TF Views

Anyway. I got some comics the other day. Yay for that?

FrankenCastle # 18 Frank fights the Hand in Tokyo going after a "Lady Gorgon". She killed a bum and linked Castles' mind to said dying bum just to piss him off back in the War Journal days. Frank's still pissed. This issue's great, there's a lot of fun lighting effects tied into a magic sword with a jewel that glows when it's about to taste blood, it keeps going off in totally dark rooms leading to interesting art effects. Frank's pretty much an unstoppable engine right about now, being a Frankenstein powered by a magic healing gem, so this issue's sort of reverse Friday the 13th. The jerks getting slaughtered pretty much deserve it, and you're totally rooting for the invincible murderer. Also, despite this issue being just one installment in a longer storyline, one that has callbacks to events in the title character's last series, the story here is self contained. Beginning, middle, and end in one issue. The background's filled in for you, but it's not obnoxious like it can be. If you're following the book, you're cool. If you haven't been, and you just want to see a Frankenstein plow through a bunch of ninjas while going after an assassin in leather lingerie, you're still set. Next up: Frank vs. Daken, the guy that killed him. I have a feeling Round Two is gonna be awesome.

Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers Unleashed #4: I love the cover, which proudly proclaims that this issue features "A monster so big it won't even fit on the cover!" And there sort of is one, and there's sort of a resolution to the story here, and it's sort of clever, but I'm still sort of disappointed. On the other hand, the finale could have come out of a Sandman storyline, sort of, but still, not as cool as the last series. Of course, the last series was one of my favorites of 09, so it's gonna be tough to top, and I'm still in for the next run. Bring on "The Dogs Of Summer"!

Amazing Spider-Man #633 Spidey vs. New Super Lizard and New Yorkers who's reptilian brains have been unleashed! I like this a lot. I might even stick with the Spider-books for awhile. Bachalo's artwork is always awesome, and his New Super Lizard looks completely nightmarish. And we find out if the new Lizard's gonna change back into Connors or not. I wasn't sure, but had a feeling, and it looks like I was right. It would be really easy for the horrible death of a character in this arc to feel...sensationalized, like a "lookit how hardcore!" moment, but it seems like it was a "yeah, that was gonna happen" kind of thing, and the inevitability just makes it more tragic. Well-played to everyone involved.

Shockwave wrote:But you seem to be making some distinction between editorial/coporate mandate vs. author mandate, otherwise the Dumbledore example would work.

I am making a distinction, but that's not why the Dumbledore example doesn't work. JK Rowling had her character's mapped out in advance. She is even quoted as saying "I always saw Dumbledore as gay" and like I said before, there is plenty of subtext with Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald. It wasn't a mandate of Rowling's, nor did she change anything about the character or story, because that's how she always wrote the character in the first place. His orientation just wasn't explicitly revealed in the books.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Shockwave wrote:But you seem to be making some distinction between editorial/coporate mandate vs. author mandate, otherwise the Dumbledore example would work.

I am making a distinction, but that's not why the Dumbledore example doesn't work. JK Rowling had her character's mapped out in advance. She is even quoted as saying "I always saw Dumbledore as gay" and like I said before, there is plenty of subtext with Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald. It wasn't a mandate of Rowling's, nor did she change anything about the character or story, because that's how she always wrote the character in the first place. His orientation just wasn't explicitly revealed in the books.

Ok, with you so far. Although, Rowling said all of that after she was done writing and releasing the books which means that there's a lot of people out there that read it very differently before she said that. I even know people who to this day refuse to acknowledge that (I know, that just makes them wrong, but you get my point). I agree, that it certainly does make sense within the story and even makes the story make more sense as a result. Anyway, I agree what you mean about this being a bad example and understand why it is.

So the difference between this and the comics thing is that in comics Marvel/DC can issue a corporate mandate stating something about a character they own and the writers have no control over it and it makes it that much harder for the story to make sense if it's something that directly affects the story but not specifically addressed in it. This is why the Dumbledore thing is a bad example because the story was written that way anyway and while it may change the way some people read it, her revealing that aspect of it after the fact doesn't change the story itself and isn't something important enough that it needed to be addressed in story. A better example would be if Marvel as a company suddenly said "the Parker/MJ marriage never happened" and it wasn't addressed in story. That's a pretty majoy change that would require being addressed in story. Now if Marvel said "Peter's gay", writer's wouln't necessarily need to address that specifically in the stories they write. Is that right, or am I still missing something?

His orientation just wasn't explicitly revealed in the books.

I completely missed the subtext that you and everyone else was talking about. (Mind you, my Gardar does not work with real people. I have had gay friends for years and not realized it until they or someone else brought up that they were in fact gay/bi. The only time it ever bothered me was when of of 'em was dating someone I *really* was not fond of. But anyway....)

There are people who dispute Dumbledor's preferences on the basis that there was no hot man on man action mentioned explicitly in the books. (This comes down to how direct the subtext is. But, I have no intention of re-reading the Potter books to figure that out.)

Subtext or not, Rowling's word is enough for me on this. Dumbledor is gay. She said so. That is enough. If she comes out and says out of the blue that Crabbe and Goyle were gay, that is also find. (Mind you, that strikes me as funny because they would likely have been the insecure types who would have been overtly homophobic as a way of covering.)

But, I apply the same standard to comics. If an editorial dictate says "X", then we as readers have to assume "X".


Dom
-Sunstreaker from DW is another example, if a crass one.

No, you're still missing something... To use that example though: Peter has been firmly established in the comics to be straight, having had girlfriends and was married once. Now, if Marvel Editorial suddenly mandated that he's gay now, that would be a significant change to his character and be in contradiction to years worth of stories. It wouldn't make sense in the context of the story if we suddenly saw him making out with guys with no explanations given. What I'm saying is that you cannot make such a change to a character/story with out any explanation in the story itself, it is something that needs to be explained.

Dude, I think we have a record going on here. We have an internet arguement where (kind of out of left field) homosexuality came up...and no flames. Nothing.

That said, Peter Parker being gay could be reconciled as a "moment of self discovery" or something. I have known people to jump the fence (in either direction) after several years.

But, the whole point of the editorial mandate is that it just changes the status quo, ala "Man of Steel".


Dom
-no, really. We should submit this thread to Guiness or something.

Sparky Prime wrote:No, you're still missing something... To use that example though: Peter has been firmly established in the comics to be straight, having had girlfriends and was married once. Now, if Marvel Editorial suddenly mandated that he's gay now, that would be a significant change to his character and be in contradiction to years worth of stories. It wouldn't make sense in the context of the story if we suddenly saw him making out with guys with no explanations given. What I'm saying is that you cannot make such a change to a character/story with out any explanation in the story itself, it is something that needs to be explained.

Which makes complete sense. If it's not explained the story just sucks. Almost by definition. Was that your problem with OMD? Because it basically erased something vital to the story with little/no explanation?

Dom, there could be any purpose for an editorial mandate. It could be to change the status quo or even to set one. Or if somebody just really likes bunnies (ie: On a whim). Marvel being the owners of their properties doesn't mean that they have to have a legitimate reason for an editorial mandate.

You may not agree that a mandate is justified, but the ownership provides more than enough enforcement.

I remember DC having silly mandates in the 90s, along the lines of "the editor likes bunnies".

Dom

Oh, I wasn't arguing justification, just enforcement. Your DC example actually pretty much prove my point. Such as it was.

Dominic wrote:I remember DC having silly mandates in the 90s, along the lines of "the editor likes bunnies".

I remember reading that the Earthforce base was set in northern Canada because Furman really liked polar bears and wanted Wildman to draw bunches of them.