angry response towards him.  As you might recall, he had made some dismissive statements best summarized as akin to another "Bill," William Shatner, and his infamous skit on SNL where he told a bunch of Star Trek fans in costume to "grow up."  And, as the online geek culture is anything if not predictable, the response to his comments have been sharply critical.  Nobody likes being told that something they like is childish, just as people on the Right politically don't like it when Bill mocks them for supporting the current president.

My purpose of writing this is not to attack Bill Maher or to defend Bill Maher.  My purpose in writing this is to actually look at his entire statement, so we have full context, and respond accordingly with an attempt to see whether he has valid points buried within his mockery or whether he's just going for cheap laughs at the expense of others.

Here's the actual video clip of the 6-minute segment if you want to watch it:



I've transcribed the entire segment below and will put Bill's words in red, like Jesus's words in the Bible (or Superman's trunks if you prefer), to more easily distinguish between his words and mine.


...and finally to every person on social media who's asked me since November, "Bill what do you have to say about Stan Lee?" and every paparazzi outside a restaurant who's still shouting at me "Bill! What about the Stan Lee thing?"
 Okay, your day has come.
 Tonight's editorial is about Stan Lee, who, if you missed it, died in November and a few days later I posted a blog that was in no way an attack on Mr. Lee but took the occasion of his death to express my dismay at people who think comic books are literature and super-hero movies are great cinema and who, in general, are stuck in an everlasting childhood. 

This is an important distinction for him and it should be to all of us.  He was not disrespecting Stan "The Man."  He was, however, intentionally disrespecting adults who read comic books and/or enjoy super-hero movies.  I'm not going to focus in on the irony of his attitude towards super-hero movies given that he was more than willing to take a paycheck for a cameo in one.  That's an immediate goto, apparently, within much of the geek bloggers and commentators, but it has no merit as far as I'm concerned.  Appearing in a super-hero movie, to Bill, would obviously be no different than appearing in any other "kids' movie."  As he makes plain and clear, he sees a hard line distinction between what is children's entertainment and what is adult entertainment.  This is a topic we will return to throughout this article and we will discuss the merits, or lack thereof, when it comes up.

I think there are two key issues that reveal a certain attitude in Bill.  The first is the conflation of the idea of "comic books are literature" as the equivalent of "super-hero movies are great cinema."  The second is the lump sum opinion that people who think like that are "stuck in an everlasting childhood" and the implication that this is a prima facie bad thing.

To the first point, there is certainly an elitist snobbery in his perspective.  And that's not meant as a criticism, necessarily, but an observation that many have made over the years about Bill Maher.  To be fair, this is part of what makes him entertaining as both a comedian and as a political commentator.  He positions himself within a persona of someone who consistently looks down his nose at others with a knowing smirk of superiority.  I believe this is more shtick than something actual about him, but I do not know him personally and cannot say with certainty.  But I do think I'm right.  So, any statement he makes like this has to be taken within the context of his role as a comedian who intentionally dips his toe over the lines of common propriety for reasons of triggering emotional discomfort in those listening.  He also exposes his own willful ignorance about comic books in that he does not know, or does not care to be informed beyond his limited exposure, that comics at this point is a medium of illustrated storytelling that has achieved much more than merely super-heroes beating up bad guys, even if that is what the general public associates it with.  But his unwillingness to even entertain the notion that it might legitimately be something more than what he already believes it to be is the same sort of closed-mindedness that he criticizes in others.


To the second point, that same elitist snobbery informs his derision of a group of people for being, as he puts it, "stuck in an everlasting childhood."  I think I know what he means here.  I think he means that adults who still like super-heroes have never grown up or matured.  There is a germ of something there that is worth someone exploring (not me and certainly not him) as to why, if you are a "grown up," that you would (A) still primarily entertain yourself with the most simplistic narrative form of "good guy vs. bad guy" type of fiction rather than something more nuanced and applicable to the real world, and (B) get so upset by a comedian making fun of you for liking what you like.

Bragging that you're all about the Marvel Universe is like boasting that your mother still pins your mittens to your sleeves.

Yes, this is a joke.  But, it's also a mean-spirited and belittling joke that is especially demeaning when applied to an entire group of people that Bill, by his own admission, does NOT know and does NOT care to know, and does NOT care to learn about.  It's not even a clever joke as it is essentially just another variation of the "lives in your parents' basement" type of joke.  It's swinging at a tee ball rather than actually trying to hit a fast ball.  It's lazy.

You can, if you want, like the exact same things you liked when you were 10 but if you do—you need to grow up.

