And as long as you're explaining stuff...why not do a column on 100th issues...and why Groo, Ninja High School, and Gold Digger's 100th issues aren't really their 100th issues. I always wondered why they did that.

Also, is it true that DC and Marvel both passed up on buying Elfquest when they had the chance to own it?
And was Irwin always the one meant to die when Stark's new company was destroyed? I always got the feeling that someone more important was meant to die in that issue of Iron Man.

Thanks for the reply. Means a lot.

On a side note, i recently bought the new Iron Armory, mainly for the page with the diagram on the original iron man suit.

I'm especially interested in the idea of the 3D knitting of the iron, istead of the assumed plates of Iron. I thought that was something on the later suits.

What research did you do for the Iron Armory?

Will G

*checks Eliot's website...*

Ah well.

Thanks again for noting the somewhat "higher tech" stuff I worked into the series. Those years were an interesting time for technology-- what was officially out there and then what *had* to be out there-- what one could guess at from the results mentioned in stories. Remember the US consulate built in Moscow that was so heavily and completely bugged, that they didn't bother to open it? Stuff like that. Even when I made stuff up, I tried to be as plausible or non-trademark infringing as possible-- like the flying surveillance rig or Micro Chip's home-made bomb disposal robot. All based on real equipment. (I got a letter from a flying surveillance machine manufacturer wanting to know if I had any further info on that... !)

I appreciate the kind words, Will

Happy This Year! to you and all the forum people here,
Eliot

http://www.eliotrbrown.com/pa2-32.php

I'm extremley proud to say i own all ten issues or the Punisher Armory. And for several months, whenever I went to work, on the bus or train, I'd sir back and read through it. It was very informative, and well researched. The Iron Manual, which i also own, is great too. But the Punisher Armory is all too real. It's given me a basic knowledge of firearms, which can be a relativly difficult subject. Also, the spy tech was informative. It's interesting how a theoretical Punisher type vigilante could use this knowledge in this way. It is for me preferable to the Iron Manual, or any of those Batman gadget cutaways...This is well researched. In fact it would make an excellent TPB. 10 issues. I'm getting the new improved Iron manual too, i have had 2 copies of it, and the Punisher Armory has got well read.

And Mr. Brown...Yes , I read that bit about Castles kid's cap gun....Man, brought a tear to my eye, and I am not ashamed to say it.

Thanks

Will G

I am amazed that such silliness has provoked your laser-beam-like attention-- as noted-- some 18 years later! (What about the burned flag page? The Vietnam Memorial page? Castle's kid's cap gun page? That stupid security robot page?)

Bob and Thlayli-- I wish I could get a prize of some kind to you both, you are the only people to note the "RE-" part of "re-humping camels." I hope everyone above who did not spot that feels appropriately sheepish! Ahem, a bit of back story for that "joke" -- a terrible 3D exploitation movie "Comin' At Ya!" (1981) was released and the ad campaign was far superior to the movie. They had hired Phil Proctor (of Firesign Theater fame) to do a bunch of TV and radio spots. One of them had the announcer ask a question about seeing the movie, and Phil replied in a Middle Eastern accented voice, something like, "I was just re-humping my camel..." Now I found this terribly funny and waited for just the right time to make use of it.
Enter deadline pressure and tedium at the board yielding up: the right time.
Limerick, you are correct! Those heads are all Marvel staffers, save for the gal who is my wife's cousin (and an innocent in all this!). They are starting top: Me, Mike Carlin, Mark Gruenwald-- second line, Isobel (wife's cuz), Jack Morelli and finally Ralph Macchio. Now Ralph was often called "Raf" and the careful reader might see a space between "towel" and the two letters next, "he--". What I was referring to was our many pleasant afternoons spent at Ralph's family's pool where he would hand out towels. I left the word incomplete to suggest many things, but "herder" was in my mind. Ralph is also a dark-complected Italian-American with an extremely heavy beard. So the poor likeness no doubt contributed to the misperception that the individual was of Middle-Eastern extraction.

As for the orange thing-- guys, you gotta get out more! Really--!

I actually bought a shooting knife to get the details exactly so. It was shipped without a spring.

