Misogyny?

[BClayMoore]

Done with work, alone in the house on a Friday night. Thinking about Big Things.

I've always found it interesting that unflattering songs about a woman are often labelled "misogynistic" (which is different from "sexist") by critics. There are bands whose entire careers have been dismissed by critics because of this. The Eagles (and I am not here to defend the Eagles) spring to mind. Generally these arguments are made by male critics who consider themselves enlightened and use this lazy labeling as an excuse to prove as much, without much consideration for narrative perspective.

When I was in college, I was reading Ron Marz's GREEN LANTERN. I was completely disconnected from fandom at large, and any opinion I formulated was based on my own observations. I read the infamous "woman in refrigerator" issue, and was so offended by it that I literally did not pick up a GREEN LANTERN book for a decade. (maybe it's not logical to boycott a book, rather than a creator, but I was really offended by the issue, and dammit, I meant bizness) In the ensuing years, I've read Ron Marz's justification for the incident, and my opinion has shifted from "misogyny" to "really cheap gimmick." I still find inexcusable and reprehensible, but I'm not sure I see it as indicative of a larger trend.

I think, when written by men, that male characters in comics are generally defined in bold, broad strokes, and female characters are overwritten and bogged down with melodramatic baggage as writers attempt to prove they can connect with their "feminine" sides.

There are a handful of male writers who I can tell believe that they really know how to write women, and I generally find them to be the worst of the bunch. To my mind the key to writing strong women is to put gender issues aside and simply focus on crafting a strong character. Then consider the way environment and circumstance would impact this particular character, and fold those ingredients in. (to date, I've never been called misogynistic, so I guess I'm doing all right)

Anyway, I digress...

Now I sit back and watch the reactions to Erik Larsen's comments about an all female jury in the McFarlane/Gaiman case, and find myself shaking my head at many of them. Primarily, I'm amused by the amount of disingenuous fist-shaking and kneejerk shouts of "misogyny!" from the "outraged." As if making the assertion that women could be swayed by attractive, articulate men is somehow an insult to all women.

I've known Erik for a while, and I don't think there's a misogynist bone in his body. Erik's biggest problem is that he says exactly what he's thinking, with no filter, and with no consideration for what people will think of his comments. He is one of the least socially aware (or socially concerned) individuals I've met, and there are many times the things he says, while completely sincere and conveyed without malice, are construed as outrageous.

But, you know...Have you seen Neil Gaiman converse? Yes? You have? Okay. Have you seen Todd McFarlane converse? Yeah? You have?

How do you think an all male jury would react to a case involving Helen Mirren vs. Joan Rivers? A case involving issues that the average person is never really going to understand, and is never going to confront again? Yes, I agree that men are easier to sway with straight sex appeal than women, but I doubt too many would be insulted by the implication that an easily digested litigant would have a leg up on their shrill and generally annoying opposite in a trial.

I'm not suggesting Erik's correct, but I don't think it's laughably insane to suggest what he suggested, nor is it inherently misogynistic. As he's noted, Erik is married to an attorney (yes, a female attorney), and I would guess she'd probably agree with his assessment, at least in part. Why? Not because she's a misogynist, but because she's seen the things that sway a jury, and smooth and European vs. shrill and hard-nosed Canadian is an easy call to make.

The biggest problem I have with the focus on Erik's comments is that it shunts aside this new verdict, which is fairly mind-boggling in its implications. I don't care if Todd fucked Neil over, or if Neil is legally stalking Todd in reaction to the handling of Miracleman. The real issue is that the underlying conclusion makes little sense, and creates an entire array of eyebrow-raising questions regarding "derivative" characters.

In any event, I feel badly seeing Erik dragged through the mud on this one, even if a) he brought it on himself, and b) he really doesn't care.

I posted this on Gail's board because I generally agree with her, for what it's worth.

-BCM

[Dream]

Frank Miller?

[BClayMoore]

Frank Miller?

Yeah, that thread would have an entirely different label.

-BCM

[Larime Taylor]

Can you give links to Erik's comments? And any of the 'reactions' you feel like.

[Dream]

Yeah, that thread would have an entirely different label.

-BCM

Sorry, first name that came to mind when I read the thread title.

[BClayMoore]

Can you give links to Erik's comments? And any of the 'reactions' you feel like.

I suppose backtracking through Erik's Twitter feed is the best way to start:

http://twitter.com/ErikJLarsen

On your way back to the comments I'm talking about you'll get an interesting window into how his mind works. He's really one-of-a-kind.

-BCM

[DarkKnightJared]

Okay, I must have completely missed something. I know about the Gaiman vs. McFarlane thing, but what exactly did Larson say? Something about Gaiman's looks and demeanor being able to sway an all-female jury?

[HamsterRage]

I thought it was interesting that Larsen was arguing that "Spawn on a Horse" and "Angela" were derivative of Spawn as though that was the issue in the case, when really the issue was that Neil owns them both and the what the judge and jury had to consider was whether McFarlane made alternate characters to get around the ownership issue.

I also found it odd considering that among the characters the founding members of Image complained about not being able to have total ownership of was Venom- I don't think there could be a more derivative character and I believe McFarlane gets royalties for that character.

On the issue of misogyny- I hate that in spite of the man being a legend in his own time, I can't and won't ever read or support the work of Dave Sim.

[Dream]

Okay, I must have completely missed something. I know about the Gaiman vs. McFarlane thing, but what exactly did Larson say? Something about Gaiman's looks and demeanor being able to sway an all-female jury?

Yeah, but I thought he was joking.

[BClayMoore]

I thought it was interesting that Larsen was arguing that "Spawn on a Horse" and "Angela" were derivative of Spawn as though that was the issue in the case, when really the issue was that Neil owns them both and the what the judge and jury had to consider was whether McFarlane made alternate characters to get around the ownership issue.


The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

At what point do you draw distinctions with that fine a line?

Regardless, it's the casual charge of misogyny that I've seen tossed around lately that bothers me more than a legal decision I don't quite understand.

-BCM

[Andreas]

The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

...

That was my first thought, too. And what implications it would have for future law cases.

And when Spawn The Dark Ages originally came out I also thought this must be the same character Gaiman created, but as time passed I thought, hey, the Dark Ages is a long period of time and this could indeed allow for a second or even third Spawn of the Dark Ages. But I guess comic fans spend more time thinking about these things than a judge who already has the next case on her desk.

Andreas

[Larime Taylor]

The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

At what point do you draw distinctions with that fine a line?

Regardless, it's the casual charge of misogyny that I've seen tossed around lately that bothers me more than a legal decision I don't quite understand.

-BCM

Well, when you make a point of mentioning the charming Englishman and the all-female jury, you're going to raise eyebrows.

