The Pitch: The Great Ghostman (Riskmen Universe)

Okay, so last week I introduced the Riskmen universe. I gave an overview of the entire city of Newchurch and a basic rundown of the characters. You can check on that here. Today, I give you the pitch for the first game in the universe; the one that's currently in production: The Great Ghostman. As with every game pitch, the plan is to make this using the RPG Maker 2003 engine (though I'm considering other things).

Inspirations

So first, time to talk about the main influences in this game.

Let's start with story: I was heavily influenced by Christopher Yost's Scarlet Spider, featuring KaineNightwing trade ever written and Scott Snyder's Batman, which encouraged me to add a slight horror element to the plot. For gameplay, my main influences are Double Dragon and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. I'd be lying if I said that the Arkham games had NO influence on me (I'm making a superhero game- it's going to have an influence), but the only one I've played is Arkham Origins- Blackgate, so take that as it is. There are a range of RPG Maker 2003 games that have taught me a lot about using the system.

Parker. In fact, I came up with the character not long after reading the first trade in that run. Other books that have influenced me are pretty much every


Story

When Luke Scarce was young, his mother died of cancer. His father, after years of trying to cure her, took his life. Without the guidance of mother or father, Luke lived only for himself. Training himself as a magician, his fame eventually earned him enough money to buy the old Grey's End Theatre in Newchurch City, Australia.

That's when things fell apart.

On Luke's first show, a gunman working for the crimelord Graeme Green opened fire on Luke and twenty other guests. Where his guests died, however, Luke lived, walking the line between life and death. Now, he takes the fight to Green's gang on behalf of the departed as Ghostman.

World

The Great Ghostman takes place in Grey's End; a derelict suburb in western part of Newchurch city.

The Green Gang practically own the area. Wherever you go, you find their graffiti. Schools set up there are abandoned and in disrepair. Building projects started, but never finished. There's more rubbish on the street than there is concrete. The people there, though, are a strong bunch. They look out for each other as much as they can, balancing their business and family demands with the fights for their own lives under the Green Gang. All they need is for someone like Luke to show them what is possible.


Gameplay

The Great Ghostman is an action-adventure game in a similar vein to the early Zelda titles. You wander Grey's End undertaking missions on behalf of the ghosts that populate the area. Some of those missions operate very much the same way as "dungeons" that Zelda players know quite well.

Combat will operate mostly in a similar way to the Double Dragon games. When in a combat situation, waves of enemies will approach, which you'll defeat with a range of attacks. Some of these enemies will be armed, however, and when you defeat them, you may be able to pick up their weapons and use them yourself.

Ghostman's abilities are based around two powers: his ability to walk through walls and his command of telekinesis. his phase shifting ability acts as a sort of dodge button when in combat, allowing him to walk through enemies before they can land an attack. Telekinesis can be used to pull enemies and certain object towards Ghostman or push them away.

For traversal, your most important ability is ghostsight. This allows Ghostman to see and speak to ghosts all over Grey's End. It also allows Ghostman to find phasing points, which allow him to walk through walls.


In a game where you have ghost powers, its natural that some stealth becomes an important part. Ghostman has some pretty low defence stats, so stealth will usually be your first port of call. You can use telekinesis to bring down enemies and take them out before they see you.


Structure-wise, the game will feature 5 main levels and about 15 side quests. These side quests give you the opportunity to increase your stats.


So far, that's all I have to say about the game. Next I'll be talking about Daybreaker: Rebel, where the universe goes into space.

The Difference Between Bullying and Poor Taste

You would think there'd be nothing to hate about this team.

Oh boy.

This month saw the release of Marvel's new RessurXion (is that spelt right? I mean, it's not exactly a word, but...). With it, came X-Men Gold #1, a new team starring favourites like Colossus and Old Man Logan. The issue, to be honest, is quite good- we get a X-Men team that feels more like the well-received Astonishing X-Men than it does Uncanny X-Men.

Sounds great? So what's the issue?

The offending panel

Well, it turns out the issue's writer, Ardian Sayaf, brought in a few too many personal politics. See, X-Men Gold #1 he included a reference to a verse in the Qur'an that, according to some translations, forbids believers from making Jews and Christians their leaders.
Sayaf is Indonesian and right now, the Christian governor (or former governer, not sure), a man known as Ahok, was tried for blasphemy for a misstated comment on the Qur'an. Ahok's comments enraged the Indonesia's 85% Muslim population. Sayaf was obviously upset about this as well, because in

My first thought when seeing this was "how did anyone know to notice the verse here?"  My second thought was "this is possibly the worst comic to include this in."

See, X-Men Gold features a team lead by Kitty Pride; a Jewish woman who has been nothing but upfront about her heritage for many, many years. Let me make  it clear; she is the team leader in a book where the art suggests that people like her should not be leaders. For that reason, and that reason alone, Sayaf should be pretty embarrassed about his artistic faux pas.