Old Bull Lee-- you are quite nice in your praise and I thank you for it. I tried very hard to get all the facts right-- for a little while I was a "gun expert." But a few mistakes slipped in, as hard as I tried (I confused .380 and .38 for example!). That specific page you mention, what I call the "blood trail story" was intended to show blood-- red blood, but not show its origin directly. Rather, make it a crime scene that the reader could follow. At least that's what I hoped. It was a bear doing the old-fashioned color-hold that printed the blood separately from the rest of the page. My tolerant editor, Don Daley went for it. Blood was usually depicted as solid black. I wanted something more honest without being grotesque. Also, I avoided drawing people as I really wasn't very good at doing that (you might tell from those wanted poster images).
My hat's off to whoever noted that I reduced the number of weapons as time went on. I attended a SWAT Expo and gathered up a lot of high-tech and military equipment info thanks to that. I also wanted to widen my base of appeal-- if possible. I do reflect that this may have been Marvel's oddest title-- 32 pages of "weapons" pin-ups! No ads! and yes, 10 issue's worth.
Thank you, Mike Hoskins (co-Marvel Atlas colleague), for weghing in! I had assembled a huge collection of reference in the form of many magazines, specialty offprints, militaria and many books. I could have gone on for many more issues. No-- no one helped me write any of those pages. I would lean heavily on gun magazine articles but I usually pulled two or three together for a page. I got reviewed/criticized by an ex-state trooper pal of mine (credited in the later books) who did take me shooting one fine, winter morning! He is now a TV and movie prop gun specialist. I am slowly telling some of my crazy history (if I do say so myself) and posting pictures of that shooting day at "eliotrbrown.com" It's a big job to post all the pages too, and that's happening slowly.

The one thing Marvel should have printed was the all-gag issue "NOT The Punisher Armory." I had gotten some dozen pages into it, when it was cancelled. Those will be posted at eliotrbrown.com soon!

I happened to have been the assistant editor on the first Secret Wars and you got it straight from the horse's mouth-- Zeck worked hard to stay on top of the penciling. Shooter, the writer of the book (and editor in chief) did not make it easy to do so. The last ultra-late issue was done in a Park Avenue hotel penthouse suite with a dozen of us working all night long, Zeck penciling, several inkers, letterers and colorists -- with the nearby office left open so we'd have access to a stat camera! That I have pix of and will post that incredible night soon!

Thank you all for being so even-handed and willing to talk things over. I have fought racism and bigotry all my life. But as for that half-breed magician and regular human, Aquaman-- well, I don't know...

(JOKE!!!)

Bob said:

"The wanted poster may not have been intended to be quite as heinous as it’s being made out.

It looks like the specific infraction being cited is “RE-humping camels” (emphasis added), which I took to be some kind of fraud (along the lines of “rolling the odometer back”) instead of a deviant sexual practice.

That said: yeah, it’s still pretty bad."

Also, showing surprise that something that came out 18 years ago is more racially insensitive than the way things are today is kinda silly, though it's good to point it out. "Out of sight, out of mind" eventually becomes "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" if this type of thing gets hidden away from future generations.

i thank you for correcting the bit about the "non-white, straight"...should read "non-white, non-straight". As English is not my first language, i thought it read naturally, but that's because i was thinking in portuguese.

My final quick point for now is that a. you should ask women if they are being appropriately depicted in comics instead of just generalizing that machista point you made. One of the reasons women are not into comics currently (except manga because of how differently it deals with this) is the fact that they are poorly represented. They are either sluts, incapable, or men in women's bodies (ie. looks like woman, acts like men). there are very few women writers in this little field of comic book authorship. THAT is what is clear to me. And i find it hard to believe that only Grayson or Avery are talented.

Women might be around men all the time, but that makes no difference. Rarely do they get written to satisfaction, but, since most readers are teenage (up to the age of 36, ehehehhehe) men on hormones, that means little.

And thanks for adding the sub-saharan example. Authors like Gaiman and Moore would probably write them accurately for two reasons: they'd never add a character they couldn't flesh out (why add a woman with breast cancer in subsaharan if you can't write her?) through research, reading, and studying. They are erudites and they care for such issues.

I agree with most of the rest that you wrote, but we are irreconcilable in terms of the rest. At least it's good to know we are able to debate ideas, and not just ourselves.

cheers,
i have to travel today. i am presenting a paper in a national congress here in brazil. it's a congress of media and communications, where i will present my dissertation on comic book narratives and time-displacement strategies in american, japanese, and brazilian comics. wish me luck.

