Same problem with Seven Soldiers. I basically don’t like comics where I need to read annotations on websites or have a phD in obscure comics history to fully appreciate them.

I have to agree with regard to Seven Soldiers. That said I’m only one TPB into Morrison’s Batman and that’s just a great ride so far. His All Star Superman is nice easy reading too.

I think her plotting is good, it’s just her dialogue that grates on me. It is often too self-consciously clever, like it’s trying too hard. I have same problem with Peter David sometimes. Great idea man, good plotter, but that dialogue…

Read Secret Six!

I double dog dare you too!

I reckon you’ll dig it.

Especially Ragdoll.

(It’s good, because when these guys do nasty things, they’re villains, so it’s in character!)

His first Batman run just seemed to be nothing but analyses and reconciliations of different Batman eras and Joker interpretations.

It was about how Boss Batman is!

And also, how under the influence of drugs he is – he’s like Elvis, fighting drugs to get the drugs!

I am no great fan of the Dan DiDio era, but I would suggest that the paragraph above does not exactly reflect an objective judgement. Morrison did a fine job on New X-Men, but it does not hold a candle to the amazing work he has done at DC.

I guess it depends on what you like in Grant Morrison comics. For me my favorite Morrison is when he’s writing about superheros first and doing metacommentary secondary or not at all, like in JLA and New X-Men. What I dislike is when he’s doing metacommentary first and the plot is just window dressing to go into his analysis and feelings on the state of and history of comics. His DC work this time around comes off as the latter, just too filled with metacommentary. His first Batman run just seemed to be nothing but analyses and reconciliations of different Batman eras and Joker interpretations. If I want to know what he thinks of that, I’d prefer he just write an essay to get it out of his system so I can read it there. I don’t want to read an in-story explanation giving pop psychology reasons why all the Joker incarnations are valid and what they represent. Just write a good Joker story and save all that other stuff for an interview.

Same problem with Seven Soldiers. I basically don’t like comics where I need to read annotations on websites or have a phD in obscure comics history to fully appreciate them.

Go read Secret Six!

There’s a new trade out… apparently there’s couple before it, but it’s the start of the ongoing, and it’s pretty good.
I’ve never read a series of her after the first trade before, but this one I can’t wait for the next one.

I think her plotting is good, it’s just her dialogue that grates on me. It is often too self-consciously clever, like it’s trying too hard. I have same problem with Peter David sometimes. Great idea man, good plotter, but that dialogue…

I don’t see this really impacting Marvel’s comics at all.

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel. There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada. His Batman run, Final Crisis, 7 Soldiers, Final Crisis, none of it really grabbed me. I do like Batman and Robin though, it’s the best thing I think he’s done since coming back to DC. Winick I feel was better at Marvel too. Also, when Brubaker left DC to work under Quesada, his writing, which was already good, improved even more.

@T:

I am no great fan of the Dan DiDio era, but I would suggest that the paragraph above does not exactly reflect an objective judgement. Morrison did a fine job on New X-Men, but it does not hold a candle to the amazing work he has done at DC.

Gail Simone is a delight.

And either way, you were calling T hypocritical. Either you were saying “You can’t call me a conservative given all the conservative things you’ve said” or “You can’t call me knee-jerk given all the knee-jerk things you’ve said.” Your comment wouldn’t make any sense if it wasn’t alleging hypocrisy, or at least self-contradiction, on T’s part.

You could easily say that not being willing to be told what to do by those who don’t have any moral authority fuels civil rights campaigns of all sorts. Or that letting my displeasure being known was a matter of me exercising my right to free speech. See, I can make words mean what I want them to as well, regardless of their original context.

But that is what the words mean in their original context. Yes, not being willing to be told what to do is part of civil rights campaigns. Yes, letting your displeasure be known was a matter of you exercising your right to free speech. You didn’t make the words mean anything other than what they originally meant.

But that isn’t really your point. What you mean is “See, I can make it look like you don’t support civil rights campaigns and free speech.” But you aren’t just making it look like I have those opinions, I really do have those opinions (within limits). I do believe in paternalism, which always has the possibility of limiting legitimate civil rights. I do believe in cultural, but not legal, limits to free speech.

You seem to be under the impression that it is unfair to read any implication into people’s words that they didn’t want. I disagree. I am well aware that my words, and opinions, would have totalitarian and fascistic consequences. I merely reply that, so long as things a kept within limits, those consequences wont come about.

I just pointed out how he had responded in a manner similar to the one he was decrying.

What do you even mean by that? I think it is clear that we have two usages of the word reactionary here: reactionary meaning knee-jerk and reactionary meaning hyper-conservative. From what I can see, from your own admission, T was clearly using reactionary in the sense of knee-jerk. Yet, you responded to him as if he were using it in the sense of hyper-conservative.