When you approvingly copy ANYTHING Dave Sim says regarding - well, anything - you're handing people a giant bat to beat you with like a pinata. And then bringing up OJ?

No, I don't think Larsen is misogynist or racist. I think, however, like 99% of all people, he needs to stop tweeting for his own good, though.

[Dream]

They voted in Gaiman's favor because he's fucking Neil Gaiman. He has talent. McFarlane? Represents the the period of bad comics in the 90's.

[HamsterRage]

The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

At what point do you draw distinctions with that fine a line?
Forgive me for belaboring the point here and this is the last I'll say of it.

I believe that since the point of the character was that he was a predecessor to Spawn and was himself a derivative there was no issue there with that character being a derivative, the issue with the McFarlane derivative was that it was changing the name to use the same character and try to skirt through a legal loophole. Same with Angel.

One example if you go over to DC and they have a rights issue with using John Stewart and you decide to use the character and just call him Stewart Johnson... I think that's a problem. (as opposed to renaming the character and reworking it so that it's completely different. SEE: Black Vulcan)


Regardless, it's the casual charge of misogyny that I've seen tossed around lately that bothers me more than a legal decision I don't quite understand.

-BCM

Well... some of the problem is that some feminists see the entire comic book industry as portraying woman as little more than strippers in costumes and victims in content. In some cases I think the industry is definitely guilty of that... but I think too often there is not an understanding that hypermuscles and good looks are part and parcel with the superhero comics.

Plus y'know the whole fact that a large percentage of them don't understand that comics is not just superheroes.

[Andreas]

They voted in Gaiman's favor because he's fucking Neil Gaiman. He has talent. McFarlane? Represents the the period of bad comics in the 90's.

Also one of the guys who single-handedly brought the old regime at Marvel down in the 90's, so we would finally get Joe Quesada and enter a new era of comics.

[HamsterRage]

They voted in Gaiman's favor because he's fucking Neil Gaiman. He has talent. McFarlane? Represents the the period of bad comics in the 90's.

McFarlane is a very talented artist and business man.

The toy industry today would be in a much different place without McFarlane.

[BClayMoore]

Also one of the guys who single-handedly brought the old regime at Marvel down in the 90's, so we would finally get Joe Quesada and enter a new era of comics.

I'm gonna guess that judge and jury had never heard of either of them prior to this.

-BCM

[BnL]

I know virtually nothing about any of this. But there is one subject brought up here that I AM qualified to comment on. After a quick Google image search, I can refute any claim that Neil Gaiman is more physically attractive than Todd McFarlane. Maybe personal charm and charisma would change that perception if I met them in person, or saw them in an interview of something. My judgment is based solely on still images on Google.

I'm sure that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but I thought I would butt in anyway. :wink:

[Tobias M]

Plus the judge's summation indicated she had a more creative mind than McFarlane as far as character ideas were concerned.

[Karen El]

The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

At what point do you draw distinctions with that fine a line?

Neil created the characters, Todd didn't. Where's the problem?


Regardless, it's the casual charge of misogyny that I've seen tossed around lately that bothers me more than a legal decision I don't quite understand.

I don't have much idea what you are basing your opinions on, as you haven't provided any specific quotes or links, but taking this along with previous things he's said, I find his comments more sexist than outright woman-hating.

[Karen El]

That was my first thought, too. And what implications it would have for future law cases.

And when Spawn The Dark Ages originally came out I also thought this must be the same character Gaiman created, but as time passed I thought, hey, the Dark Ages is a long period of time and this could indeed allow for a second or even third Spawn of the Dark Ages. But I guess comic fans spend more time thinking about these things than a judge who already has the next case on her desk.

Andreas

Funnily enough, I just happened to come across an article that quotes from the judgement in the case and I find that you are not only wrong but also insulting. Before you accuse someone else of not doing the research, you might want to do some yourself.

From the ruling:

Much as defendant tries to distinguish the two knight Hellspawn, he never explains why, of all the universe of possible Hellspawn incarnations, he introduced two knights from the same century. Not only does this break the Hellspawn "rule" that Malebolgia never returns a Hellspawns to Earth more than once every 400 years (or possibly every 100 years, as suggested in Spawn, No. 9, exh. #1, at 4), it suggests that what defendant really wanted to do was exploit the possibilities of the knight introduced in issue no. 9.


If [McFarlane] really wanted to differentiate the new Hellspawn, why not make him a Portuguese explorer in the 16th century; an officer of the Royal Navy in the 18th century, an idealistic recruit of Simon Bolivar in the 19th century, a companion of Odysseus on his voyages, a Roman gladiator, a younger brother of Emperor Nakamikado in the early 18th century, a Spanish conquistador, an aristocrat in the Qing dynasty, an American Indian warrior or a member of the court of Queen Elizabeth I?

Full text here (http://files.neilgaiman.com/crabb_decision.pdf).

[t.c.johnson]

Judge Barbara Crabb frickin' rocks'. She sounds like she can pass for a comic book geek.

[Tobias M]

Judge Barbara Crabb frickin' rocks'. She sounds like she can pass for a comic book geek.

One of the Big Two need to draft her into editorial, STAT :cool:

[shrike]

Just by reading early SAVAGE DRAGON issues I always though Erik came off as kind of a 'socially retarded putz' with no idea how to write women correctly... and it appears as if he really doesn't 'get them'.

And, yeah. Just because his wife is an attorney doesn't mean she is a good one, or even that aware of the larger picture at hand in regards to Erik's own personal views. I mean, hell, I'm even amazed Brad Meltzer's wife isn't rolling her eyes at how he writes women.

[Andreas]

Funnily enough, I just happened to come across an article that quotes from the judgement in the case and I find that you are not only wrong but also insulting. Before you accuse someone else of not doing the research, you might want to do some yourself.

From the ruling:




Full text here (http://files.neilgaiman.com/crabb_decision.pdf).

Well, I am corrected. :) I had not seen the full text of the decision before.

[BClayMoore]

Just by reading early SAVAGE DRAGON issues I always though Erik came off as kind of a 'socially retarded putz' with no idea how to write women correctly... and it appears as if he really doesn't 'get them'.


Erik's characters exist in Erik's universe. I don't think his men are all that "real world," either.

But is he trying to "get" them, or is he just manipulating them to fit the pop-art, Jack Kirby world he's created for his characters?

-BCM

[BClayMoore]

Neil created the characters, Todd didn't. Where's the problem?


This is the kind of response that sort of makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion about things. I mean, it's obviously not that simple or it wouldn't have gotten as far as it's gotten. Things are never that simple when it comes to IP, and the decision is worth examining to determine how it might impact comics and creator rights.

Neil created characters based on Todd's creations. So what a lot of people have trouble with is the notion that someone can create characters that would not exist if they weren't based upon your creations, and then have them granted ownership of said characters, while you are then ordered to relinquish rights to characters that are, in turn, reflective of characters that were originally based on your characters.