In all likelihood, the verse was intended to criticise Ahok, suggesting that Christian was not the best choice for a Muslim nation, and if Sayaf had tweeted the verse with a #Ahok at the end, I 'm certain he would not have faced the same backlash (although, really, if you get political on the internet, don't expect people to leave you alone). The message would have been clear: Ahok should not be, or should never have been Jakarta's governor. In the context of the comic, however, it came off as "I resent contributing to a book about Jewish people". Before anyone jumps down my throat and tells me that I'm making assumptions; I know I am. That's part of what reading entails. But I don't imagine myself to be some great genius and if I'm a total idiot, then I'm hardly alone. If I can take that message out of the book, chances are a few others have as well.

She's Jewish. The verse was a bad idea.

In a past article, I spoke about Marvel's habit of bullying some of their readers into accepting a new status quo or ideology. I don't think that's what is happening here. Bullying has to be targeted and continuous. Someone calling you stupid once is not, for example, bullying. Someone calling stupid over an extended period is. This is the first, and likely the last time Marvel has done something like this. Moreover, Marvel's bullying tactics came from strawmanning an ideology that undesirable, but harmless, into something villainous and idiotic. It was something they did not once, but over and over again and it was certainly more overt than this. It was also unconnected to recent events, but more to a particular "out-group". Sayaf's art bears just about no similarity.

It was, however, in incredibly poor taste; not just because the issue's lead was Jewish, but because recent events (though sparked by the west) have likely put a lot of people who don't know better on edge regarding Islam; well, more so than they were before. The verse could be interpreted as inflammatory; particularly towards a predominately Judeo-Christian country like America.

This poor timing, poor taste and poor use of two letters, three numbers and a colon reflect poorly on Marvel. I feel sorry for him; his intended message seemed a lot more tame than media attention would make it seem. It was a dumb mistake and once he's felt the expected amount of embarrassment, I hope he continues to draw for the comics industry because honestly, his art is good. Marvel have since dismissed him. I think that was the wrong move for a silly mistake that editors should have picked up on. Lets just say that, with the kerfuffles of the last month, my opinion of Marvel as a business is fairly low.

Diversity isn't killing Marvel- bullying is.

All-New insults, All-Different standards

In a recent interview with ICv2, Marvel's Senior Vice President, David Gabriel, addressed the massive slide in company sales. And to be honest, he really had to. As of the most recent figures in February this year, Marvel only had two books in the top ten comics. Both of them were Star Wars books. To find a Marvel superhero book, you need to get to number 13, where Spider-Man #24 sits. By contrast, DC takes seven of those top ten spots.

So why are Marvel so far behind? It's not like the company's presence isn't felt everywhere you look. Marvel characters are more popular than they've ever been. Regardless, Gabriel's answer has left many unsatisfied, to say the least. According to IGN.com;

Essentially Gabriel said that, according to retailers he talked to and sales data, Marvel's push towards diversity was the reason for the sales drop. "What we heard was that people didn't want any more diversity. They didn't want female characters out there. That's what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don't know that that's really true, but that's what we saw in sales." Gabriel later elaborated on those comments in an interview with ICv2. There he said, "We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against. That was difficult for us because we had a lot of fresh, new, exciting ideas that we were trying to get out and nothing new really worked."

Now, the IGN article in the link above goes on to say that it isn't diversity that is hurting Marvel's bottom line, but bad business practices; namely, putting out 5USD per issue for series' that have absolutely zero traction (see Red Wolf- what? You forgot who that was? Exactly!). That's a fair point, but Marvel have been pricing themselves out of the market for months before trying the Red Wolf Schtick. Others have pointed to event fatigue, but that's a pretty old chestnut for Marvel and again, it never hurt them before.

I suggest that Marvel's problem is on a creative level, not a business one. No, I'm not saying that making characters diverse is the problem. DC have plenty of books featuring people of colour, women and LGBT+. The problem is more perverse than that.

It's bullying.

Let me demonstrate. In the early stages of the Mighty Thor, we saw this moment:

And here I am, at the height of "punch a Nazi", posting this.
I must have a death wish.

To some, this was where Marvel  made it very clear that having unfavourable opinions on feminism was worse than an actual, literal felony. I'll admit, I was on board for the new Thor until this happened. Once it did, I wasn't so sure. I have no problem with feminism (though I find it unsettling that the face of pop culture feminism is Anita Sarkeesian- it really should be Liana Kerzner), but this felt mean-spirited and petty. Like it was the author acting out their own fantasies and shaming people who felt uncomfortable with what passed for Feminism in pop-culture.

Last year, we got this from All-New Captain America;

Quick, put them in shadows or we won't know they're evil!