Bill's elitist, or superior, persona dangles the possibility that you have the RIGHT to like the same things you liked when you were 10, but then he uses that just to smack you across the face with a demand that you "grow up."  The reason that rubs people the wrong way is that no matter who you are, whether an adult or a child, telling someone to "grow up" is about as effective and helpful as telling your significant other to "calm down" in the middle of an argument.   Basically, Bill is just posturing at this point.  He's performing for his audience and the other celebrities on the stage with him, who he feels are fellow intellectuals and will join him in his mockery.

That was the point of my blog. I'm not glad Stan Lee is dead—I'm sad you're alive!

This is arguably a funny one-liner, but the pointed truth within it is that he does not care who Stan was or what Stan did and this is the source of his smugness in this context.  The fact that he doesn't know anything about Stan somehow inexplicably makes him conduct himself as if he is better than those who do.  The reason why this is troublesome is that it is the same basic elitist bigotry that magnifies divisions in our culture rather than the non-judgmental acceptance of an enlightened society.  It is troublesome because, in his ignorance, he's assuming he knows enough about a certain group to make a judgment call even though he's made it clear he does NOT know much at all about the group he is criticizing. And he's taking the moment of his opportunity as a celebrity with a bully pulpit to essentially...bully these people.  This is much like the sort of verbal behavior that is construed as bullying in any other context.

And, by the way, if someone says you're being childish and you react by throwing a tantrum—you're not iron man you're 'iron-y' man.

He is 100% correct here.  A tantrum just proves his point and ends any possibility of broadening his mind. You don't get any further than the South- and North-going Zax if you're just going to hurtle insults back and forth.

Well, let me tell you, people were pissed about this post.
I wasn't even aware that I had ruffled so many capes until I saw that 40,000 Twittefollowers unfollowed me like that!
To which I say 'good riddence!'
Follow Yogi Bear!

Yes.  He thinks it's funny to dismiss comic book fans with a reference to Yogi Bear.  So what?  Seems pretty....I don't know....childish?


Director Kevin Smith accused me of taking a shot when no shots are necessary.
Except, again, my shot wasn't at Stan Lee. It was at, you know, grown men who still dress like kids!

Really? Bill's most strident and personal criticism of someone is that they dress like a kid?


First of all, this elitism problem that Bill is exhibiting smacks more about a larger societal problem going on and that is of adults who arbitrarily ascribe notions of maturity to things as insignificant as hair styles and clothing choices.  If we're really aspiring to a society in which we are judged by our character and by the merits of our achievements, then I would expect that the manner in which you dress yourself only matters insofar as you are clean.  If a childish idiot dresses in a suit and tie, but conducts himself like we expect an adult to be, that does not make him any less childish or less of an idiot.  Look at the president as an example of that one.  Clothing is not an indicationof maturity but may be rather a reflection of authenticity or inauthenticity.  If the way you dress is a reflection of, and expression of, who you are inside, then I don't see any problem with the way Kevin Smith dresses or anyone else. And shame on Bill Maher for using his bully pulpit to shame Kevin over something so subjective and silly.  Doing something like that is childish.  Bill needs to grow up, I think.

One commenter said that Stan Lee 'has inspired children to believe in something bigger than them' and then added 'Congrats you're a cunt on the same level that Ann Coulter is a cunt!'
Other people tweeted things like 'I learned about social justice and racial tolerance by reading comic books.'
Okay, but now you have pubic hair—read James Baldwin, read Toni Morrison, read Michael Eric Dyson.
Even a book as dumb as the Bible gets this: 'When I was a child I spoke as a child; I understood as a child; I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things' . . . including my X-Men bedsheets!

Bill keeps hitting this same drum but he's missing the point.  What are the "childish things" that the Bible was speaking to?  I would say the Bible was not speaking about putting away your toys as much as it was speaking about putting away your petty judgments of others, your petulant stubborness, your unwillingness to understand others, your inclination to pick on others who are different than you.   Within that interpretation, I would say the admonition is to Bill to put away his "childish things" and "grow up"—in other words, stop demeaning others simply for enjoying the life they have in the way that they choose to.

Can we stop pretending that the writing in comic books is so good?
Oh please, every super-hero movie is the same thing: a person who doesn't have powers gets them; has to figure out how they work; and then, has to find a glowy thing!Justice League—glowy thing. Iron Man—glowy thing. Spider-Man—glowy thing. Captain America—glowy thing. Glowy thing! Glowy thing! Glowy thing!