I don't think there's an easier way to phrase that (and I think Erik has oversimplified things), but I'm not the only one who was a little confused by the result of the case. I know Erik has also always been bothered that Image got dragged into things, since Image never profited directly from anything Todd or Neil did.

For what it's worth, I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan. I admire Todd's accomplishments, and I appreciate that he paved the road that allows me to make a living, but I've never been a SPAWN fan. So, unlike many people sniping from their towers, my thoughts aren't based on loyalty to one party over another.

-BCM

[Gail Simone]

I would like to respond to this, and thanks for dropping by, B. Clay, but I'm about to take off for a bit so it will have to wait, except for this question.

My own experiences reading Erik's comments for years is not so much that he's just too darn honest and straightforward, but more that he says an endless line of ridiculous things. I didn't feel he was being 'dragged through the mud' so much as being held up for some well justified ribbing.

Erik's never had a moment's hesitation criticizing other publishers and creators...why is he exempt?

[BClayMoore]

I would like to respond to this, and thanks for dropping by, B. Clay, but I'm about to take off for a bit so it will have to wait, except for this question.

My own experiences reading Erik's comments for years is not so much that he's just too darn honest and straightforward, but more that he says an endless line of ridiculous things. I didn't feel he was being 'dragged through the mud' so much as being held up for some well justified ribbing.

Erik's never had a moment's hesitation criticizing other publishers and creators...why is he exempt?

Oh, I don't think he's exempt. As I said before, I don't think he cares all that much what people think of him. I just think we've come to this place where people eliminate the shades of gray in a discussion, and line up stiffly on one side or the other, and, as a result, a lot of people have thrown Erik under the bus completely.

I think he is honest and straightforward, but that doesn't mean his perceptions are correct. The man was born without the filter most people own, and Twitter is probably the worst place for him to do anything but talk about the Fantastic Four and Dragon.

-BCM

[c. page]

This is the kind of response that sort of makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion about things. I mean, it's obviously not that simple or it wouldn't have gotten as far as it's gotten. Things are never that simple when it comes to IP, and the decision is worth examining to determine how it might impact comics and creator rights.

Neil created characters based on Todd's creations. So what a lot of people have trouble with is the notion that someone can create characters that would not exist if they weren't based upon your creations, and then have them granted ownership of said characters, while you are then ordered to relinquish rights to characters that are, in turn, reflective of characters that were originally based on your characters.

I don't think there's an easier way to phrase that (and I think Erik has oversimplified things), but I'm not the only one who was a little confused by the result of the case. I know Erik has also always been bothered that Image got dragged into things, since Image never profited directly from anything Todd or Neil did.

For what it's worth, I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan. I admire Todd's accomplishments, and I appreciate that he paved the road that allows me to make a living, but I've never been a SPAWN fan. So, unlike many people sniping from their towers, my thoughts aren't based on loyalty to one party over another.

-BCM

my understanding of this (and this largely comes from reading kurt busiek's conversations on twitter with larsen about this subject) is that it's more or less a contractual issue. i could be completely wrong, but from what i've read, it sounds like there was no concrete work-for-hire contract in place for medieval spawn or angela. so, gaiman is considered a co-creator on these works, and thus gets partial ownership.

[shrike]

I just want to point out that, if anything, BClay, you seem to come across as more of an apologist for him than anything else.

[HamsterRage]

Whether I disagree with him or not... Larsen's twitter is very amusing and entertaining.

[BClayMoore]

I just want to point out that, if anything, BClay, you seem to come across as more of an apologist for him than anything else.

Well, I think that's because you feel the need to place me in one camp or another. Yes, I know Erik and I like Erik, but I also understand why Erik drives people up a wall.

It boils down to this: I think his assertion is worth considering without flipping out over (which doesn't mean it's right), and I don't think he's either sexist or misogynist.

I don't think he has anything to apologize for. He says what he thinks, and the chips are going to fall where they may.

Hey, there are other things Erik's said that I think are fucking ridiculous, but I don't doubt he believes what he says.

-BCM

[XXXenophile]

This is the kind of response that sort of makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion about things. I mean, it's obviously not that simple or it wouldn't have gotten as far as it's gotten. Things are never that simple when it comes to IP, and the decision is worth examining to determine how it might impact comics and creator rights.

Neil created characters based on Todd's creations. So what a lot of people have trouble with is the notion that someone can create characters that would not exist if they weren't based upon your creations, and then have them granted ownership of said characters, while you are then ordered to relinquish rights to characters that are, in turn, reflective of characters that were originally based on your characters.

I don't think there's an easier way to phrase that (and I think Erik has oversimplified things), but I'm not the only one who was a little confused by the result of the case. I know Erik has also always been bothered that Image got dragged into things, since Image never profited directly from anything Todd or Neil did.

For what it's worth, I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan. I admire Todd's accomplishments, and I appreciate that he paved the road that allows me to make a living, but I've never been a SPAWN fan. So, unlike many people sniping from their towers, my thoughts aren't based on loyalty to one party over another.

-BCM

Neil added aspects to Todd's Spawn character that he was told that by doing so, he would get the Miracleman films.

Todd decided not to do that, so Neil went for the creator rights on the stuff he added to Spawn, as well as the outright creation of Coglostrio and Angela.

As much as you'd love to just keep yelling "Its Spawn on a horse" the point is, Gaiman added specific additions to the continuing development of the character and those additions are what he correctly was given co-ownership of.

Like others have said enough times as well "Its Hulk with a fin on his head." Or in your case with '76 "Its a Starsky and Hutch episode only set also in the porn industry."

[BClayMoore]

my understanding of this (and this largely comes from reading kurt busiek's conversations on twitter with larsen about this subject) is that it's more or less a contractual issue. i could be completely wrong, but from what i've read, it sounds like there was no concrete work-for-hire contract in place for medieval spawn or angela. so, gaiman is considered a co-creator on these works, and thus gets partial ownership.

Right, and I understand that.

My concerns are related to how Todd's characters were declared rip-offs of characters originally based on his characters.

-BCM

[BClayMoore]

Neil added aspects to Todd's Spawn character that he was told that by doing so, he would get the Miracleman films.

Todd decided not to do that, so Neil went for the creator rights on the stuff he added to Spawn, as well as the outright creation of Coglostrio and Angela.

As much as you'd love to just keep yelling "Its Spawn on a horse" the point is, Gaiman added specific additions to the continuing development of the character and those additions are what he correctly was given co-ownership of.

Like others have said enough times as well "Its Hulk with a fin on his head." Or in your case with '76 "Its a Starsky and Hutch episode only set also in the porn industry."