 In case you're not sure, that's the Serpent Society in the background, who have now become anti-immigrant. You can be sure, though, that Sam Wilson dispatched them with extreme prejudice. Again, I am actually pro-immigration (I am Australian, however, and immigration here looks different to what it does on the US border), but even I could see the unfair strawmanning of an opinion that the writer clearly didn't like.

And least you assume that I'm saying that comics need to "be more conservative", this moment from Captain America: Sam Wilson was equally concerning:

Someone actually wrote this as dialogue... and an editor approved it.
On the other hand, it means you can probably achieve anything!

And these panels are only a small sample of some of the more talked-about moments in Marvel comics.

As I said, the problem isn't that Marvel leans left- they and nearly every mass media company in the world has done so for the last fifty-or-so years to relatively little blowback. The problem is that the writers have been given license to routinely mock others and then be praised for doing so. I'm a teacher in a high school as my day job, so I find  myself dealing with reports of bullying from students. For something to be considered bullying, it has to be regular and targeted. Sadly, Marvel seem to be meeting both criteria.

And before people start telling me "objectivity doesn't mean treating all opinions as valid"- let me make it very clear that I'm not saying that it does. What I am saying, very loudly, is that it also doesn't mean giving page space to mocking those ideas. The opinion being put forth by these writers- at least, the one common theme amongst the above examples- is "people I don't like deserve relentless ridicule" followed, according to Marvel, by "and I expect those people to pay me to do so".

Says who?

In my job, we also teach students who are being bullied to leave the situation; that getting away is far better than being violent. How does this relate? Well, readers have been leaving Marvel. And why shouldn't they? Why should readers stay for material that makes them feel like dirt. That's not why we read superhero comics?

I miss these two so much!

So the next question becomes one of alternatives. How do we put forth a political opinion without putting down the other side? Well, there's no simple answer to that and I think pop culture, if they give a damn about their audience, will always struggle with finding the balance and nuance needed to communicate these ideas in a world were 140-word tweets make international headlines. That said, one good example to look at in Christopher Yost's Scarlet Spider. The Kain Parker-lead Spider-Man spinoff was deeply involved with the complexities of the immigration argument. It was unafraid to deal with the risks these immigrants took to care for their families, the challenges faced by illegal immigrants and the horrible situations from which many of them run. But it did so by highlighting those issues- not by making Kain put a stinger through the eye of every white person he ran into. The
X-Men, traditionally, have also been a great way to showcase the struggles of minorities to those who, without the assistance of the superhero genre, have found it hard to sympathise otherwise.

Please note; I have only mentioned Marvel books in the above paragraphs because in the past, Marvel have been excellent at dealing with a range of social issues. Hopefully, the books I've mentioned above are proof that they can be again.

Most comic fans are familiar with Stan Lee's slogan; "Excelsior!" The word is Latin. It means "ever upward". If that's truly the direction in which Marvel wish to travel, they have no space to stoop to lower levels.

Top 10 DC/Marvel Characters That I Hate, But Everyone Loves

I've been wanting to do this post for a while but here's the honest truth: my least favourite characters are ones that every keeps telling me are so awesome. I can better handle DC trying to push Joker's Daughter down my throat than a fanboy wailing about how terrible it is that the MCU Spider-Man isn't Miles Morales.

So what follows is my list of characters that so many people seem to love, but I can't stand. This is gonna be interesting...

Nope, that ain't even Damien... or Jason.

10: Tim Drake

Like most of these characters, my problem isn't so much the personality of Tim; it's the pedestal he's put on. Fans constantly insist that Tim is the best Robin. He's the genius, apparently- ignoring the fact that Dick, Damien and Jason have plenty of intellectual props. This one is a soft "hate," but I'm sick of the idea that Tim is godlike.

HULK ASSUME STANDARD HULK POSE! SMASH PUNY
ORIGINALITY!

9: The Hulk

The Hulk is angry. And that's about his whole character. I know, his stories are generally about the conflict between man and monster, but neither the man nor the monster is parituclarly interesting. You say the Hulk is a great fighter? I say he generally has two poses. One is squatting while slamming the ground with both fists, the other is clapping his hands to make sonic booms. It's not fun to see and it's bland to read.

I admit, I was excited when I heard rumours that Iron Fist was going to become the new Hulk, because how awesome would Hulk with kung fu be? But, no, post Secret Wars, we're getting Ammadeus Cho. So we're going to see the same two poses for the next year, at least. *Sigh*

8: John Stewart

Yep, that's John in a nutshell.

You thought Man of Steel Superman was mopey? Get a load of John Stewart. Yeah, that Green Lantern that you have fond memories of from the Justice League cartoon had one real storyline- and that's all about how sad he is. Boo hoo, he killed a Green Lantern before the New 52. Boo Hoo, he killed a Green Lantern during the New 52. One guess what his major story arc is going to be about in DCYou...