Here is a prime example of Bill conflating comic books with super-heroes and with super-hero movies in particular.  They are connected but they are not the same thing.  What he's criticizing here, in the guise of demeaning adults who like movies with super-heroes in them, is the formulaic storytelling of Hollywood and the inability to break from the established format.  This is a totally valid criticism.  But it is a criticism that can be extended to many more genres of films than simply super-hero films.  You know what the "glowy thing" is?  That's what Alfred Hitchcock called the "McGuffin" and it is in nearly every popular movie in history.   This is not a problem found solely within super-hero films.  This is just Bill looking for something to mock, but it's a logical fallacy to isolate one group like this for criticism while ignoring the fact that it is a general problem with an entire industry.

And again there's nothing wrong with a man writing comic books.
There is something wrong with adults thinking they're profound.
The folks at Stan's company, Team Stan, wrote an open letter to me and said "You have a right to your opinion that comics are childish and unsophisticated. Many said the same about Dickens Steinbeck Melville and even Shakespeare."
*pause*
No they didn't!
No! No one ever said that!
No one ever said "King Lear" or "Moby Dick" was childish and unsophisticated.if you ever read a book without pictures you'd know that!
Team Shakespeare should write YOU an open letter!
Yes, Howard the Duck...Hamlet—same diff!
"To thine own self be true" meet "Hulk smash!"Comics are for kids! That's why they sell them next to the 'Pokey Man' cards and not on the aisle with the condoms and the lube!

Okay. Fair point UP to a point.  Yes, the vast amount of super-hero comics are anything BUT "profound."  And, yes, those of us within the geek culture probably should stop pretending that they are.  That's not to say that over the course of decades in which millions of super-hero stories have been told that there have never been any "profound" stories.  But from a generalized standpoint, comic books—super-hero comics particularly—are a hack production churned out within a proven simplistic formula.  Nobody is out there arguing the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew are "profound literature" and we may want to stop expecting everyone else in the world to treat Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN or Grant Morrison's INVISIBLES as "profound literature."

They are certainly very good comics and have merit, but it is a stretch to elevate them beyond the level of some of the best that monthly comic books have produced.

Even those writers who have elevated the super-hero genre are still trapped within the limits of the medium and the culture that surrounds it.  We may occasionally get an exceptionally well-written Batman or Superman story, but to rise to the level of profundity?  Highly unlikely.  What tends to happen is that we project profundity onto our comics as a way of justifying to ourselves their worth as something more than shiny baubles of nostalgia that we cling to.  And I do not say that with any hint of criticism of myself or of anyone else.  But I do think it is a more objectively accurate statement.

 And by that same token, I'm going to say that there are exceedingly few TV shows, books, and films that truly deserve to be labeled as "profound."  Fans like to point to graphic novels like BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS by Frank Miller and WATCHMEN by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons as great examples of super-heroes as literature.   Perhaps they are.  However, I'm going to disagree by saying that in my opinion, between those two, WATCHMEN comes the closest to achieving that designation. It may still miss the mark, though, because its entire conception and execution is intentionally a commentary on the super-hero story form from within the form and for fans of super-heroes who are maturing.  It is a deconstruction of the super-hero genre, but by being integrally a part of that very same genre, it forces itself into that level that does not quite achieve the designation of true literature.

But that's probably for experts in academia to debate.

In terms of comic books that I personally believe are actually profound, there are a few that I own, but I would point you to just one from 2011:  HABIBI by Craig Thompson.  No super-heroes in this Islamic fairy tale but it is as much literature as Shakespeare or Melville.  The blending of words and art are integral to the reading experience and puts the lie to the idea that no comic books can be profound literature.

However, Bill's criticism here smacks of the same sort of thing you hear from adults who can't find any way to muster an interest in an animated film because "it's a cartoon" and "cartoons are for kids."  That's a willfully ignorant point of view.  I cannot stand willful ignorance.

I'm sorry, but if you are an adult playing with super-hero dolls—I'm sorry, I mean 'collectible action figures'—why not go all the way and drive to work on a big wheel?

Cheap shot.  Not worth addressing. As with any cheap shot, it speaks more of the one who says it than the target.

Grown-ups these days, they cling so desperately to their childhood that when they do attempt to act their age they have a special word for it now..."adulting!""Hey world, look at me! I just made my own eye appointment"—hashtag adulting! "Eating vegetables"—adulting! "Today I wiped my own ass! I guess I'm turning into my dad!"
Marriages have been destroyed because the husbands—adult men—can't stop playing video games!
When your wife wants to have sex and you can't come to bed because you're about to level up in Fortnite, don't be surprised when your relationship does this:  GAME OVER!

