Comic Book Resources

I'm with both you and McDuffie. The scene was fine on its own, and pretty much everything he said was self-evident to anyone who didn't have their head up the OHTMU's ass.

Well, you don't tug on Superman's cape

I'll cover both bases.

I thought it was a dopey scene, AND I don't think McDuffie should have responded to it.

SEAN

Sorry, still stupid. It's not about whether he would have eventually broken free, I don't see how Panther could have budged his arm period. But I agree with Sean, he still shouldn't have addressed it, just moved on.

If he hadn't addressed it, people would still be whining about it and claim that he's dodging the question.

It's no pleasing some people.

The easiest explanation?

Fanboys love to bitch.

If you have to explain a comic book panel, which contains both words and pictures, you're doing something wrong.

Blech.

Now if only he would address how he is okay with Pelletier's absolutely insulting art. His representations of Black Panther and Storm are such over-exagerrated stereotypes that I'm surprised McDuffie wouldn't take issue with it. Between their ridiculously oversides lips and noses, as well as their ape-like facial structures, the art looks like it was commissioned by the KKK. I was so insulted by the art that it completely ruined this issue for me. I'm seriously disappointed in Marvel editorial for letting these insulting caricatures see print.

It’s no pleasing some people.

Exactly.

So what's the point of addressing such criticism? What's the goal, to convert everyone who doesn't like something and get a 100% approval rating?

SEAN

Note to people in Iowa who have apparently only seen Black people on TV:

Most people of African descent do not look like Tiger Woods and Mariah Carey.

Ye Olde Iowa: Dude. That's how Pelletier draws *everybody*.

This comic sounds pretty stupid. And McDuffie's defense of it sounds worse.

"Frankly, a realistic representation of the Surfer’s powers means no interaction with other less powerful characters whatsoever, and that’s not fun."

Sounds like a cop-out. You could say comprable things about any character. I don't think people are asking for realism so much as consistency; I agree with whoever said that Black Panther shouldn't have been able to move Surfer's arm at all; for that matter, why is Panther -- a genius with crazy technology at his disposal -- even trying to physically engage the Surfer?

"I will concede that I thought the Surfer was a humanoid wrapped in cosmic tinfoil (as Galactus said in the Surfer’s origin story and as strongly implied in many other appearances over the years) and not a man-shaped pouch of cosmic energy, as many of the comments I’ve read this week insist."

Am I the only one who reads this as retardedly over-defensive? Challenging the people who wrote complaints to a geek-off is sure to lead to everybody being a loser. And doing it with a note (hell, a libretto) of condescension is just going to make more people write in with examples of the latter (of which there are many).

Continuity wanking is never a good idea for a writer (with the *possible* exception of some Grant Morrison stuff).

Note to people in Iowa who have apparently only seen Black people on TV:

Most people of African descent do not look like Tiger Woods and Mariah Carey.

That's unfair and condescending. I'm sure Iowa knows that there are a range of appearances in how black people look. I think he's just saying that Pelletier draws all black people in the most extremely caricatured way. I don't know if it's true or not, maybe he's overreacting, but I hate when people feel like they have to condescendingly "educate" any nonblack person that dares to discuss black issues.

Am I the only one who reads this as retardedly over-defensive? Challenging the people who wrote complaints to a geek-off is sure to lead to everybody being a loser. And doing it with a note (hell, a libretto) of condescension is just going to make more people write in with examples of the latter (of which there are many).

Amen, brother. Very embarassing display by McDuffie there. That pissy rant isn't going to sway anybody, and may even alienate some people with its defensiveness. Just a no-win situation that further fans the flames. No good can come out of it, as the only people you'll impress with it are people who didn't have any problem with the scene to begin with, while at the same time you also risk further alienating the people who DID have a problem with it.

Seriously, the Mutt, that was pretty cold and fairly insulting. In no way is my problem that Pelletier doesn't draw the characters to look like folks like Tiger Woods or Mariah Carey. You are completely missing my point.

My problem with Pelletier's art is that he is taking a very base stereotype and exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions on Black Panther and Storm to the point that they only vaguely look human in certain panels. While it is true that people of African descent (as well as people of European descent, Asian descent, etc all cover a wide spectrum of appereances) Pelletier chose to go right for insulting stereotypes by drawing the characters with ape-like facial features. It's demeaning and insulting.

I'm not terribly familiar with Pelletier's art, but if this is how he draws all black characters, I really don't care to see any more of it.

I'm cold and insulting? You drop bombs like "Ape-like" and "KKK" and now you think you get to complain that your feelings are hurt?