John's entire character is based around him feeling guilty and sad. Seriously the DCCU needs Hal Jordan to balance out the morose Superman, which plenty have voiced their hatred for; yet everyone seems intent on dropping even more sad John into the franchise... the what?

Something to never happen in a comic... ever.

7: Star Lord

I know, Guardians of the Galaxy is a sacred cow in the MCU; a franchise nobody cared about until Chris Pratt played Star Lord. But here's the thing. That movie, from what I can tell, did not have Star Lord. It had Chris Pratt in space. The real Star Lord is considerably less funny.

And now we all need to think he is. Star Lord's writers don't have to make him funny at all (please note; funny and pathetic are not the same thing) and we have to claim he's funny as hell because he was in a movie.

This is one of the reasons I'm annoyed at Marvel.

Such noble! So hero!

6: Captan America

Yep, looking through this list, it should be pretty clear that I'm not impressed with the MCU. It's heavily influenced the Marvel Comic Universe and that is all kinds of wrong (Avengers beat up the X-Men, Wolverine can die "permanently", but Steve Rogers can hang around and sure, cancel the Fantastic Four but Guardians of the Galaxy should not only keep going but spin off into a billion titles!).

But Captain America gets me annoyed because he's consistently viewed as the "leader" of the Marvel Universe when I'm not sure he should be. He's a "goody-two-shoes" character that for some reason, doesn't get dismissed the way Superman does, even though he probably should be.

Seriously, what is her
personality?

5: Batwoman

Hey! This character is a lesbian. That's all we kn-- DID YOU KNOW SHE'S A LESBIAN? Yeah, but that's all there is to h-- SHE'S TOTALLY A LESBIAN! But there needs to be more to her chara-- BATWOMAN- LESBIAN... IS ONE!

Take note, DC; "lesbian" isn't a character. And that's all I've heard about her. When that's what's advertised over personality, it couldn't have been a surprise when her comic was cancelled.

Sorry, who are you and why should I care?

4: Thor

His movies were horrible. His comics, at least these days, are average. WHY IS HE A STAPLE OF
THE MARVEL UNIVERSE? I'm not even going to go further on that. Thor can go to hell (or whatever hell's called in Norse mythology... I really couldn't care less).

There are two types of people:
people who hate Guy and liars.

3: Guy Gardner

You know those people you want to punch in the face just by seeing them?  That's Guy Gardner for me. His brand of arrogance is irritating beyond belief and the result of some fist prints in my three volumes of Green Lantern Corps. His insistence on being the best is entirely unfounded and I can't for the life of me, figure out what makes him so endearing. Every time I read an issue of Green Lantern Corps or whatever he's involved in, I just hope that Hal, Kyle, hell, even John or Simon use their rings to close his mouth for good. He's not an Alpha male, he's a child.




2: Wally West

Wally fails at his A Streetcar named Desire audition

Yes, fine, my two most hated DC characters are gingers, but I swear it's got nothing to do with their
hair colour. No, the reason I hate Wally is different. It's not his personality, or his looks, or even that he isn't "my Flash".

It's his fans.

If I have to hear Wally West fans complain about Wally not being the Flash  anymore - if one more person refers to the current and longest-serving Flash as "boring Barry" one more time, I'm not going to be held accountable for who dies tonight. Wally West has a cult- and it's more spiteful than any other cult on earth. I can't bring myself to like this cult's leader- fictional or no.

That said, I've read nothing about Wally, so he may be okay despite his insane fandom. There is one character from the big two, though, that takes the cake for people to hate. And that character is...

1: Iron Man

Urgh....

Admittedly, I've only really been reading much in the way of comics since 2013. But here's what I've learned about Iron Man.

He's alcohlic.

He's a womaniser.

He only has one story, and it's primarily about extremis, because Disney want to sell Iron Man 3 blu-rays and they sure aren't gonna do that based on the merit of the film.

Every fight he's in involves his armour being better than whatever else is around.

His comics in the past few years have been boring the comic community to death. Nobody has praised Iron Man at least since 2013 (and I'm counting Superior Iron Man in this as well). By all accounts, this comic should be cancelled. Every comic fan should decide that his drivel isn't worth buying.

But they don't, because MCU.

I don't care how well Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark. I'm paraphrasing, but the saying goes that fecal matter cannot be effectively polished. Robert Downer Jr is doing a good job at playig a terrible character, but that doesn't make him a good character. If there was one overrated character in comics, it's this guy. His personality is cringeworthy, his stories are bland and he has no place in a universe that is supposed to be about heroics and wonder.

So... that was fun. What are your least favourites?

I'm a Peter-Parker fan, and I'm not concerned with the Miles book.

Yeah, okay.

So, the internet exploded today.