Another fair point here.

And this is why Bill's commentary and criticism is worth hearing.

We live in a time where a good many of us are explicitly embracing our inner child and the question is whether we have allowed the inner child to take over.  Is this good or bad?

I think that the answer to the problem here is that everyone needs to achieve a balance.  If you do not achieve a balance between your grown-up outside and your inner child then you run the risk of becoming an angry, jaded adult elitist who frowns upon anyone who does not fit your perception of what it means to be an adult OR you wind up being an adult who cannot process and manage those things that adults must handle.



Dr. Stephen Diamon, Ph.D. wrote something that describes Bill Maher and his reaction to folks like Kevin Smith when he wrote: "'Grown-ups' are convinced they have successfully outgrown, jettisoned, and left this child—and its emotional baggage—long behind. But this is far from the truth.

In fact, these so-called grown-ups or adults are unwittingly being constantly influenced or covertly controlled by this unconscious inner child. For many, it is not an adult self directing their lives, but rather an emotionally wounded inner child inhabiting an adult body. A five-year-old running around in a forty-year-old frame. It is a hurt, angry, fearful little boy or girl calling the shots, making adult decisions. A boy or girl being sent out into the world to do a man's or woman's job."

As with most bullies, what the bully is most critical of tends to be what he is jealous of.  Bill comes off here as someone who maybe actually wishes, or needs, to reconnect with his inner child but he is afraid of what others might think—which is sad.

I think most of us recognize the obvious when it comes to the geek fan culture and that is that many of us are obsessive compulsive types and the attachment to these comics, toys, and games is not normal, or rather I should say...normative.  So why do we do it?  Is it that we are simply childish?  Are we unwilling to grow up?

For some of us....yes.

Let's not dance around it.

We all know people like this that use their collecting hobby as an excuse to avoid growing up.  And, unfortunately, these tend to be the loudest and most obnoxious of us.  These are the tantrum throwers.  These are the misogynists who bully female fans and pros online, for one example.  They are grown up babies who never matured and their emotional and intellectual reactions are stunted in childhood.


But for most of us this is not the case.  For Kevin Smith, this is not the case.  Jim Henson once said The most sophisticated people I know—inside they are all children."  I think that's the key here.

For us, Bill, we are adults who take our adulthood seriously but also enjoy life by remembering what it is like to be a child.  When we make a joke online that we are "adulting" we expect that everyone who reads that actually gets the self-aware joke in it—the wistfulness of what was and never will be again.  For any of us to live in the current zeitgeist where a malignant narcissist like Donald Trump is president and "white power" is a thing again and social media attacks without mercy anyone for anything they may have ever said or done without any sense of compassion or allowance for personal growth or evolution—is it any wonder that we find comfort in memories attached to the safer and simpler days of our youth?  There are no adults playing with their dolls.  That's a mischaracterization, a caricature, of the collector culture.

There's much to criticize but if you're going to criticize, Bill, at least have the integrity to learn more about what you're criticizing.

In fact, if you open your mind, you might find that there's quite a bit that is exceptional within this "super-hero" culture than you are aware of.  There is a camaraderie within the best parts that you rarely find elsewhere.  There is wanton LACK of judgment and rather a culture of acceptance.  These are the people who give freely of their time and talents to volunteer at Children's Hospitals, just as one simple example, to bring a smile and a moment of awe and wonder to sick children.  These are people, overall, who read a lot more than just super-hero comics and your blanket insults demean you rather than them.


To sum up, Bill Maher does not know enough about comic books or the culture of comic book fandom for anyone to take his criticisms too seriously.  But if it really riles you up to hear his words, then I would challenge you to ask yourself whether there's a germ of truth, as applied to your own life, behind whatever pissed you off so much.

Socrates wrote "An unexamined life is not worth living."

We should all take a breath and examine our own lives and wherever there is room for improvement, we should take steps to do so.  One of the easiest ways to self-improve is to educate yourself about something before criticizing it.  I would hope Bill could do that rather than reflexively insult and mock those he doesn't understand.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

DUCKS AND MORE RIGHT-WING PANDERING HITS THE BOOKSHELVES FOR XMAS 2013


It's the Yuletide season and predictably, the bookstores are astocked with books cynically cobbled together to appeal to the stereotypical Right Wing, Conservative, Christian gift-buyers.  Like the shoe cobbler waking in the morning to find the elves had repaired all the shoes, we can always depend on a slew of Right Wing media darlings to slap their names on books ghost-written by other people and proudly claim authorship.  And the target audience gobbles them up, slaps wrapping paper on them, and down under the Xmas tree they go for dad, grampaw, or your looney uncle to exclaim their glorious pleasure on Xmas morning at the gift given to them. 