I'm not defending Todd's business ethics, I'm just noting there are concerns about the decision that should impact the way people do business in the future. I'm not even saying the decision was wrong. It just muddies the water for a lot of people.

As an aside, the half of '76 (Cool) that you're talking about was created by Seth Peck and Tigh Walker, not me, but since there are zero parallels between Starsky and Hutch and Cool (except that there are two guys in the story), I don't think that makes much sense.

A better example would be Battle Hymn, which a lot of people misconstrued as a take on the Invaders.

Still, the analogy would only work if I'd created Battle Hymn as a part of the Invaders universe, using an existing character as a template.

-BCM

[HamsterRage]

Right, and I understand that.

My concerns are related to how Todd's characters were declared rip-offs of characters originally based on his characters.

-BCM

Because for the most part the only difference in the two characters was a name change to try and use a perceived legal loophole.

[BClayMoore]

Because for the most part the only difference in the two characters was a name change to try and use a perceived legal loophole.

Okay. Last time I'll explain this.

You do understand that one of those characters was originally directly based on a character Todd created, right? In cosmetic terms, Neil's creation was much closer to Todd's original creation that Todd's subsequent creation was to Neil's.

This is the part that provokes thought.

-BCM

[Suffering Sappho]

Here's the thing, we live in a misogynistic society, and obviously attitudes like Erik Larson's are a product of it. Just look at the recent case of the man who beat a 17-month old boy to death for "acting too much like a girl". Femininity (or at least what we define as feminine) is bad, while masculinity is good. It's easy for Erik Larson to make a comment like this because society will easily accept that women would be simple minded enough to judge a trial based on a sexy accent instead of facts (which through all the discussion surrounding this case proves isn't so simple and could go either way, really). If the jury happened to all be male, do you think he would have made a big deal about their gender? Most likely not. He felt the need to point out their femaleness and use it against them.

[c. page]

Right, and I understand that.

My concerns are related to how Todd's characters were declared rip-offs of characters originally based on his characters.

-BCM

all that i can think of (and it's been years since i took a copyright law class, so i could be way off base) is that the similarities to the copyrighted characters in question were so great that they were considered derivative.

this is only an issue (i think) because todd did not have full ownership of medieval spawn and angela when creating "derivative" characters of them. so, consequently, neil, as co-owner could sue to have them blocked.

[BClayMoore]

Here's the thing, we live in a misogynistic society, and obviously attitudes like Erik Larson's a re a product of it. Just look at the recent case of the man who beat a 17-month old boy to death for "acting too much like a girl". Femininity (or at least what we define as feminine) is bad, while masculinity is good. It's easy for Erik Larson to make a comment like this because society will easily accept that women would be simple minded enough to judge a trial based on a sexy accent instead of facts (which through all the discussion surrounding this case proves isn't so simple and could go either way, really). If the jury happened to all be male, do you think he would have made a big deal about their gender? Most likely not. He felt the need to point out their femaleness and use it against them.

I absolutely think, if the jury were all-male, and the litigants were women, everyone would have speculated on the impact that had on the decision.

Without any cries of sexism attached to the speculation, except in relation to the men on the jury.

We lose all perspective when we lump a child-murderer (who was clearly driven by factors more complex than sexism) in with a guy implying that a suave, eloquent European swayed some of the jurors more effectively than a shrill, hard-edged Canadian did.

On the other hand, I think Neil would have swayed a male jury just as effectively, so Erik loses me pretty quickly with his argument.

- BCM

[Suffering Sappho]

I absolutely think, if the jury were all-male, and the litigants were women, everyone would have speculated on the impact that had on the decision.

Without any cries of sexism attached to the speculation, except in relation to the men on the jury.

We lose all perspective when we lump a child-murderer (who was clearly driven by factors more complex than sexism) in with a guy implying that a suave, eloquent European swayed some of the jurors more effectively than a shrill, hard-edged Canadian did.

On the other hand, I think Neil would have swayed a male jury just as effectively, so Erik loses me pretty quickly with his argument.

- BCM

If I made it seem I thought Larsen's comments were as terrible as beating a child, I'm sorry. My point was that it is a signal to an underlying problem in our society. This could lead us off topic, so I'll just link to this article that explains how I feel much more eloquently than I could in a message board.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/what-it-says-about-us-whe_b_671373.html

Back to the main topic. You seem to interpret Erik Larsen's comment much differently than I do. You see it as him noting that Neil Gaiman is a better speaker and has a charming personality, but that isn't what I see. I see him pointing to the gender of the jury as the cause of Gaiman's win.
He repeatedly referred to them as "all-female". Why do that if you don't think it is a major factor? And there is a difference between suspecting an all male jury of having a prejudice against female litigants; men are in a position of power in our society. Women and feminists are told to shut up about fighting sexism all the time, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can point you to other articles about women writing into advice columnists about being sexually harassed and being told to "get over it" or even "Didn't you hear, Elena Kagan is on the Supreme Court, sexism doesn't exist anymore!" Hell, I can point you to entire blogs about sexism and how the mainstream media devalues women.

I also want to point out that there is a difference between calling a person sexist or misogynistic and calling something someone said sexist or misogynistic. Erik Larsen might be a perfectly nice person who just said something stupid and needs to be told it's a stupid thing to say.

Here's an article with Larsen's comments for those who haven't seen them.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/08/03/erik-larsen-neil-gaiman-female-jury/

[BClayMoore]

And there is a difference between suspecting an all male jury of having a prejudice against female litigants; men are in a position of power in our society. Women and feminists are told to shut up about fighting sexism all the time, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why is this different?

This makes no sense to me.

First of all, everyone with an agenda or different perspective is told to shut up all the time about everything these days, I get that.

But I don't see how there's any difference at all. It's somehow okay to suggest that men might be swayed by attractive women because they "are in a position of power"?

Sorry, but I don't get it. Can you sum that up succinctly so I do get it?

For what it's worth, I think men are every bit as victimized by society as women are.

But I also think men victimize women.

-BCM

[JKCarrier]

You do understand that one of those characters was originally directly based on a character Todd created, right?

And one was not. And when you put them both together, it becomes pretty obvious that McFarlane was trying to duck out of his obligations to Gaiman by filing the serial numbers off. And while Neil's boyish charm may have had an impact, I suspect Todd's history of lying, stalling, and generally doing everything he could to thwart the previous judgement had something to do with it too.

[BClayMoore]

And one was not. And when you put them both together, it becomes pretty obvious that McFarlane was trying to duck out of his obligations to Gaiman by filing the serial numbers off. And while Neil's boyish charm may have had an impact, I suspect Todd's history of lying, stalling, and generally doing everything he could to thwart the previous judgement had something to do with it too.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think it's irrelevant to my point.

-BCM

[Suffering Sappho]

Why is this different?

This makes no sense to me.

