By the way, did anyone else catch a Bill Sincewicz vibe from the art? The photo-models and compositions seemed right out of the new Essential volume...

The right bicep? I think it's just the lighting.

As for your use of the Hood - I'm not really interested in knowing what is going to happen with the Hood, because I really DO like to find out things when the books come out and I can read it myself. That's why I HATE spoilers on the Internet and try to avoid them when I write about a book (sometimes I fail, but I do try). As I mentioned a couple of times, the nuts and bolts of how comics are created (with the synthesis of writing and art, the lag time between creation and publication, the editorial mandates) are fascinating, and that's why I wondered about your use of the Hood. I don't really NEED to know, I just thought it was interesting, like when there's suddenly two movies about asteroids hitting the earth. It didn't ruin my enjoyment of the story at all. I'm just curious!

I was talking about the right bicep. If you don't see it, that's cool.

Thanks for coming around here, because it's always neat to hear from creators. I do try to be careful and keep track of things when I'm reading the books, I swear! But I certainly don't mind being told when I'm wrong about something. I'm not easily offended by something like that.

would stop trying to inject realistic anatomy into SUPERHERO comics

Why does the fact that they're superhero comics preclude realistic anatomy? I mean, we're obviously not talking realistic as in giving the men paunches and/or the women cellulite.
A bit more faithfulness to what these men and (mostly) women would actually look like in the real world - as was tried recently on Supergirl - IMHO actually enhances the possibilities, not stifles them.

there’s a puritanical element among the online comics culture that I, personally, find… well, creepy, to use one of this blog’s catchphrases.

Interesting. It's kind of hard for me to see the puritanical part, inasmuch as the sexualisation being objected to isn't (usually) so much normal and healthy as 'wildly exaggerated for the benefit of the lonely basement-dwelling nerds the editors assume are their core audience'. In attempting to combat that particular stereotype, the occasional over-reaction is fairly understandable.

Still, I don't really understand why you need an explanation of my decision to use a character in a subplot to enjoy or review a story, is sort of where I was coming from.

I don't really get why a lot of comic readers feel like they need all knowledge in a story right away, instead of waiting for things to be revealed or unfold. But to take it a step further and need to know why a writer chose a character even, that's breaking like... I don't know, the fifth wall? I know the fourth is between story and reader, so maybe the fifth is between reviewer and writer. If you really want to know, I'll tell you, though.

I heard what Brian was doing with the Hood in New Avengers, it sounded cool, and so I asked if I could use him in this DD story, too, or if that would mess his story up. He said go for it. I figured if one bad guy was taking over Hell's Kitchen to go for Matt Murdock's throat, while at the same time another bad guy was organizing a bunch of super-villains into a mob, it'd be interesting to see these two storylines collide to some degree, just to make things more complicated for DD.

And from your review, it DID seem that you had missed the point of the early scene with Turk. You write: "Turk, it turns out, is really working for the Hood, not Mr. Fear." But that's incorrect because it implies Turk has been working for the Hood all along, which is not the case. Turk is just a coward, as he's always been, and is getting out of the way of trouble by choosing another side.

From your reply to me, you DID understand that first scene in the issue was about Turk switching sides, but that isn't what you wrote in your review.

The problem is, I often find people reviewing or commenting online about comics (and not just mine, by a long shot) who seem to miss key points that are right on the pages of the issues they're talking about, (take all the people who somehow missed that the nurse on the last page of Cap 31 was Sharon Carter even though Dr. Faustus calls her Sharon Carter and she looks just like her, for example) so when it's one of mine, I sometimes feel compelled to point out they missed something.

I reread your review again to see if I had gotten this wrong, but it really does imply something different than what's in the pages of the comic. Also, you refer to Matt's right bicep on the cover when I believe you mean his left bicep, if I understand your criticism on that point. And again, I'm not trying to be rude or even snarky, but if you're going to be a critic, the details in your reviews are important, right?

That's obviously overstating the facts a bit, but still, there's a puritanical element among the online comics culture that I, personally, find... well, creepy, to use one of this blog's catchphrases. I still love the comics discussion and the witty posts and all, I just find that one element of the discourse to be a bit odd. That's just me, though.

Even though this particular issue of Hack/Slash was kind of dull, I did like what Seeley did with the characters, so I'll probably pick up the next issue. Plus, the final page was way creepy, so I have a feeling the next issue will be pretty cool.