I happen to have a moral problem (and I know it's just me) with people who slap their names on books when they didn't actually write them.  So, today I'm going to spotlight the ghost-writers and shine the light on them.

The trend in the past has been to bury the ghost-writer's name in the "Acknowledgements" section of the book.  Isn't that classy?  "I'm going to pretend I wrote this book and get all the royalties and recognition but I'm so magnanimous that I'm going to toss an acknowledgement bone to the actual author at the end of the book at the same time I'm thanking my wife, my editor, my manager, my mom, and my dog."  Sometimes that's made it tricky for me to dig through the string of names to glean the true author, and sometimes I may have missed it, but I don't think so.

The current trend, in this mass media age of bad publicity, is to at least put the real author's name on the cover, just make sure that the font is about 1,000 times smaller than the name of the liar who's claiming authorship and getting all the attention and money.  Today I am going to spotlight 5 current books that I believe are ghost-written and shine the light on who I think was the real author rather than the one who gets sole or top-billing.

1. The first book to spotlight is RUSH REVERE AND THE BRAVE PILGRIMS. 

The description goes like this: "Join Rush Revere on exciting time-travels with his special horse Liberty! Rush Revere travels back in time to experience American history as it happens...."  I'm sorry, that's as far as I could get before throwing up in my mouth.

Anyway, nobody reading this better believe Rush Limbaugh actually wrote this book himself or you really should just leave right now.  I'm serious.  Leave.

He may have come up with this insipid concept but that's where his contribution ends if even that.  It actually sounds more like something his yes-minions probably came up with one day while clipping his nails and popping his back zits.

So, since Rush is not one for class, it should be expected that he would not have the decency to actually put his ghost-writer on the cover.  Instead he just emblazons the book narcissistically with his name and likeness and a self-gratifying note that "he" is a New York Times Best-Selling Author.   So I flipped through this nauseating piece of propaganda and murky history replete with lots of illustrations of bobble-headed Rush Revere toddling through history telling us what really happened.  Were this a sarcastically self-aware endeavor I could see how it could be hilariously rewriting history with a post-modern cynicism.  Instead, it's just more lazy pandering and continued plundering of the Conservative citizens's coffers to fill his already quite sizeable girth. 

At the end of the book we finally get to the Acknowledgments and as Christoper Schoebinger is the only person thanked for some non-specific "assistance" I am going to climb out on my Ghost limb here and point the finger at him.  I take no issue with him for getting that paycheck.  Ghost gotta eat, right?  But someone seriously needs to stick a pin in the Rush balloon of false piety and self-righteous gluttony and pop it.

2. The second book to spotlight is  KILLING JESUS.

This book is purportedly authored by Bill O'Reilly as you can see by the enormous lettering for his name.  However, in teeny tiny letters under Bill's name you can see who the actual author is: Martin Dugard.  So, while Bill is taking all the credit for this book, it's Martin who gets all the blame. 

I think this summary of the book from The Guardian puts it pretty well:  "Jesus, the little guy, is an enemy of the big corrupt tax-oppressing Roman empire, which is itself just a version of Washington, only even more venal and sexually depraved. This Jesus is a tax-liberating rebel who incurs the wrath of the Jewish and Roman powers by threatening their joint fleecing of the people. As a member of the populist right, he is not, of course, in favour of redistribution: Bill O'Reilly's Jesus does not tell the rich to give away their money to the poor."

Good Catholic Bill O'Reilly celebrates the birth of our peace-loving Savior by attaching his name to a cynical money-grab directed specifically at milking those in this country who feel their government is conspiratorily out to get them.  And what better way to do this than hang a government conspiracy around Jesus' neck on the cross.  Ho Ho Ho! Merry Xmas!

3. The third book to spotlight is MIRACLES AND MASSACRES: TRUE AND UNTOLD STORIES OF THE MAKING OF AMERICA.

You gotta know up front that Glenn Beck rubs me wrong in every way. So the idea that he's going to slap his name on a book that purports to tell me 12 little "thrillers" as a way of learning about history turns my stomach a little. 

Since I think the man to have a messianic complex and to be a functioning delusional, his idea of what he construes as "untold" stories of America immediately make me cringe at the perverted prism of reality through which he would have directed the actual author to write through.