The New York Times, in an exclusive interview, told us that a new book, called only Spider-Man will be released, starring not Peter Parker, but Miles Morales,  the Spider-Man who, well, looks like this under the mask:

Oh... my... gravy...

Yep, Miles is a major departure from the old Spidey, and it's a heresy. I mean, HE'S GOT REALLY SHORT HAIR! HERESY! THE SPIDER-MAN I GREW UP WITH A WAVY AND LUCIOUS HAIR, MARVEL! YOU HEAR ME?! WAVY AND LUCIOUS!

Wait, isn't that what we're complaining about?

It's not?

Well, anyway, people seem to be treating this as though Miles is replacing Peter in the Marvel Universe. Peter, according to sites like The Outhousers, are talking as though Peter is Spider-Man no more. Now I'm a fan of Peter; Miles is nice and all, but he does nothing for me. Yet, upon hearing this news, I'm not at all worried about Peter. Why, you ask?

Because Peter will absolutely still be Spider-Man.

I know this because of this teaser Marvel released about a month ago:

Notice the complete lack of no Peter-Parker-Spiderman..

Now, I may be misinterpreting, but that definitely looks like Peter Parker in a Spidey costume in the top left. He's posed like Spidey in action. He's airborne. He's still doing whatever a spider can. This isn't a retired Peter; it's the Amazing Spider-Man in all his glory.

My theory? We'll see an Amazing Spider-Man book announced to continue (hopefully under a new writer, as I'm pretty sure Dan Slott has run his course) that will run ALONGSIDE Spider-Man. DC has been doing a similar thing for a few years, now. There have been four Green Lanterns working simultaneously, and I believe there was a point where both Wally West and Barry Allen held the mantle of The Flash at the same time. There's no reason the same can't happen with Spider-Man.

But that doesn't stir controversy; which we all know is what comics media sites are more interested in, so here I am, doing silly things like drawing reasonable conclusions based on evidence.

*sigh*

Celebrating 75 years of Dick Grayson

Even in Speedos, he was cooler than you'll ever be.

It’s weird to think that we’ve had Dick Grayson for nearly as long as we’ve had Batman. He’s a character I grew up with. I was first introduced to him in Batman: TAS, when I only knew to call him Robin. I couldn’t help but love the character; I guess I saw so much of myself in him, or at least what I had hoped to become. He was a hero, no doubt. But unlike Batman, Dick allowed himself to smile, crack a joke, fall in love, and genuinely enjoy being a super hero because- don’t lie- you think it’d be awesome too.

When I became interested in comics, the New 52 Nightwing (volume 1) was the first DC trade I bought and I fell in love with the character all over again. He again, became relatable as hell and still exhibited all of those character traits I admired. The guy has become iconic to the DC. You say “Batman and...” and you’ll never have people say “Superman” as their first answer.

Which makes me confused. Is DC celebrating the character’s 75^th anniversary? By announcing a threequel to The Dark Knight Returns- a series that has nothing to do with Dick Grayson.

I know what people are going to say “He’s a sidekick. What did you expect, the same attention as Batman?”

Well, yes.

See, Dick isn’t just a sidekick. He was the sidekick. The original sidekick. The reason sidekicks abound so much today. Not just that, he was the sidekick to do it all. He founded superhero teams like the Teen Titans, he went out on his own as Nightwing and even took up the mantle of Batman. Sorry, Tim Drake fans, but there was only one sidekick in the DCU to successfully become the character that trained him.

My point is that Grayson’s worth celebrating. So how do we do it? Well, here’s my suggestions:

Nightwing: The Series

 

Fan Films are a mixed bunch, the bad ones are so very bad. The good ones are… usually, only pretty good, but when you see what else is out there, the ones that are just good become worth celebrating. Nightwing: The Series is one of those; it’s got great camera and is visually stunning and, in fact, is only let down by the poor dialogue. The series is still thoroughly entertaining, and worth a look on a day like today.

Well… there are these things called comics...

In all forms, he rocked.

What? You mean the things like movies, but are actually semi well-written? Yeah, they still exist. And luckily, there’s plenty of books to read if you want to celebrate Dick Grayson. If you like him as Robin, there are the classic The Batman Chronicles. Prefer him as Nightwing? Not only is the N52  series in TPB print, but DC is reprinting the Pre-52 series in TPBs that are absolutely packed. Grayson is set to hit TPB soon, but you can still catch up on digital.

Whatever you do, celebrate the character. He’s well worth celebrating.

Beating a Dead Horse: The Batgirl Cover

Love the costume, love the attitude, HATE the selfies.

Okayyy… I’ve avoided this topic for a while.

That’s because it deals with a thorny issue. It’s not one that I want to sound too dismissive on, but it’s also one that I know people have very staunch opinions on. But here it goes…

The Batgirl cover.

You know the one.

Admittedly, it's a little horrific.

.

.Yes, THAT one.