I assure you my tone would have been very different if I had been responding to a different comment.

Are you angry because Iowa is insulting Pelletier or black people? If it's the former, that's a valid position. But if its the latter, I disagree. The guy isn't saying that actual black people are ape-like or that he himself supports the KKK, I think its pretty obvious.

He flat-out calls Pelletier a racist. That's about as damaging an accusation one can make against an artist. It is also a huge insult.

No, I'm not calling Pelletier a racist. I'm saying that he is a disappointing artist who drew an issue using wildly exagerrated and insulting racial stereotypes. I know nothing else about him other than what he put on the page in this issue and I find his art in this issue disturbing. Yes, the "KKK comission" comment was probably going too far, but I stand by everything else that I have stated, none of which as "flat-out" called him a racist.

If you don't believe there was racist intent, why are you insulted? Of course they are caricatures; it's a comic book. See the muscles? See the boobs? See the eyes? See how they are "wildly exaggerated?" See the "ridiculous porportions?"

Unless you think Pelletier accidentally drew racist pictures, you owe him an apology.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now Mutt. I thought you were calling iowa himself racist, I didn't realize you were mad at his accusing Pelletier of racism. I guess its a two part question, are the depictions racist, and if so is it intentional?

Anyone have scans available? I'm curious myself.

Yes, someone please scan the comic book which stars the King of a Technologically Superior African Nation, who has been asked to Replace the Smartest Man in the World on the World's Greatest Superteam, so we can see if if might be racist.

Yes, someone please scan the comic book which stars the King of a Technologically Superior African Nation, who has been asked to Replace the Smartest Man in the World on the World’s Greatest Superteam, so we can see if if might be racist.

One flaw in the logic of this post: the fact that Black Panther is a king in charge of a technologically superior African nation asked to replace the world's smartest man on the world's greatest superteam is a very nonracist depiction...but Pelletier is responsible for none of those things, just the images in the comic book. The fact that the story is totally nonracist doesn't mean that the art must be nonracist as well.

Why is it such a big deal that he responded to the complaints? He's not the Pope or Moses--he writes comic books.

It's a big deal because most writers don't directly address the fans who piss and moan and nitpick their comics to death. And of course, the response to his response is one of the reasons why: The people you were talking to don't accept it, and everyone else thinks you've stooped to their level.

To the fanboys who get upset about things such as this: it's only a comic book...

My opinion on the matter is that some people clearly need to find more important things to get upset over.

Ditto. Necessary or no - and yeah, I'm leaning toward the latter, because it never comes out right when an artist tries to quantify these decisions - I thought McDuffie actually sounded pretty reasonable and generous, given his audience.

My copy hasn't arrived yet, and I'm not interested in commenting on the story.

I just love the phrase "man-shaped pouch of cosmic energy."

THAT'S the best thing I've read in months.

To the fanboys who get upset about things such as this: it’s only a comic book…

Geez, this is such a pet peeve of mine...I absolutely HATE this condescending response to any comics criticism. It's really annoying how whenever a criticism comes around that someone doesn't agree with, suddenly you hear "it's just a comic book, FANBOY" as if that person is so above the fray. Yet when it's about a Meltzer rape scene, Leslie Tompkin's getting her character butchered, or Liefeld and Austen's mere existence, suddenly bitching is okay. Not just that keep this in mind: anyone who still reads superhero comics as an adult and is still into them enough to not just buy them but also read and comment on blogs dedicated to dissecting them pretty much loses any standing to act holier-than-thou and accuse other people of taking them too seriously.

Anyway, for McDuffie, whenever you do a mainstream work with high exposure rather than niche work, the unfortunate truth is that pleasing the masses is the top criteria for your work. Newsflash: you can't arbitrarily declare something you write as "obvious" if a majority of your target audience missed it. If a sizable chunk of your TARGET AUDIENCE has a problem understanding something you've done, it doesn't matter if YOU think it's obvious, if people don't get it it's clearly not obvious. The test for obviousness is not whether you as the writer or artist or joke-teller gets the point, it's whether the audience does. That's what makes the last line of his pissy rant so annoying, the whole "I'll make the obvious more...obvious" thing.

It reminds me of what someone said about American Idol once, it's how they respond to withering criticism, fair or unfair, that shows you what the person's really like, not how they act during the praise.

Well, T, if you really don't see the difference between people being upset about a brief physical struggle between two characters and people being upset about a superhero rape scene, then I don't know what to tell you.