First of all, everyone with an agenda or different perspective is told to shut up all the time about everything these days, I get that.

But I don't see how there's any difference at all. It's somehow okay to suggest that men might be swayed by attractive women because they "are in a position of power"?

Sorry, but I don't get it. Can you sum that up succinctly so I do get it?

For what it's worth, I think men are every bit as victimized by society as women are.

But I also think men victimize women.

-BCM

Okay, sexism and gender inequality is way to complicated to explain completely in a single board comment, but I will try my best to give you an idea of where I am coming from. Most of human society has been based on patriarchy for centuries, agreed? Ok. Now, that lead to a lot of values and opinions about gender and how the different genders should be treated. Now, while it is true women have come a long way, those values and ideas about gender didn't dissolve out of existence the minute women got the vote. A lot of the biases are still clinging onto our society and it affects how men and women go through their lives. Here's an analogy a professor told me once, I think it explains it in the simplest to understand way:

Life is like a giant game of Monopoly. For a really long time, one group of people (namely, straight white males) had total control of the board and bought properties and built hotels etc. Later, a new group of people were able to join into the game (women, African-Americans, LGBTQI individuals etc), but when they tried to play, they found a lot of the money already belonged to other people and the best properties were already owned. The first group says, "We're all playing the same game here. If you aren't doing as well, then you must be bad at this game or just lazy". The second group says, "Wait, this game is rigged. You all got a head start and we will never catch up no matter how good we are".

This is really simplified, but it gives you an idea of about where I'm coming from. Things like pay inequality, sexual harassment, and other problems are ingrained into our society and it is going to take a lot to end them.

And I do agree, men are victims of this system too. They are forced to uphold ideals of masculinity that they shouldn't have to.

Here are some really good blogs to look at if you want to see more of what I'm talking about.

http://jezebel.com/

http://feministing.com/

Does that help?

[ZimMan2]

Personally, I find sexism, racism, all that stuff, to be an extentsion of egotism combined with mob mentality.

It's in the nature of an individual to want to think they're the best. They're awesome, they rule. But it's also in human nature to have a sheepish mentality. to want to categorize everything, to put people into broad, simple groups, and stick in them. So, we extend our notion of self=perfection into those that fit our groups. Basically, the line of thought can be boiled down to this (using men as an example):

I'm awesome. Everyone that is like me must be awesome. Everyone that isn't like me must suck. I'm a man. Men must be awesome. Women must suck.

Thing is, it can appiled to any person:

I'm awesome. Everyone that is like me must be awesome. Everyone that isn't like me must suck. I'm a woman. Women must be awesome. Men must suck.

I'm awesome. Everyone that is like me must be awesome. Everyone that isn't like me must suck. I'm white. White people must be awesome. Black people must suck.

I'm awesome. Everyone that is like me must be awesome. Everyone that isn't like me must suck. I'm black. Black people must be awesome. White people must suck.

Don't know if that fits in to this, or if it's even news to anyone, but I've just kind of reached this conclusion and felt like pointing it out. Possibly because it re-affirms my misanthropic mantra of "The problem isn't man or woman, white or black: it's human."

[BClayMoore]

Sapho -

I appreciate the links, and it always helps to be exposed to new perspectives on these issues. I'm well-versed in issues of gender equality, and it sounds like we may have had the same professor in college.

My question was directed at your specific comment related to the makeup of the jury. I think we bring too much extra baggage into some of these discussions, and it seems to me this is more an issue regarding the effects of sex appeal and our perceptions of how men and women react to those effects.

I think it's perfectly fine in society for people to imply that men can be swayed by big tits and great legs, but when we imply that women might be susceptible to masculine charm, we see the notion obliterated with cries of sexism and misogyny, rather than reasoned arguments against the idea.

-BCM

[BClayMoore]

Zim -

You may have a point.

But, then, I'm awesome, so I may be biased.

-BCM

[Gail Simone]

Wow, some of is is as dumb as Erik's bullshit. Yikes.

[BClayMoore]

Wow, some of is is as dumb as Erik's bullshit. Yikes.

Okay, I'm not really awesome.

Busted.

-BCM

[Suffering Sappho]

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I was thinking in broader terms, but I think I have an answer for this specific case.

In the case of saying a woman wins a lawsuit because she is sexy, the blame is usually placed on the woman. "She used her sexuality. She flaunted her boobs and ass to the all-male jury" etc. But in this case, it is the all-female jury who is to blame for siding with a sexy man. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying that's what you are saying, it's just how these things usually play out in the media and in these types of debates. Men aren't held responsible for their sexual urges, but women are expected to keep them in check. Does this make sense?

[Gail Simone]

No, you're still awesome, but you're using some really juvenile debate tactics by consistently re-framing the argument.

Hang on a sec, I will provide examples.

[BClayMoore]

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I was thinking in broader terms, but I think I have an answer for this specific case.

In the case of saying a woman wins a lawsuit because she is sexy, the blame is usually placed on the woman. "She used her sexuality. She flaunted her boobs and ass to the all-male jury" etc. But in this case, it is the all-female jury who is to blame for siding with a sexy man. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying that's what you are saying, it's just how these things usually play out in the media and in these types of debates. Men aren't held responsible for their sexual urges, but women are expected to keep them in check. Does this make sense?

Okay, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree completely. It seems to me that when men are swayed by sex, the implication is that men aren't capable of thinking with anything other than their pricks.

Perhaps, by extension, the standard "popular" consensus is that women understand this and use their sex appeal to cloud men's minds? Would that fit in with your perspective?

You're talking about the common public perception of things, and I can see how comments like Erik's feed that perception.

-BCM

[Gail Simone]

First, you do a consistent tactic of smearing all dissenters as some sort of mob that is unfairly picking on a creator for making one little comment.

I, for one, never called Erik Larsen either a misogynist or a sexist. I did what I do, something Erik has done a thousand times, I poked fun at someone for making what I think was an idiotic statement.

Repeatedly saying, "Well, it's what he believes," is utterly meaningless at worst and not helpful to your point at best. Who cares what he believes? Do you think anyone was accusing him of saying women were too blinded by English charm insincerely? That it was some elaborate hoax for reasons unknown?

No one thinks that, B. Clay (sorry, I don't know what name you go by).

To the contrary, I believe it's a dumb opinion he believes in whole-heartedly. So let's take that, "he really BELIEVES that" off the table. We agree, he means it.

You may not be aware, but I created the Women In Refrigerators site in answer to the trend of the time, that culminated in the Green Lantern issue you started this discussion with. TO be VERY clear, that site never, EVER accuses anyone of being a misogynist. I know Ron Marz, I don't believe he's a misogynist. I am very careful with labels of that kind and do not apply them lightly.