So, the full story was that this was announced to be a variant cover for Batgirl #41. While some saw the cover as an accurate homage to much-loved piece of Bat-Family history, The Killing Joke, plenty were upset by the cover; claims that the cover endorsed rape culture, and was generally anti-feminist. Naturally, plenty of anger ensued with both sides chanting repetitive, asinine slogans at each other, ridiculing those who.

Now, the central problem I see here isn’t one of feminism, even though feminism has a part in the debate. It’s about semantics and the act of making meaning. See, although high-schoolers desperate to get out of doing work (I’m a high school teacher; they try to get out of work) try to argue author intent, meaning making actually fall mostly on the shoulders of the consumer; not the creator. In short, the creator supplies particular symbols and it is up to the consumer to decide what all of these symbols mean. As a result, interpreting what this cover “means” is something that cannot be achieved objectively. It is impossible to take something created to elicit an emotional response, apply an interpretation that can only be based on your personal thoughts, feelings and experiences (regardless of what that interpretation is) and then call it objective. That’s not how art works. That’s not how ANY art form works.

With that in mind, I think the decision to pull the cover was a wise one. Not from an artistic standpoint (that the cover does or doesn’t promote rape can’t be objectively proved), but a financial one; there was reasonable doubt that the product would sell, so why put money into printing it? THAT’S a way that you can objectively say that pulling the cover was a wise idea. But it was made wise; it wasn’t necessarily wise to begin with.



A better option than some I've heard.

I’ve heard a few arguments about this cover, and I’m not sure that they were good reasons to pull the cover. Let’s start with the “endorsing rape” argument, since that seems to be the most logical. I can see where those making this argument are coming from; it is a dreadful reminder of the sexual abuse committed by the Joker. That said, to say that it “endorses” rape is like saying that The Empire Strikes Back “endorses” chopping off people’s hands. That the act was repulsive, there’s no doubt. But that’s the point: it was repulsive. Such and act is supposed to be sickening, and I think the vast majority of the population agree that sexual abuse is evil. So, yes, the cover makes reference to sexual abuse. But endorsing it? It’s a bit or a sad assessment of the human race to think that a normal person will look at this cover and immediately think “Welp, Imma’ go rape now!”

All the same, I can understand the concern. The second argument, though, is what gets me: apparently, it doesn’t suit the new Batgirl. Again, this is a personal interpretation, but it shows that saying it doesn’t suit the new series isn’t exactly objective. The Killing Joke has been central to the character of Barbara Gordon/Batgirl. The post-traumatic-stress-disorder that followed has been a staple in who she is. What’s more, it was actually referenced in the first story arc of the new run. Not just referenced, but a major part of the plot. There was room for this cover in the new Batgirl, and it’s a shame that this gets ignored because of something that can’t possibly be considered objective (again, because consuming an art form is not an objective experience).

Again, though, cancelling the cover was wise. It was a good PR move from DC and it avoided the dreaded label of “misogynist” that would inevitably follow. Like I said though, it’s a thorny issue. The kind that wasn’t going to end well for everyone, regardless of the result.

I know it’s an old issue, and probably a dead one, but I wanted the heat to die off before giving my opinion.

My take on the feminism in comics debate, part 1: Female Thor

Hemsworth after shaving

There are two recent events in comics that have me scratching my head. Events headed, or praised, by people who profess feminism. The claim here is that totally approving of these events constitutes feminism, whereas anything but constitutes misogyny.

That’s a problematic dichotomy; mostly because feminism, in my understanding of the term, is a terribly diverse school of thought. You have feminists who complain that a sexualised character is “pandering to male desires” making arguments with feminists who may celebrate a character in her “strong, independent sexuality”. Many contemporary feminists argue that abortion is a woman’s right, but the founding feminists actually argued against it, claiming that it allowed men to have their way with women without having to face the responsibility of child-raising. It’s not a uniform position.

I’ve heard two major definitions of feminism in my time; one says that it’s about campaigning for the rights of women in a male-dominated society (fair enough), another says that it’s about empowering feminine qualities (eg. compassion, emotionality; also, fair enough).

My problem is, I’m not sure that either of these comic moments are feminist, by either definition. Let's start with the older moment first;

Feminist Thor

So, apparently, the new female Thor is outselling the previous Thor: God of Thunder. That’s good, I’m proud of them for revitalising the character and shaking up the status quo in a way that allows for Thor to be an essentially new character (though her identity hasn’t been revealed), and happy that it’s selling well. Shows bold decision-making pays off.

But the internet are calling female Thor a feminist.

Really?