I will say this, though, I do think Glenn involves himself in the construction of these books with his name on them more than some of these others.  However, I don't believe he wrote the actual book so putting his name at the top in huge letters is a huge problem for me.

I noticed that the cover doesn't make any mention of anyone other than Glenn Beck as the author.  Nice to see good old traditionalists like Glenn and Rush are sticking to the olden ways.  But I look inside the book to the credits page and what I see is a book written by Kevin Balfe and edited by Glenn Beck's daughter Hannah and overseen (editor-in-chief style) by Glenn.


4.  The fourth book to spotlight is COMMAND AUTHORITY.

There is a new "Jack Ryan" movie coming out soon so, as one would expect. Tom Clancy's book publisher has to make sure we get a new "Jack Ryan Novel" out there to feed the marketing.  It doesn't matter that Tom Clancy died in October. 

Of course, I don't think Clancy's actually written anything attributed to him as author in years, so this isn't surprising.  Mark Greaney is the author of this one.  And by all accounts, if you like this kind of book, you'll like this one.  But boy, the Tom Clancy conservative readership just keeps on sucking this stuff in like powdered candy don't they?

The further adventures of President Jack Ryan Sr. and covert warrior Jack Ryan Jr. will further titillate and tantalize those out there with thrills, espionage, and politics.  And all the while reinforcing those conservative values that we all associate with such drama and without any need for deep philosophical analysis or graphic sexual content. 

5. The fifth book to spotlight is actually a couple of books together:  HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY: MY LIFE AND LEGACY AS THE DUCK COMMANDER and SI-COLOGY 101: TALES & WISDOM FROM DUCK DYNASTY'S FAVORITE UNCLE.

Purportedly "written" by Phil Robertson and Si Robertson, respectively, of the tv-series DUCK DYNASTY, I think the timing of these books could not be better.  With the recent controversy and removal by A&E of Phil from the show, I expect these books to be flying out of bookstores and winging their ways under Xmas trees posthaste.

I don't think I can fully express how exasperatingly horrific these books appear to someone like me. It's like someone crafted a pander stew of everything that is intended to capitalize upon ignorance, blissful nostalgia, rubbernecking, lack of critical thinking, nonsense posited as good old "horse sense", and just a putrid air of self-righteousness masking pure money grabs.

Normally I don't assign any real malice to the ghost-writers and just assume they are doing it for the paycheck.  But in my opinion, the true author of these books, Mark Schlabach, has likely carved himself out a quaint little corner of Hell for his future by tying his present-day fortunes together with this embarrassing blip in history that is currently a painful boil on humanity's ass.

If there really is a Krampus, he's got his eyes set on Mark this Xmas.


Tuesday, February 14, 2012

JOHN BYRNE'S CLASS ON COLOR 1.01



































Just to make it even more clear, just last week on February 12, 2012, John Byrne wrote:

"The Big Question on this one was How Much Black? Altho Blackhawk's uniform was clearly BLACK in his first story, it was BLUE on the cover, and blue quickly became the standard. When I first "met" the Blackhawks, as a kid, there was no doubt in my mind that their outfits were dark blue."

Wait.....wut????

Monday, November 7, 2011

when the world screamed: Cutting Through the Nonsense with Common Sense

I've started a second blog for writings that are less sarcastic and fixated on super-heroes and the silly stuff in life.  I call this one..."when the world screamed: Cutting Through the Nonsense with Common Sense."  Here's a sneak-peak at my first entry dealing with the Texas Education Fund and the nonsense surrounding that.  Check it out, if it interests you, follow the link over to the full entry and see what you think.  If you would connect and follow that blog too, that would be cool.  I got the name from the last of the "Prof. Challenger" stories by A.C. Doyle.  It's a title I've always wanted to steal for something.

When the World Screamed
Hijacking Texas Education Funds Through the Guise of "Privatization"

News reports have been hammering our brains for the last year or so about how Texas must cut 3-to-5 Billion (with a capital “B”) dollars from “Education.” Of course, there's rarely any specifics about where these cuts are made.  The cuts are just made and then left to the agencies and school districts to figure out how to deal with it.

At the same time that this budgeting fiasco has been going on, Texas has gone through some highly public battles with the school board over textbook rewrites and the state embarked on a major overhaul of their standardized testing system. So, out with the TAKS and in with the “more rigorous” STAAR and EOC (End-Of-Course) Examination system.  As well, add in the massive spending involved in an attempt to set up a state-wide online curriculum and testing system. Through it all, one name keeps popping up: Pearson Education. 