But people should be responsible for their words, and Erik's latest comment does not exist in a vacuum. I had a conversation with Erik about the WiR site, and I absolutely believe he started with a valid point about an inaccuracy regarding his titles. An inaccuracy I acknowledged completely.

But from then on, I wasn't thinking, "Oh, man, this guy hates women," I was thinking, "Holy shit, this is the dumbest debate I've been part of in years, and MAN, that's saying a great deal."

I was told over and over what my intentions were, what I REALLY meant, what my inner thoughts were...it was, again, one dumbass statement piled on another.

I think you know full well, this isn't exactly new territory here. I don't care if he, "doesn't have a filter." That doesn't change a thing. If he holds the beliefs he says he does, then he can be held responsible for them. Erik has never held back on his criticisms of others. And you know that.

So what is your point?

There's no mob. Some people looked at that comment as part of a larger picture of years of Erik shooting his mouth off and decided they didn't care for it. Big deal.

Me, I thought it was funny, but unintentionally so. I certainly didn't feel hurt that the guy who writes and draws some comics I don't read thinks some stupid opinions about women. And for the record, I think he actually made some decent points about Neil and Todd and the lawsuit.

I had a talk with an Image founder at a con recently. Unasked, he brought up Erik's twitters. I'm not going to repeat what he said, but I gather this is not new stuff for anyone involved with Image.

It's not the Spanish Inquisition. It's Twitter. They make fun of dumb comments all the time. We've all been there, and often, Erik is leading the charge.

I don't see why people expressing their dislike for a long pattern of dumb statements is 'dragging him through the mud.' People are responsible for their words.

To me, it was a funny little comment from an industry eccentric. No one thinks Erik is the devil.

He's just a guy who says dumb things sometimes.

[Gail Simone]

The thing that confuses creators I know is that the fact that Gaiman's characters are derivative of a character Todd owns to begin with.

At what point do you draw distinctions with that fine a line?

Regardless, it's the casual charge of misogyny that I've seen tossed around lately that bothers me more than a legal decision I don't quite understand.

-BCM

Has anyone here called Erik a misogynist?

Have I ever, ever done or implied such a thing?


Or are we just building straw men?

[Slewo.O]

First, you do a consistent tactic of smearing all dissenters as some sort of mob that is unfairly picking on a creator for making one little comment.

I, for one, never called Erik Larsen either a misogynist or a sexist. I did what I do, something Erik has done a thousand times, I poked fun at someone for making what I think was an idiotic statement.

Repeatedly saying, "Well, it's what he believes," is utterly meaningless at worst and not helpful to your point at best. Who cares what he believes? Do you think anyone was accusing him of saying women were too blinded by English charm insincerely? That it was some elaborate hoax for reasons unknown?

No one thinks that, B. Clay (sorry, I don't know what name you go by).

To the contrary, I believe it's a dumb opinion he believes in whole-heartedly. So let's take that, "he really BELIEVES that" off the table. We agree, he means it.

You may not be aware, but I created the Women In Refrigerators site in answer to the trend of the time, that culminated in the Green Lantern issue you started this discussion with. TO be VERY clear, that site never, EVER accuses anyone of being a misogynist. I know Ron Marz, I don't believe he's a misogynist. I am very careful with labels of that kind and do not apply them lightly.

But people should be responsible for their words, and Erik's latest comment does not exist in a vacuum. I had a conversation with Erik about the WiR site, and I absolutely believe he started with a valid point about an inaccuracy regarding his titles. An inaccuracy I acknowledged completely.

But from then on, I wasn't thinking, "Oh, man, this guy hates women," I was thinking, "Holy shit, this is the dumbest debate I've been part of in years, and MAN, that's saying a great deal."

I was told over and over what my intentions were, what I REALLY meant, what my inner thoughts were...it was, again, one dumbass statement piled on another.

I think you know full well, this isn't exactly new territory here. I don't care if he, "doesn't have a filter." That doesn't change a thing. If he holds the beliefs he says he does, then he can be held responsible for them. Erik has never held back on his criticisms of others. And you know that.

So what is your point?

There's no mob. Some people looked at that comment as part of a larger picture of years of Erik shooting his mouth off and decided they didn't care for it. Big deal.

Me, I thought it was funny, but unintentionally so. I certainly didn't feel hurt that the guy who writes and draws some comics I don't read thinks some stupid opinions about women. And for the record, I think he actually made some decent points about Neil and Todd and the lawsuit.

I had a talk with an Image founder at a con recently. Unasked, he brought up Erik's twitters. I'm not going to repeat what he said, but I gather this is not new stuff for anyone involved with Image.

It's not the Spanish Inquisition. It's Twitter. They make fun of dumb comments all the time. We've all been there, and often, Erik is leading the charge.

I don't see why people expressing their dislike for a long pattern of dumb statements is 'dragging him through the mud.' People are responsible for their words.

To me, it was a funny little comment from an industry eccentric. No one thinks Erik is the devil.

He's just a guy who says dumb things sometimes.

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition... :scared:

[BClayMoore]

Well, it was never my intention to create a straw man (straw mob?). I'd been working all day (which means I'm on the computer all day), and kept picking up comments (and cartoons) that were painting Erik as a sexist loudmouth, instead of just addressing whatever fallacy they saw in his comments.

I point out that Erik lacks a filter (or common social awareness) only to explain that when Erik says something, there's generally no agenda behind it. And, yeah, if that's the case, it probably actually makes it harder to defend his dumbest comments, since you know what you're hearing is what he actually believes.

And I really wasn't trying to lump everyone into this mob...most people here have patiently explained their reactions to Erik's comments, and they're being very rational about it.

To be honest, I probably scrambled the discussion by addressing Erik's comments and the verdict in the Gaiman case in the same rambling mini-essay, and have spent my time in this thread trying to juggle two discussions.

As for WiR, when I first heard the topic discussed online, it struck a chord if only because that particular issue had such an impact on me at the time. I came very close to just giving up on reading comics altogether back then.

I'm actually glad this expanded into a deeper discussion of gender inequality and creator's rights, because I'm fairly convinced you're right, and that I started things off by feeding a stupid debate with an unnecessary defense.


- Clay (is what I go by)

[Slewo.O]

But yes good points Gail. :p

[Suffering Sappho]

Okay, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree completely. It seems to me that when men are swayed by sex, the implication is that men aren't capable of thinking with anything other than their pricks.

Perhaps, by extension, the standard "popular" consensus is that women understand this and use their sex appeal to cloud men's minds? Would that fit in with your perspective?

You're talking about the common public perception of things, and I can see how comments like Erik's feed that perception.

-BCM

Right. It's the idea of women as sexual gatekeepers. While it may seem empowering, it's often used against women. Like women are evil and crafty and they're taking advantage of mens' animalistic tendencies that they have no way of controlling. Or they're teases and shouldn't be surprised if men disrespect them or harass them while they're working because, well boys will be boys.