I’m currently on the third issue of my Thor reading, and, honestly, I don’t see how she’s a feminist. According to either definition that I’ve listed above, I don’t think she is. Has she done anything that furthers the cause of women? Not by Thor #3, she hasn’t (even if it is a woman holding the hammer, other women don’t seem to benefit any more than they did from a male holding it). Has she empowered feminine attributes? Certainly none but the physical (she clearly has breasts- but those aren’t the attributes I have in mind). In fact, in terms of attitude, she’s almost indistinguishable from a male. If it weren’t for the female figure, I would have thought the new Thor was Peter Parker.

But then there’s this scene, which I know is in issue five, which seems to “make” her a feminist.

“THERE!” you say, “She defended feminism! That makes her a feminist!”

Does it?

I would argue no, she’s done nothing with that comment to help the plight of women or to empower the feminine. Yes, I know, she let's the Absorbing Man know that it was a woman who beat him, but that does little more than benefit her, rather that women in general. What she seems to be doing is approving and supporting feminism. That makes you a supporter of feminism; not a feminist by association. And that’s fine; I consider myself a feminism supporter even though I’ve done nothing to advance the role of women. I have other problems with the above scene, but that’s another article entirely. In the meantime, can’t we just be happy about the character being female without being a technical “feminist”?

Next time… I talk about the Batgirl cover. Yes, THAT Batgirl cover.

Diversity in Comics: You're ALL wrong!

Everyone's catching the vibe

Diversity’s been a big issue for the last few years for the comics community. It’s had so many different arguments for and against it that it’s become impossible to follow either one. What’s worse is that neither of them are particularly “right”. What follows are three arguments from each sides of the issue, as well as the reasons why those arguments are plain stupid.

The “Anti-Diversities”

Why don’t they just make new diverse characters?



Know this guy? Nope, me neither.

The answer to that’s simple: There’s no money in it. You make a new diverse character, and you have to set that name up. If you want to know why this kind of thing hasn’t been done before, look at Scarlet Spider. There just isn’t that brand name there, so it’s difficult for new, diverse characters to get their foot in the door. It’s far easier to make Captain America black, or Thor female, where that brand name can support the diversity. I can hardly blame them for choosing an easier route.

... just ...

This is nothing more than pandering to the PC police!

Pc police, SJWs, the verbal minority, call it what you want; it means the same thing, and it’s rubbish. Look at the sales for female Thor as opposed to male Thor (with the former outselling the latter). You can debate the reason people are buying it all you want, it’s proof that diversity is selling at least as well with the majority as it is with anyone else. Readers want new things done, and maintaining a vice grip on the past can and will stop any enjoyment you may get from a title.

Why don’t we just make Black Panther white, huh?

Apparently, a comic about white Black Panther exists... by
Brian K. Vaugh no less... only as a joke, though.

This kind of comment has come in response to Michael B Jorden as the Human Torch. It’s stupid, because this isn’t a change to the source material, just to a movie version that doesn’t even exist yet.

Well, you say, let’s just change the movie version. But there’s a problem to that, too. Black Panther is an African. White Africans notwithstanding, the dominant race in Africa is still dark-skinned. America, the birthplace of Human Torch, is more multi-racial, the change isn’t as big a slap to Torch’s heritage as a race change for Black Panther would be.

Do I even need to bring this up?

The “Pro-Diversities”

White males have 100% owned comics until NOW!

Actually, 100% is an overstatement. Black Panther was created in the 70s, Batgirl as far back as the 60s, Storm was on the X-Men by the 80s- there was diversity before 2010, and to pretend there wasn’t is ridiculous. There’s no simpler argument than that. It’s silly to blame the straight white male for a lack that never existed.

The only way to bring diversity into comics is to race change!



The only way?

Okay, earlier I said that this was the easiest way to get diversity into comics. By no means did I say that it was the only one, or even the most effective. My advice? Bring non-white, non-male characters into the foreground without changing the race of established heroes. Make Black Panther the leader of the Avengers. Let me be clear; the Avengers- not the Mighty Avengers, not the New Avengers, not the East Coast Avengers, but the actual, adjectiveless Avengers! In the same way, the Justice League doesn’t really need Batman or Superman on the team; why not pass the reigns over to Cyborg or Batwoman? Why not get the best writers on these diverse titles (a Grant Morrison-led Mr. Terrific; you’re welcome, internet)? There are plenty of great ways to bring diversity to the front of the big two beyond a palette swap!

There’s nothing about Character X that is particularly white

Hey, Look: A black Spidey
that isn't Peter Parker!

I most recently saw this from Dan Slott when discussing a black Peter Parker for the MCU. And I can sorta see where he’s going. There’s nothing particularly white about being a science geek, poor, or down on your luck. If Spidey only existed in prose novels, that argument would be fine. After all, in Hollywood’s version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Ford Prefect was cast as a black man and it was fine.

But this is comics. They’re a visual medium, and Peter Parker has always been portrayed white (and yes, this doesn’t bother me with Johnny Storm for some reason; no idea why). To say that this doesn’t matter is to ignore the creative input of the artist, and hold the writer up as the only contributor to the comic storytelling process. That’s bad for artists and bad for the industry as a whole. To be totally honest, people saying the above bolded comment should be ashamed.

