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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Anyone have scans available? I'm curious myself.

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