Women are around men every day. You don't have to look or search for data about how women act. We see it all the time, unless, perhaps, you are living in a cave or in jail. So trying to identify how women speak, or walk, or do things is not hard to do. It is very easy to imagine, whether you're straight or gay. Whether that image in your head jives with reality is beside the point. Anyone can imagine a woman.... unless you throw in a lot of 'baggage'.

It's harder for a writer living in or around New York to depict what a woman with breast cancer living in sub-Saharan Africa may be thinking/doing, for example, especially if one has never been seen the area, doesn't know the culture, or understand her medical treatment options. Oh, a story could be written, I suppose-- total fiction-- and it may even be passable (i.e., a 'good story') to the casual reader. There is enough information out there about women (a lot of info) and breast cancer (less info) and sub-Saharan African culture (even less info) to help a male writer create a convincing story. The thing is, the more "baggage" there is, the harder it is to write, and write well. Nowhere did I say that it couldn't be attempted.

Science fiction and fantasy should be easier to write because you're freed from many conventions that we would expect in real life. For example, death can be practically meaningless in these genres. We can understand it when Wolverine heals-- he has a 'healing factor'. That's a convention established for that character. Batman's protégé get's bludgeoned to death? No problem, he was brought back without a scratch on him! Now that's a little more difficult to accept, because that convention was NOT established for any character in the Bat-franchise.

New ideas and new characters can be introduced at whim. But if you start bucking the conventions, and fail to maintain any kind of consistency in your treatment (this is normally called 'continuity'), things get confusing. For example, let's say Superman has a female cousin. Who knew!? How could that be!? Superman was the sole survivor. Oh, she came from a whole city that was spared Krypton's destruction. Look, she has the same powers!! Cool! (Naturally, she has the same powers as Superman. That follows the conventions established for "Kryptonians".) Oh, no, she died?! How sad! Oh, wait, she's back?! She was never introduced? That was 'another Earth'? Or an 'imaginary story'? Or an 'alternate timeline'? That wasn't her? Oh, wait, here she is again, reappeared out of the blue... What?!? Just ignore her past appearances?? We've never seen her before??? What the- ???

Fiction still has its constraints to make it a compelling read. (And by compelling, I mean it has be be good enough that you don't cringe when you read dialogue, internal or external, especially when it's coming from a 'good guy'). You can't write about just anything and serialize it and make it sustainable without making it palatable too. And that is why "New Guardians" wasn't and still isn't at the top of everyone's "Must Read" list. Kudos to DC for trying to put something out there that showed a "different perspective". There is something to be said for the attempt, but next time, I suggest making the characterizations a tad more palatable.

And you obviously made a mistake, "Rio"., when you said there are very few non-white, STRAIGHT males writing... unless you know something I don't. Not that I care. I don't plan on dating any of them. Or any of the characters they write.

(except for the first paragraph, where you clearly show you didn't understand my point). What you got wrong was the part about conforming to others. Nowhere did I say that. What I said was that, independently of your desires, you are constantly "being read" by people. And it is quite clear that people who see you, or read you, or whatever you, will have THAT as pieces of judgement, whether you have any intention to befriend them or not.

The clothes you choose, etc. will be flags or markers even if you don't want or care about this. There is no way someone can KNOW you fully. We all work with what we get shown. Let's just imagine you're the nicest person in the world, yet you have the word "x" as part of your daily speak. Now, let's imagine another lovely person, full of great ideas, etc. but has a problem with the aforementioned word. The first time she or he hears this word from your mouth, an impression is made -- and you didn't even know that issue would be relevant. The person has judged you with what she or he had. simple as that.

regarding the second point: ......... you yourself answered them beautifully when you talked about Fire and Ice. They were taken beyond their "stereotypes" and fleshed out. Who's to say a more competent writer wouldn't have done the same with Extraño -- MEANWHILE discussing and showing people who have very little idea of what being gay means the power of stereotyping, the homophobia associated to being more flaming than others, how hard it is to live in oppression, etc.

Your fire and ice example was very good in showing what competent writers can do to characters (and last time I read those comics, THE AUTHORS WERE NOT WOMEN, thus invalidating your last point.).... If straights aren't able to write about gays, should men be writing women characters? should whites be writing blacks?

should normal humans be writing superheroes, then? we don't fly or bend steel or invade people's minds...

HERE is the crux of the problem: ALL THE MINORITIES GET WRITTEN THROUGH A MAJORITY POINT OF VIEW, unfortunately, because we have very few non-white,straight, males writing superhero mainstream comics.