[Teal_Lantern]

I would say that his comments were pretty sexist. I'm not judging the guy, just saying his comments were pretty damn sexist.

[Gail Simone]

Well, it was never my intention to create a straw man (straw mob?). I'd been working all day (which means I'm on the computer all day), and kept picking up comments (and cartoons) that were painting Erik as a sexist loudmouth, instead of just addressing whatever fallacy they saw in his comments.

I point out that Erik lacks a filter (or common social awareness) only to explain that when Erik says something, there's generally no agenda behind it. And, yeah, if that's the case, it probably actually makes it harder to defend his dumbest comments, since you know what you're hearing is what he actually believes.

And I really wasn't trying to lump everyone into this mob...most people here have patiently explained their reactions to Erik's comments, and they're being very rational about it.

To be honest, I probably scrambled the discussion by addressing Erik's comments and the verdict in the Gaiman case in the same rambling mini-essay, and have spent my time in this thread trying to juggle two discussions.

As for WiR, when I first heard the topic discussed online, it struck a chord if only because that particular issue had such an impact on me at the time. I came very close to just giving up on reading comics altogether back then.

I'm actually glad this expanded into a deeper discussion of gender inequality and creator's rights, because I'm fairly convinced you're right, and that I started things off by feeding a stupid debate with an unnecessary defense.


- Clay (is what I go by)


"I point out that Erik lacks a filter (or common social awareness) only to explain that when Erik says something, there's generally no agenda behind it."


I'm sorry, but of course there's an agenda behind it. These comments don't say themselves or magically appear from nowhere.

That whole, "Oh, he doesn't have a filter" thing is a common excuse for people saying idiotic comments of all stripes, and I have no idea what value that is supposed to have for anyone. There's nothing particularly admirable about not having the will or ability to keep from saying dumbass, hateful, or ignorant things. It's an excuse people make when they can't defend a person's actual comments anymore.

WiR was always meant not to be an indictment, but a question. It was meant to ask people whose knowledge of comics was much greater than my own if this apparent trend had any validity. But, as Erik did with both feet, people often bring their own goofy sexual politics and start inventing motives and even quotes the site neither says or implies.

My point is, it's not like Erik is a wallflower. He posts extensively at Twitter, as do I. People have thousands of statements of his at this point to put his comments in context. And many who did found them to be offensive and/or stupid. I think more the latter than the former, personally. But just as I often have people decide, after a few months of my chattering, that they don't like what I have to say and loudly unfollow me, Erik got a response for his comments that didn't please him. Welcome to the internet.

[Slewo.O]

Right. It's the idea of women as sexual gatekeepers. While it may seem empowering, it's often used against women. Like women are evil and crafty and they're taking advantage of mens' animalistic tendencies that they have no way of controlling. Or they're teases and shouldn't be surprised if men disrespect them or harass them while they're working because, well boys will be boys.

Well to be fair women are evil temptresses and whatever abuse they suffer from a man is their own fault! /sarcasm

[Gail Simone]

I would say that his comments were pretty sexist. I'm not judging the guy, just saying his comments were pretty damn sexist.

I just hate applying that word. It implies an insight into a person's soul that I do not have.

[Slewo.O]

.

[Gail Simone]

I will add at last that I think there's plenty of room in comics for eccentrics and people with unpopular or socially awkward points of view.

It's not that big a deal. I just found the comment hilariously misguided and goofy.

Still do.

[Gail Simone]

B.Clay, may I ask, on another topic, what that book is in your signature?

[Gail Simone]

.

Well said!

[BClayMoore]

I will add at last that I think there's plenty of room in comics for eccentrics and people with unpopular or socially awkward points of view.

It's not that big a deal. I just found the comment hilariously misguided and goofy.

Still do.

If you expect me to launch a defense against the notion that Erik is goofy, you're out of luck.

- Clay

[BClayMoore]

B.Clay, may I ask, on another topic, what that book is in your signature?

It's the FURTHER ADVENTURES OF THE WHISTLING SKULL, a book Tony Harris and I are doing over at WildStorm now that EX MACHINA has wrapped up.

(Notice I didn't comment on Tony's Twittering. At this point I'm thinking of canceling my own Twitter account)

-Clay

[Gail Simone]

If you expect me to launch a defense against the notion that Erik is goofy, you're out of luck.

- Clay

To fight the unwinnable fight is often folly.

Why not just assume, Clay, that all the people who said bad things about Erik, and called him names as you claim (I never saw that, actually), simply "don't have a filter" and "genuinely believe what they say?"

I mean, that's your defense, right?

So surely it works for everyone else equally well.

;)

[Gail Simone]

It's the FURTHER ADVENTURES OF THE WHISTLING SKULL, a book Tony Harris and I are doing over at WildStorm now that EX MACHINA has wrapped up.

(Notice I didn't comment on Tony's Twittering. At this point I'm thinking of canceling my own Twitter account)

-Clay

Eh, he keeps things entertaining. I have no beef with Tony. I did unfollow Erik because it gave me a headache reading his posts.

But yeah, I want that book. I've been looking forward to it since it was first announced. Good luck with it!

[BClayMoore]

Eh, he keeps things entertaining. I have no beef with Tony. I did unfollow Erik because it gave me a headache reading his posts.

But yeah, I want that book. I've been looking forward to it since it was first announced. Good luck with it!

Thanks, Gail.

- Clay

[BClayMoore]

To fight the unwinnable fight is often folly.

Why not just assume, Clay, that all the people who said bad things about Erik, and called him names as you claim (I never saw that, actually), simply "don't have a filter" and "genuinely believe what they say?"

I mean, that's your defense, right?

So surely it works for everyone else equally well.

;)

I have no defense.

You win.

- Clay

[Gail Simone]

Quitter!

;)

[BClayMoore]

I'll own that white flag.

Here's the full promo piece Tony did for TWS, since you mentioned it (and to derail this train):

http://www.hawaiiandick.com/skull/skullcolor.jpg

-Clay

[Gail Simone]

Yep, that looks gorgeous, all right!

[BnL]

What is the Whistling Skull about? I'm intrigued.

[BClayMoore]

What is the Whistling Skull about? I'm intrigued.

It's sort of a pulp thing set in the early forties. Our Skull is the seventh in a line, and we hope to follow his story from the time he's picked, until the end of his career. This first arc examines his first forays into the field, and how he and his sidekick deal with all of the weirdness involved. We also flashback to previous incarnations of the character, and plant clues as to what happened to the previous Skull.

His sidekick is the son of the previous Skull, and is developmentally disabled, to apply a modern term to a character set in the forties. He's sort of the heart of the book.