So there you go; my attempt at being reasonable while putting hopefully everyone to shame rather than just the ones I agree with.

Who do I agree with?

Guess you’ll never know.

Thougts of Recentness

Yep, another brain.

 

Okay, so thoughts of the week isn’t realistic. Here’s a collection of thoughts of recentness, instead.
And let’s face it; there are only two pieces of news here:

The words “The New 52” are ending… and that’s about all.

He won't destroy the DCU, but he WILL get rid of three words in the top corner of
your comics, and THAT'S the victory that matters!

 

Okay, haters. You win. The New 52 is ending.

HA! SUCKED IN!

No, it really isn’t. We’re just not calling it the New 52 anymore.

I gotta admit, there’s a lot here that I’m excited for. Cyborg, Dr Fate, Batman Beyond and Black Canary are all books that sound great, but for me, the most exciting thing is We Are Robin.

The most fresh and exciting thing on DC's new
menu.

The idea of what will hopefully be a teenage team emerging as people inspired by Robin is really interesting, and I just can’t go past that cover art.

That said, what isn’t there gets me concerned. It looks like we’re not getting a return of Nightwing, which was what I wanted out of DC more than anything. And is Kyle Higgins really not on any of the post-convergence titles? That’s sad, it really is- I’ve been loving Higgins’ characterisation in each of his titles that I’ve read and it’s a shame to see him leave DC.

Marvel can include Spider-Man in movies now

Spider-Man's now-permanent position in Marvel continuity.

Honestly, I know everyone’s excited about this, but personally, I’m not. I know that Spidey becomes the emotional centre of Civil War, which should equal a (somewhat) more faithful adaptation, but I never saw Spider-Man’s comics as being subservient to The Avengers. I don’t want a Spider-Man movie that’s nothing more than a two-hour ad for Infinity Gauntlet- I just don’t. I’d honestly rather have another Amazing Spider-Man 2 than see a movie purely designed to get Spidey into the Avengers (that should give you an idea of how unexcited I am about this). He’s not a bit-player, and to see him play second fiddle to Iron Man would just be insulting.

Yep, I’m anticipating hate comments, but I really don’t see how sharing Spider-Man with Marvel is going to result in a better Spider-Man franchise (Sony still has creative control, after all).

Thoughts of the week: Marvel Universe ends and Fantastic Four trailer.

Because it's a brain... geddit?

Okay, a new regular article I plan on writing, I look at the big news this week and make some comments. I can’t say that you’ll agree, but let’s see what you think.

The more unnecessarily busy, the better! 

Marvel Universe ending but it’s totally not a reboot. Stop calling it a reboot. Why does everyone think it’s a reboot?

Okay, even though some Marvel fans are denying it left, right and centre are denying that Marvel is rebooting the universe, I’m not sure that there’s another name for it. Sure, maybe it won’t be a full-on, nothing-matters-anymore-style reboot, but the evidence is pointing towards a reboot of some kind. The big question seems to be what kind of reboot we’re talking about.

Although it would make me lose faith in Marvel for the rest of my life, I’m anticipating that Marvel will likely place the X-men, Spider-Man and Fantastic Four in a universe separate to 616. That way, Marvel can still make money off the considerable X-Men and Spider-Man fanbases without having to admit that they exist to the franchises in the MCU. It sounds pessimistic, but look at the facts; the Fantastic Four has been cancelled partially due to bad sales, partially because Marvel doesn’t care for Fox Studios. The X-Men are slowly being phased out by the Inhumans, and Spider-Man’s place in 616 isn’t as significant as it once was. We need to face facts; Marvel is by-and-large a movie studio now and comics are quickly being repurposed as commercials, no matter what Tom Brevoot says.

Oh, the reviews of movies that
nobody's seen yet...

That Fantastic Four Trailer

We spent a good long time riffing on Trank’s Fantastic Four reboot, haven’t we? But now that trailer has launched and…

Well, I’m not going to say we’re shutting up, but we’re a bit less sure about how awful it’s going to be now, aren’t we?

It’s time we just admitted that, as fans, we don’t know as much as we think we do. We thought Affleck couldn’t be an imposing Batman until the pictures dropped. We were ready to dismiss Days of Future Past and it ended up being one of the greatest X-Men films to date, and need I mention Guardians of the Galaxy, which was supposed to be Marvel’s Achilles’ heel? We’ll never learn, will we?

Personally, I get the feeling it’s going to be average- The Amazing Spider-Man-standard work. But I may find myself being blown away by it anyway. Currently, I’m intrigued about the interpretation, but don’t see myself getting blown away.

And currently, that’s all. Your thoughts?