The Texas ObserverYou may wonder who that is?  According to Abby Rapoport in The Texas Observer, “Pearson is a London-based mega-corporation that owns everything from the Financial Times to Penguin Books, and also dominates the business of educating American children.”

In fact, The Texas Observer did an outstanding job of laying out some of the details and reasons why Texas taxpayers (and basically anyone in other states where Pearson is found) should be alarmed at their lobbying efforts. I recommend everybody read the article in full. My conclusion is that the people's call for “privatizing” the school system seems to have been misconstrued intentionally into a massive intertwining of government funds (meaning: TAXPAYER DOLLARS) with a massive FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION in a way that could only make Halliburton smile with understanding.

Calls for privatizing the education system are rarely demands to funnel tax money into the coffers of private corporations. Calls for privatization are calls to remove government from the system, thus returning all tax monies to the individual citizens, and allowing the free market to function. The individual citizens decide to whom and where to funnel the money...or not.

That is privatization. 

What the Texas Education Agency, Texas legislators, and the hundreds of for-profit corporations, like Pearson, are doing is a bastardization of the concept mostly done on the down-low while everyone in the media is distracted by the ridiculous nit-picky backbiting at the State Board of Education over what goes in and out of Texas textbooks.

You might ask why would I pick on Pearson so strongly. Is it just because The Texas Observer says I should?

Well, I did some digging just to see where our tax money was actually going in terms of “Education” and specifically in regards to Pearson. This was accomplished by visiting texastransparency.org which bills itself with this sub-line: “Open government is accountable government: a clear look at your tax dollars at work in Texas.” Unfortunately, it may be “clear,” but it most definitely is not easy to maneuver. They have the site rigged up in such a way that the information is there but in terms of ease of access – frustrating. The drop-down stair-step approach to the searches and the slow searching script and the unavailability of multiple searching within one session make it very difficult to get a straight and “clear” set of numbers. The numbers don't necessarily always quite add up either. Let me explain...

Click here to read the rest...

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

DC Comics "Jumps the Shark"


DC Comics has "Jumped the Shark" if this interview found on the Comic Vine website is to be believed.  I think I have been granting DC too much credit and optimism.


CV:  With the introduction of 52 new #1 titles this fall, how did the decision to revamp the entire DC Universe come about? Why now?
 Bob: When Eddie and I came into our new positions, we looked at the universe. We're both fans. We [realized] we have these great properties- we have Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman- and we said, how do we get people really excited about these properties? How do we get them really excited about these characters? What could we do to expand these characters? How do we invite, engage and introduce people to these characters; and that's really how all of this started.
 Eddie: It's been planned for a while, like Bob said. Why now? Because we looked at all the platforms available. We want to embrace the future, and what better time to do it than now?
 CV: What are your goals for the revamp?
 Bob: We want to create exciting comics with great story and art- that's always [been] my main goal. But really, we want to get people excited about these properties and get more and more people reading these characters because these are really incredible characters, and I think Eddie shares in these feelings.
 Eddie: We grew up with these characters and they've touched us in so many different ways. Now we want to make that accessible to more people by having them on different platforms.
 CV: Eddie you bring up different platforms. I know that Bob, when you were at Marvel, you once published a Marvel comic in a TV Guide. Other than digital, do you guys have other platforms you plan to utilize to target new readers?
 Bob: We're focusing on digital. Digital is the main goal because we really do believe that's where more and more people are getting their entertainment.
 CV: Are you at all afraid of alienating your core fan base?
 Bob: I think we're always concerned, and we have no intention [to alienate our fan base] but the thing we want to stress is that we want to get people excited again about these characters. One of the things we're doing is [we are] incorporating some stories from the past that are very important [to the characters] for September going forward- we've taken a lot of care to create a timeline to explain the reasons why this is happening. We've taken into account a lot of important story lines; Death in the Family, Blackest Night, The Killing Joke and Identity Crisis.
 Eddie: I mean we're both fans and we recognize that these stories really had an impact. It also gives us a new direction to go from.
 CV: Part of the revamp is giving characters new identities. I know that in the solicit for the upcoming Supergirl series, she seems like a completely different character...
Eddie: Well she's still the same character, we're just going down to her core. Looking at the characters at their core, looking at them in these new situations that we're creating and seeing how they would react to other characters. We're taking everything back to 'who is this character, how would he or she react to certain situations,' and that's really how we developed some of these new directions.
Bob: We've also been very conscious of making this reality for the real world. Like, what would the reaction be of people coming from outer space with these powers? It's not all gonna be welcomed. So that's the challenge these heroes are faced with and the fact that they continue to be here is the story we're striving to tell.
 CV: One character that's gotten a lot of attention recently is Barbara Gordon. Can you talk about the decision to make her Batgirl again?
 Eddie: It all came from the core of her character. Where can we take Barbara Gordon where we haven't taken her before? That's what we wanted to deal with by taking her in this new direction.
 CV: Why the decision to bring many classic characters, like Swamp Thing, back and to the forefront?
 Eddie: We love these characters. We think these are fantastic characters and we want to share them with a broader base of readers. There's a lot of potential for story . We're at the beginning of being able to explore them fully and do it before a broader audience.
 CV: Will we be seeing Power Girl in the future?
 Bob: Yeah, she'll be around.
 CV: But not in her own title?
 Bob: No, she won't have her own #1 title, but Karen Starr will appear in one of the 52 titles.
 CV: Rumor has it Lois Lane and Superman won't be together after this revamp. Can you confirm or deny?
 Bob: You'll have to read the Super books to find out!
 CV: Action Comics just celebrated it's landmark 900th issue in June; any chance DC will renumber the series again when it hits issue 1000?
 Bob: No plans for that. We're moving forward starting with September's #1's.
 CV: What's the future of Batman Inc.? Is it over or will DC return to that story?
 Bob: We'll be coming back to Batman Inc. a bit later. There are storyline reasons for that decision, but it all works out perfectly for Grant that we'll be coming back later with that.