For the life of me, the only why I can see your thought patterns going is like this: “T called be reactionary(hyper-conservative). That makes me so mad, that T, of all people, would call me hyper-conservative. Wait a minute, in context that makes no sense, he must mean reactionary(knee-jerk). But I’m still so mad that, even though he called me reactionary(knee-jerk) I’m going to respond as if he called be reactionary(hyper-conservative).

You made this senseless jump from reactionary(knee-jerk) to reactionary(hyper-conservative). And why did you make it: because you’re hypersensitive. And why is that I problem: for the reasons I outlined above.

Sat crossed lovers

STAR crossed lovers it should be.

What a way to ruin a perfectly terrible pun.

Disney still does not endorse or even officially recognize Gay Days. But it remains the most profitable single day (the first Saturday in June, in case you were wondering) of the year, so they don’t discourage it either.

That’s at Disneyland, that’s not across the films, tv shows etc.
The complaints to that would be one off complaints (from utter dickeheads who should just die off already) and not ‘I’m never gonna watch anything of yours again’ style complaints.
I mean, Disney is usually pretty good at just ignoring the protests, it’s harder to organise a Mouse boycott because Pulp Fiction had swears in it (which needs one to prove to these people, who don’t have much in their heads, that Miramax made that, Disney owns Miramax etc) – a lot of people see comics as a product aimed for kids, rightly or wrongly.
So for Disney, people protesting Northstar and Shatterstar getting it on – Sat crossed lovers! – this would be more along the lines of Pluto and Goofy getting it on, than a protest over Brokeback Mountain.
A little harder to ignore as it crosses into their big bucks markets – selling shit to kids.

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel.

Go read Secret Six!

There’s a new trade out… apparently there’s couple before it, but it’s the start of the ongoing, and it’s pretty good.
I’ve never read a series of her after the first trade before, but this one I can’t wait for the next one.

There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada.

You got to be lying when it comes to FF:1234, that was dead boring.
MArvel Boy and New X-Men I’m fine with you saying you personally like better than ASS, but not FF:1234.

Winick I feel was better at Marvel too.

Winick is like Azz and Johns though – he didn’t really do that much at Marvel, one book for a year.
I mean, we all liked it better, but I think that was the cap on his talent.

Let me get this straight… I don’t like being called something, an inaccurate term at that, so I’m causing “people like T.” to dismiss “all forms of political correctness” as “hypersensitive?” How does that work? What “cause” am I not helping?

The problematic hypersensitivity was in decrying how Disney had removed all homosexual content from Marvel comics, before Disney has even bought Marvel, on the basis that Disney is an anti-gay company, which has largely been shown to be an inaccurate characterisation anyway. The fact that you were highly concerned that someone would grossly misinterpret a term, as used in context, is merely another example of your hypersensitivity, albeit not a culturally problematic one.

The cause you are not helping is in creating a fair and representative depiction of homosexuality in the media, which was presumably the gist of your original post. The problem is that if people jump on every possible slight, be it actual, perceived or in your case not yet existent, then others will stop caring about even the actual slights, and say that there are no slights and it is always just hypersensitivity.

Take, for instance, this comment from T (regarding prejudicial comments towards women, not homosexuals, but basically still prejudice):

Seriously, what’s so bad about that? People here are way to sensitive sometimes. It’s not a bad line at all. Women themselves always talk about the superiority of their own feminine intuition. Geez…

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/03/22/a-year-of-cool-comic-book-moments-day-81/

Here, T dismisses a valid criticism on the basis that people are ‘way too sensitive’. My concern is that you are feeding into his incorrect beliefs, and rather than helping create a fair and representative depiction of homosexuality in the media, you are making it easier for T, and people with similar views, to dismiss even out valid concerns and the media will remain as prejudicial as ever, if not more.

I hope they just leave the comic side of things alone.

Gail Simone did much better at DC than at Marvel..

I don’t really like her at either company, but I still found her writing less grating over at Marvel. There’s also Morrison, his Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4, his Marvel Boy and New X-Men I all liked better than his DC work, although All-Star Superman was not bad, just not as good as what he did at Marvel under Quesada. His Batman run, Final Crisis, 7 Soldiers, Final Crisis, none of it really grabbed me. I do like Batman and Robin though, it’s the best thing I think he’s done since coming back to DC. Winick I feel was better at Marvel too. Also, when Brubaker left DC to work under Quesada, his writing, which was already good, improved even more.