Either way, it all amounts to people getting worked up about ink on paper. I say, let people get worked up over what they want to get worked up over, as long as they do so respectfully. It's silly to put out something for the world as a story for mainstream media, then get suddenly thin-skinned about it when you get bad responses. It's all part of the game, it's the risk you run with high-profile exposure.

'Pissy rant?' I don't know, but it doesn't come across as either pissy, or a rant. He comes across as more bemused at the depth of bitching than anything else, but he doesn't insult anyone or anything. He sounds pretty reasonable to me...he certainly isn't coming across badly (unlike some people online)
Besides, does 'a majority of readers' ever comment online? Wouldn't that be literally thousands and thousands of people bitching about Fantastic Four? Cause I haven't seen that

Either way, it all amounts to people getting worked up about ink on paper.

Isn't that kind of like saying Shakespeare and Danielle Steel should be accorded the same respect as artists, since they're both just words on paper?

It's not the medium, it's the ideas it conveys that matter. Some of those concepts are worth more attention than others, and one of the criteria is real-world relevance.

A rape, for instance, is deserving of a bit more in-depth analysis than what one fantastic being can do to another. Given that Superman, for instance, has been known to come up with 'super-weaving' and 'super-ventriloquism' more or less on the spot, most things are more deserving, actually.

McDuffie's rebuttal demonstrates an understanding of that - that the primary point here is to have fun. He can be excused, I think, for being a bit surprised and even a little annoyed that his target audience doesn't get that.

Anyway, for McDuffie, whenever you do a mainstream work with high exposure rather than niche work, the unfortunate truth is that pleasing the masses is the top criteria for your work.

I don't think I disagree in principle, but in practical application...trying to please every member of an audience as finicky as the one he has would anyway be impossible.

Isn’t that kind of like saying Shakespeare and Danielle Steel should be accorded the same respect as artists, since they’re both just words on paper?

It’s not the medium, it’s the ideas it conveys that matter.

Yes, I agree it's not the medium but the ideas and execution that matter, which is my whole point in hating the "It's just comics, fanboy" response, because it counters one's point by dismissing the whole genre rather than addressing the idea in question. "It's just comics" attacks the whole medium, making discussions authors and subject matter within comics irrelevant.

Saying Shakespeare is better than Danielle Steele is fine, you are comparing two writers based on their work. If someone dismissed the whole medium of literature, however, then there's no point in praising Danielle Steele or Shakespeare because now you are operating under the premise that the whole medium of literature is unworthy of praise, no matter how well it is done.

It's similar to Bry's rape over fight scene argument. He may say that a rape scene is more worthy of outrage than a fight scene. That's his opinion, fine. But at least it still admits that some comics are worth getting worked up over, he just disagrees on which SUBJECTS in comics are worth scrutinizing. That's fine. But when you just say "It's just comics," you are basically saying that the subject matter is irrelevant, once it's in a comic form you are an idiot for having a strong opinion about it and getting worked up over it. Once you put forth the "It's just comics" argument to dismiss someone else's bitching and downgrade the medium as a whole, how can you then turn around and bitch about something in comics that pisses YOU off? Anyway, that sort of "It's just comics" response invalidates the whole purpose of this blog.

I just feel that it's a lazy rebuttal, and one that doesn't work because once you establish that you still read comics as an adult and are into the enough to read about them on the blogosphere, you lose all rights to accuse anyone of taking them too seriously. Like I said, just a pet peeve of mine.

I appreciate your point in being annoyed by the 'it's just comics' response, but I think that you're getting the wrong meaning from its use in this context.
In this case, it's not saying 'comics are stupid, and you're stupid for nitpicking'. It seems to be saying 'it's comics, it's supposed to be fun to read them, don't get THAT angry and worked up to the point where you start wildly insulting people' - which is a valid response, because no matter what people are bitching about, be it Spoiler, or Jeph Loeb, or Identity Crisis, or Mark Millar - if you're so angry that you start acting like a dick about it, or start comparing comic creator's actions to rape (!), then yes, you do probably need to be told that it's not THAT big of a deal, and you should probably temper your righteous fury and not care quite so much.
And that doesn't just go for comics, either. I mean, I'm sure we've all seen people go apoplectic over sports or Star Trek, or Star Wars far beyond the point of rationality (esp the last one). If I saw someone threatening George Lucas, or accusing him of destroying their lives (which I have), I think I'd be entirely justified in saying "It's just a movie!" (and have done)
No-one (in this case, anyway) is saying that people shouldn't criticise comics or creators - it's just...well, it's comics - don't get THAT worked up over these things!
just my two cents, anyway

I do agree one shouldn't be a dick about it.