My thanks to Rich Johnston and BleedingCool.com for pointing out what was not only not answered, but not asked!

Eddie Berganza and Bob Harras both did interviews together for iFanboy, Newsarama, Comic Vine, CBR and The Beat, all released within minutes of each other. And both managed to say very little indeed.
That it’s not a complete reboot of continuity. Which we knew.
That past continuity will still count. Which we knew.
That they’ve been planning it for a while now. Which we knew.
That the books are priced at $2.99. Which we knew.
There’s one point from The Beat interview where Eddie Berganza talks about “a timeline we’ve created, that’s a living breathing artifact” and I really hope he means it in the same way Grant Morrison means it. But I sadly doubt it.
The interviews smack of being managed and even when harder questions are asked, they are generic enough that Bob and Eddie slip away from them without being challenged further.
So here are eight questions that weren’t asked or that they didn’t answer. Any suggestions as to the responses I may have got?
1. In DC comic books published last week, 11% of named creators were women. In the relaunch, 2% were women. Is there a reason for this change?
2. What percentage of current comic book readers do you expect to be cannibalised by day-and-date digital?
3. Day-and-date digital has timeliness demands for content approval that print does not. Editorially what can you do to keep the books in time without bringing in fill in artists?
4. We’ve seen the DC memo that tells artists they must have three issues completed by the end of August or you will have to bring in fill in artists, Considering some only just got the first issue script, is this a realistic achievement?
5. Certain creators have stated they they were told they were working on the book, only to find out days before the DC Relaunch that they were not. This may not have been reflective of the general experience, but do you consider this acceptable man management?
6. What are the measurements for failure of the DC Relaunch?
7. How do you believe the success or failure of the Green Lantern movie will impact on the relaunch?
8. Can you please stop putting those Green Lantern banners on Vertigo titles?

Bravo, Rich!  Bravo!

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

THOUGHTS ON DC REBOOT PART 3b (of 3): It Costs WHAT?????


Okay.  Just one more thing about the DC Reboot.  A friend of mine scanned these in and brought them to my attention.  These are from AMAZING HEROES #14 and list every DC Comic that came out in September 1982.  First, go back and look at Part 3 where I went through the list of all 52 comics that DC is dumping onto the marketplace, then take a look at the 1982 listing of a mere 33 comics. 

 


 

 In 1982, I bought every single DC Comic on that list except for that month's issues of SGT. ROCK and WONDER WOMAN.  I was, of course, buying them through a mail-order company called The Mint Delivery System in New York City who was giving me a 40% price-break by ordering a month at a time.  However, had I bought all 33 issues at cover price, I would have bought 29 comics @ 60¢, 2 comics @ $1.25, and 2 comics @ $1.00 for a grand total in September 1982 of ...

$21.90!!!

In September 2011, if I were inclined to buy every single DC Comic on the stands (all 52 First Issues), it would be 48 comics for $2.99 (which I will round to $3.00) and 4 comics for $3.99 (which I will round to $4.00).  Which brings us to a grand total of...

$160.00!!!