By the way, when I say DC in this paragraph, I specifically mean DIDIO DC. Under Jeanette Kahn there were plenty of writers who were doing some of the best work of their careers at DC, easy. I believe it’s specifically Didio bringing out the worst in writers. Anyone who can combine Paul Dini, Tony Bedard and Sean McKeever and make them produce something like Countdown is almost gifted in ruining talent.

I did not like how one person addressed me. I made my displeasure known. I didn’t bemoan T.’s lack of sensitivity, or whatever, I just pointed out how he had responded in a manner similar to the one he was decrying. I was not saying “T. is a hypocrite,” because I do not believe that to be true. I did not say “T. doesn’t believe what I believe, so he’s __________.” I was not trying to allege his general conservatism made him less likely to agree with me, the issues cited were issues I recall T. responding to in a strong manner.

You may not like how I phrased “don’t tell me ‘stop’ anything,” but you’re reading waaaay to much into it, and trying to distort the words to make them say something they don’t. You could easily say that not being willing to be told what to do by those who don’t have any moral authority fuels civil rights campaigns of all sorts. Or that letting my displeasure being known was a matter of me exercising my right to free speech. See, I can make words mean what I want them to as well, regardless of their original context.

I know T. didn’t mean it that way, one of the reasons the label annoyed me.

So, basically, you were offended by comment you were fully aware that someone wasn’t making? Yes reactionary has connotations of conservatism, but it was obvious to everyone, even apparently you, that that wasn’t what T meant, and yet you still decided to be offended.

And that’s rather the point, isn’t it. That not only are you prepared to be offended at actual slights, as well as perceived slights, you’re also prepared to be offended at slights that do not yet exist. I agree that it is important not to tolerate offensive characterisations of homosexuality. Yet, the kind of hypersensitivity that you have displayed here, reacting to non-existing slights, means that people like T dismiss all forms of political correctness as hypersensitive. I really don’t think you are helping the cause.

You’ll further notice I didn’t resort to name-calling, labeling, or whatever you’re doing when responding to a post I don’t like.

Yeah, you kind of did. Not to me, but if reactionary can mean everything you think it means then “given your responses to subjects ranging from misogyny and welfare” seems to be are fairly clear labelling of T. Not that I have a problem with it, as I don’t have a problem with labelling, so long as it is accurate.

telling someone you don’t appreciate the tone in which he is responding to you

But that’s not really what you did. You said “don’t tell me to “stop” anything.” Anything. It sounds to me like you don’t just not want to be told not to do certain things, you don’t want to be told to do anything. And to me that is the attitude that drives much conservatism and ‘post-PC’ bigotry. My point is that, if you say that, then the next person who comes along with anti-homosexual slurs can just say “don’t tell me to “stop” anything.” Once again, you only seem to be making things worse.

Well, every year during Gay days there would be (and probably still is) hundreds of complaints from unsuspecting tourists, who knew nothing about it beforehand, wondering why the Hell Disney didn’t warn them when they made their reservations. Disney still does not endorse or even officially recognize Gay Days. But it remains the most profitable single day (the first Saturday in June, in case you were wondering) of the year, so they don’t discourage it either. Bottom line (no pun intended): As long as it’s making money, Disney will tolerate it.

Also, consider this, those who are shocked by this turn of events. Many of us have followed Marvel (and DC of course) for many years, since well before there were “corporate banners” under which they operated. Yes we were there to watch them grow and mature. Remember this though; Marvel (as we currently know it) is about to turn 50. Disney is about to turn 90 ( or more depending on where you set the beginnning). This is all a natural progression and nothing to be alarmed about. Disney can make some boneheaded decisions (as if Marvel has never done that [HELL-O Clone saga!]) but they haven’t stayed at the top of the entertainament world all these decades by being completely stupid. But remember this as well:

Out in the “real world” comic books are still considered a niche market. Sure, the general public knows Spider-Man, Batman, Wolverine (or something sort of like Wolverine), etc. but from the movies, not the books. 99.9 % of what we all love about comics is unknown to 99.9% of the populace. Everybody knows Mickey Mouse and has seen Disney animation, but how many of them have actually read a Mickey comic? Whatever moves Disney might make with the characters for movies or merchandise, they will probably not even look at the books themselves. That is until some wise-ass, eager to make a splash, writes or draws something into a comic to stir-up controversy and there is a corporate back-splash.

No Disney does not have a problem with gay people. How do you think they have 1000s of ride operators, gift shop cashiers, and severly overworked wait staff that are actuall smiling?! Trust me on this, Walt Disney World ( as goes the percentages os the gay population) totally wrecks the curve.

Yeah, but large clumps of Disney’s audience have problems with gay people, and they like to scream really, really loudly.