I believe writers can write about that which they aren't. After all, that's what fiction is all about. It is their ability to do so, and the amount of love and effort and passion and work that they put into it which makes a difference.

you RARELY see critique in this direction geared towards miller, moore, azzarello, etc. because the effort in writing characters in a more realistic, less WASP light is clearly there.

As to the issue that Thenodrin raised -- why does "Extraño" stand out? Well, try looking at it this way-- where can you take that character that is nothing more than a caricature? How well can writers incorporate Extraño into a mainstream comic, when all you know of the character is really nothing but the label, "flaming gay"? How do you get inside the character if you know little or nothing of the gay culture, and that precise section of the gay culture, and then express that to the readers who probably know even less, and do it in a way that does not draw the wrath of the readers, parents, churches, or members of that culture, etc.?

Stereotypical characters can be fleshed out in the hands of a good writer, Fire and Ice are two examples of women who started out as two-dimensional characters who were given personalities that allowed them to grow. They even matured enough to make the jump from Super Friends to Global Guardians to the Justice League. And partly, that has to do with the fact that they didn't have a lot of 'baggage".

The reason you don't see a lot of comic book characters from foreign countries, paraplegics, amputees, etc., even as supporting characters? Too much baggage. Why does most of the action in comic books take place in cities that resemble Metropolitan areas of the East Coast? Any other locale has too much baggage. By that, I mean if you've never walked the streets of City XYZ, how can you accurately describe a fight taking action in it? If you know nothing of the difference between the cultures or languages of China, Korea, and Japan, for example, how can you separate them in your depictions? Writers tend to veer away from things they do not know.

Along the other topic of discussion, I find it funny that one over the top stereotypical character in a group of over the top stereotypical characters is "proof" of someone's insensitivity.

But, then again, I've always found it odd that any negative quality exhibited in a character is so often attributed to the writer. Because, I suppose, you couldn't write it if you didn't believe it? As an enjoyer of fiction, I've never understood the attitude.

Theno

Rolf:

thanks for tackling my post in a non-offensive and direct to the point manner. that was very civilized. I do see things differently and i'd like to make my points more clear. please, don't take any of this as a direct attack, for i am trying to aim hire than just personal controversy.

you state that it is better to be invisible than to be poorly represented, as far as minorities go. i disagree because i think negative representation is exactly a good point of initiating the discussion. enough people today can recognize extraño as being one of the possible (and perhaps the most 'attackable') depictions of homossexuality and the reaction to it shows me that there have been competing representations of homossexuality which might be more acceptable to gay people themselves.

(pause) it is fundamental to point out the double-standards when it comes to the depiction of lesbians, who are always the hottest, most sexual, rrrrrrrr-feline, yummy 'lesbians for straight men'. they are basically straight women who "do" other straight women.

this discussion takes us back to the representations of african-americans in media (uncle thomas cabin, blackface, mammy, jemima, etc.) and how these symbols of oppression where re-signified. I would personally prefer to have ANY gay person represented, even if to hate the representation and get things to the discussion table. to each of us our own.

I think there are enough 'better' representations, albeit incomplete or superficial due to the own lack of experience of authors in writing these voices. I could mention josiah power, norhstar, montoya to a degree, tasmanian devil,,,(sorry, it's two a.m. and there's more to this post...)...and then there is coagula, a transexual lesbian written by a gender-corrected woman, possibly the most complex and interesting portrayal of a sexual sub-minority...

which brings me to your second point about not wanting representation, just the BEING ME feeling of the individual. sorry, mate, but you've been punked. there's no such thing.

whatever you call "me", only you have access to it. all the others rate and push and shove you towards their own "me's" and their subsequent network of perceptions and values. your are only a "me" to yourself and your more intimate groups. all others will read your haircut, your piercings or lack thereof, your tatoos, your sneakers, your socks, your perfume, your gestures, your voice, your tone of voice, your choice of vocabulary, your pants, the youghurt you are eating, etc....and, inasmuchas you kick and scream and holler and turn blue from holding your breath,,,,you'll never be an individual, just a figure of a group.

rolf, just the fact that we are here debating puts you in a social-cultural subgroup which gets judged at all times. just by "BEING" gay, you are much more than just sleeping with a person of your own gender. it IS a socially relevant topic (unfortunately) and we get classifed and judged and pigeon-holed.