I'll admit, this month's Hack/Slash was one of those slow, intermediary issues between major stories, so it wasn't very exciting. But it gives you a good feel for the way Tim Seeley writes his characters and sets up his stories. It's still a horror book, but with some great characterization. Seeley also does a good job in keeping the book's continuity tight, despite originally appearing as a series of one-shots and mini-series. No character, no matter how secondary, is forgotten (if they survive that is...bwaa ha ha). I highly recommend any of the Hack/Slash trades and I hope you pick up the next issue to see where Seeley takes this new arc.

Blue Beetle IS a fun book, isn't it?

And I wasn't going to weigh in on this but I have to say something- I think you're reaching a bit on those She-Hulk and Velocity covers. The X-Men cover IS a ridiculous pose by Rogue and with the Dominatrix cover- well, what did you expect from a book called Dominatrix? He he. But I bought both those She-Hulk and Velocity comics, and I'm a 30-year old redblooded straight male, and I never once thought, "Wow, this cover leads my eyes right to her boobs." I looked at the She-Hulk cover and thought the same thing you originally talked about- what a clever idea by Deodato. And that was it. Maguire's cover I thought was just sort of 'meh' but did a good job of presenting our title character to the reader.

If you look for anything, I guess you can find it, like a penis in the musculature of a man's arm on a comic book cover, but I think you're trying to make an issue out of absolutely nothing by using both of those covers as examples of some sort of subversive "cheesecake" attempt on the part of Maguire and Deodato.

I don’t understand what’s to be confused about using the Hood in DD. It’s called a subplot, and if you actually read closely, you’ll see that Turk isn’t working for him secretly, he switches sides at the end of the first scene, that’s all.

You really should read the comics closer if you’re going to review them.

I don't think Greg's sayin' what you think he's sayin', dude.

And even if he was this is STILL a tad rude.

Most women in comics are drawn for the pleasure of men, and for the most part that's okay. I don't think this is necessarily some sort of creepy editorial directive, either, although there are citable reports of editors ordering artists to sexy up a book's women to spike sales (which it never does). No, I've known a few comic books, and the half of them that don't get started by wanting to draw weird monsters and fights get started by wanting to draw unrealistically beautiful women. Heck, a crucial fact in the "Tigra beating" controversy is that most of the sexualization of the scene seems to have come from the artist, not from Bendis, if you compare the original script's directions to what was drawn. He didn't order DO NOT DRAW TITS HERE, but the fact he would've had to in order to keep an artist from drawing tits pretty much says everything.

The problem I have is actually with the men in comics. You'd think if you were trying to sexy up the book, you'd draw the men for the pleasure of women, right? Well-defined swimmer's bodies, sexy haircuts, clothes falling off at every opportunity, faces based on actors all the ladies swoon for? Well... no, this isn't what happens. Your average superhero has a body that's still drawn for the pleasure of men. Superheroes are often drawn unrealistically gigantic and over-muscled in a way that recalls the physique of action movie stars... not the sort of actors your average contemporary woman's magazine or website claims to find sexy. In fact, a lot of superheroes turn out looking like Foolkiller in this cover, or not really much better: giant grotesque monstrosities with phallic arms and the eyes of a madman. Be still my heart! I can see an angst-ridding teenage boy wanting to identify with this, but such an image serves no other purpose.

I legitimately think a lot of the feminist cry over de-sexualizing women in comics is misplaced; comics as a genre has always traded in a bit of sexual fantasy. What the genre needs to stop presenting itself as one of culture's last great boys' clubs is more thought put into who is being sexualized and why, rather than artsts who reflexively draw all women and men with two different agendas behind the art. If you're going to sexy up the book, then all the characters get sexied up, regardless of gender. If the book needs to not be about sex, then artists aren't inserting sexual imagery into every possible scene they draw. It's a tall order, and nobody can really force changes like that by asking nicely, so I imagine the legitimate sense of anger that drives some posters on the blogosphere nuts (and produces weird comments like the one above) is going to continue until artists get the hint. Sex is fine, but unless you're drawing erotica it shouldn't be dripping from every possible panel of every scene.

You really should read the comics closer if you're going to review them.

I wonder if it’s true, because I really don’t see what my comments about any of the covers make people think I’m angry.

People definitely don't always pay attention to who is writing which pieces, even if the result would make such a writer insanely bi-polar. I have seen comments like, "___ said THIS here, but then he says THIS here, which contradicts his point!" And, of course, the pieces they cite are written by two different people.

In any event, I don't think it is the case here. I think LanghorneFats just wanted to vent.