thankfully, as more "blended in", one can avoid violence, slander, fewer job opportunities, prejudice, et al. heck, even i, a bit effete can get away with it...(mainly because i am white and middle class -- in poor and racially tense country)...but then again, why must there be so much HETERO-normativiy, as in being straight-ACTING being more important than straight ( see: EMO bashing as an example of straights being violently offendend because they are not straight-ACTING macho enough)...

did i make it clear that my problem is with our own gay folk diminishing the existance or the importance that the more effeminate gay person might have just because he (or the dykish lesbian) can also be an easy target for gay-haters? I believe that if we secure our easy targets, all the other bases get covered. I just feel like sometimes i'm treated the same way i would if i were defending a woman's right to wear a shador if she so would wish to....

there is so much that needs to be changed. i hope for a day where there will be an extraño and a green lantern just chatting away about their latest missions while a midnighter and a john stewart share a beer.

If the very limited representation of gay people in comic books is the cardboard character known as Extraño, then I would prefer not to see that at all, because the majority of gay men are not defined by effetes, or 'gym marys' or what have you. As for any culture, and any race, the spectrum of possibilities makes it impossible to peg down the things that define the whole.

And homosexuality IS defined simply as "having attraction to members of the same sex"-- nothing more. So anything beyond that is a PERSONAL trait, an aspect of the INDIVIDUAL, and not a characteristic of the whole gay culture. While there may be communities based on the sharing of certain PREFERENCES, I don't appreciate having extraneous labels like "effete", "gym mary", "wearer of tight jeans", ad nauseum slapped on me by either gay or straight people because none of them are ME.

And being comfortable as an effeminate male does not necessarily make one more of a 'hero, "Rio". Same goes for playing a sport well, parlaying a good singing voice into a recording contract, or being able to write an entertaining story. While you may respect someone for their abilities or their courage under pressure, a hero is defined by one's actions above and beyond self-expression.

But Extraño wasn't just effeminate, he was a horribly offensive caricature. I do believe Englehart meant well, but he was clearly clueless as to how to write a gay character as a human being rather than a stereotype.

It's tempting to say that I hope the character never sees the light of day again, but it might be more interesting to see someone come along and write him in a serious manner (wanna hear something funny? I originally typed this sentence as, "write him straight", with no sense of irony whatsoever).

1. So WHAT if Extraño was characterized as effeminate? Are we to delete or erase our brothers and sisters who are effeminate or masculinized? Are they not gay or lesbian, or better yet, are they less dignified people because they are like this?

What I see in this very homophobic attitude (and yes, rene, you might have sex with people of your own gender, but your comment was homophobic because it invalidates the existance of effetes and dykes as not being representative of the 'gay / lesbian' aesthetic and behaviour). As a gay man, I don't mind having characters as Extraño because they DO exist in our community and they are the ones who REALLY are heroes because they don't hide behind a 'masculinity' based on being gym marys or dressing up in tight tshirts and pants. the more delicate ones are the ones who are macho enough to act in ways which are not hidden or 'blending in'. For them, homossexuality is much, much, much more than 'the only difference between straights and I is that i bed men,,,the rest is the same".

so, i voice my opinion against the systematic erasing of the effeminate gay man and the dykish lesbian and the constant tentative redefenition of a very authoritarian and suffocating new "stereotype" : the hot strong pumped up tight jeans disco dancing faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous modern rich gay man.

in addition, i'd love it if we had fatter heroes (big bertha and hindsight lad at marvel are less than enough), different mobility heroes (silhouette, xavier, doom patrol chief are not enough)...also, some uglies, shorties, compulsive-obsessive heroes, ... heroes that believed in other causes, or heroes who would be devout religiously... we need more variety... not just white straight protestant men drawn as hot afro-american women, or gay white men or etc...

the second point i have concerns re-reading stuff using contemporary parameters, such as the race issue. Our sensibilities are extremely different to the ones at the time, so it is quite useless to affirm that the joke is racist. It is quite racist for our sensibilities...and no matter how we look at it, we will never be able to dissociate it from anti-arab discourse. ... but that's because we are here and now.

what i think is more fruitful is to observe exactly how the times have changed and focus not on the joke itself, but to our reactions to it and to how others reacted to it at the time. the sheer fact there has been so much tsk tsk'ing here is quite motivational, for it shows that campaigning, discussing and dealing with problems can change perceptions over time. we CAN become a better world. it's not a lost fight.

but it's useless to condemn things retroactively.

wow. sorry for the rant.
but i love this site and most of the discussions here.