-Clay

[BnL]

It's sort of a pulp thing set in the early forties. Our Skull is the seventh in a line, and we hope to follow his story from the time he's picked, until the end of his career. This first arc examines his first forays into the field, and how he and his sidekick deal with all of the weirdness involved. We also flashback to previous incarnations of the character, and plant clues as to what happened to the previous Skull.

His sidekick is the son of the previous Skull, and is developmentally disabled, to apply a modern term to a character set in the forties. He's sort of the heart of the book.

-Clay

Sounds interesting. Are there previously released stories, or is this a brand new thing?

[BClayMoore]

Sounds interesting. Are there previously released stories, or is this a brand new thing?

Brand new. Tony's just starting on the book.

We've had it approved for almost three years.

-Clay

[Gail Simone]

It's one of the books I've most been looking forward to.

Clay, if I may ask, what were your first comic scripts?

I have this vague memory of your first work many years ago but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head (don't be offended, my memory sucks).

[Reverend Smooth]

Misogyny can be applied casually, because misogynists apply it to casual things, such as cheap gimmicks.

"Well, he's not..." Same thing when it comes to racism, homophobia, etc. I know, they're strong words, but an industry that relies on fridging women to sell books is, in fact, misogynistic.

It doesn't mean they're out to oppress women, it just means it's such a default that they don't think twice about representing women that way.

If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you should address the practice of representing women that way instead of trying to change the label. The label has no inherent moral judgment beyond what it describes, even if we ascribe it that.

And if dudes agree, good for them. It means they aren't making excuses. Seeing posts like tghe OP is really tiresome, because it's all about making excuses. Sorry if it makes you feel bad, yo! Get over it. \o.o/

[Karen El]

This is the kind of response that sort of makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion about things. I mean, it's obviously not that simple or it wouldn't have gotten as far as it's gotten. Things are never that simple when it comes to IP, and the decision is worth examining to determine how it might impact comics and creator rights.

Neil created characters based on Todd's creations. So what a lot of people have trouble with is the notion that someone can create characters that would not exist if they weren't based upon your creations, and then have them granted ownership of said characters, while you are then ordered to relinquish rights to characters that are, in turn, reflective of characters that were originally based on your characters.

I don't have a problem with that at all. Sure, Neil would have never created those characters if Spawn hadn't existed, but it did and he did. To look at it from the other end, if Neil hadn't created those characters, would they have appeared anyway? Would Todd have created them without Neil? No. Neil is therefore given a creator credit for them. Todd's contribution of the background environment is reflected in the co-creator credit he gets.

So then we have new characters that also would not have existed without Spawn, but more importantly, would not have existed without the characters Neil created. Unless you are prepared to claim that Todd would have introduced these characters without any input from Neil, I don't see the dilemma.

And I have to say I'm with the judge on this from a creative point of view. If I was working on a series and there was a character I was unable or unwilling to use, I wouldn't make a cheap copy. I'd create a new and different character who moved the story along.

[XXXenophile]

I'm not defending Todd's business ethics, I'm just noting there are concerns about the decision that should impact the way people do business in the future. I'm not even saying the decision was wrong. It just muddies the water for a lot of people.

As an aside, the half of '76 (Cool) that you're talking about was created by Seth Peck and Tigh Walker, not me, but since there are zero parallels between Starsky and Hutch and Cool (except that there are two guys in the story), I don't think that makes much sense.

A better example would be Battle Hymn, which a lot of people misconstrued as a take on the Invaders.

Still, the analogy would only work if I'd created Battle Hymn as a part of the Invaders universe, using an existing character as a template.

-BCM

Oh crap you're right.

Sorry about that. LOL now I'll change it to "Its a typical 70's asian karate film set in the ghetto!"

[XXXenophile]

I'm not defending Todd's business ethics, I'm just noting there are concerns about the decision that should impact the way people do business in the future. I'm not even saying the decision was wrong. It just muddies the water for a lot of people.


Actually I'll add to this point here:

Muddles the water? In the end its helping make Todd more accountable?

You do realize the incredible amount of irony here as everyone sees Todd turned into the same people that caused him to decide to leave Marvel for to start Image right?

[The Funketeer]

They voted in Gaiman's favor because he's fucking Neil Gaiman. He has talent. McFarlane? Represents the the period of bad comics in the 90's.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that not a single person on the jury was familiar with either Gaiman or McFarlane and no idea which one was more talented than the other.

[BClayMoore]

Actually I'll add to this point here:

Muddles the water? In the end its helping make Todd more accountable?

You do realize the incredible amount of irony here as everyone sees Todd turned into the same people that caused him to decide to leave Marvel for to start Image right?

Sure, I can see how people look at things from that perspective. It's been pointed out many times.

My only concerns in the case are related to inspiration and creative ownership, not Todd's history. Not Todd at all, actually. Or Neil.

-Clay

[BClayMoore]

It's one of the books I've most been looking forward to.

Clay, if I may ask, what were your first comic scripts?

I have this vague memory of your first work many years ago but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head (don't be offended, my memory sucks).

The very first thing I ever did was a book called LOVE IN TIGHTS, with J. Torres, for Slave Labor Graphics. It was an anthology where indie creators were encouraged to cram romance and super-heroics together. I co-edited the book with J., and contributed a few stories.

We managed six issues from about 1998-2000, and published the first work from J. Bone, Francis Manapul, and Takeshi Miyazawa. Also featured work by Lea Hernandez, Andie Watson (who did a few covers), Kalman Andrasofsky (in a story inked without credit by Cameron Stewart and Ramon Perez), Josh Blaylock, John Kovalics, John Gallagher, Jimmie Robinson and others. We were also slated to debut Jay Faerber's NOBLE CAUSES, but I could never get enough material gathered, and so we canceled the book before the last issue came out.

J. and Takeshi did a SIDEKICKS story in an issue, which C.B. Cebulski picked up and published under his Fanboy banner, before joining Marvel (which is how I first met CB).

The next thing I did was HAWAIIAN DICK at Image.

http://image2.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/49357795870.1.GIF

-Clay

[stealthwise]

The thing I find funniest is the notion of "not having a filter" when you're talking about posting words online. I know people who say the same thing about themselves when they're talking about speaking to one another, and things just verbally slip out, but when you're talking about online things like message boards, twitter, facebook, etc, you have an extra step that allows you to pause before you click post, preview posts, and/or edit your words as well for clarification or to remove things that you might instantly regret.

Maybe it's different if you're not as accustomed to viewing it in that way, but everything I see that's done digitally/electronically is basically a living document. We just happen to, for the most part, view those things that are posted or transmitted as locked in stone. They have both the permanence and ephemerality (is that a word?) of both printed and verbal words, respectively.

[Karen El]

The thing I find funniest is the notion of "not having a filter" when you're talking about posting words online. I know people who say the same thing about themselves when they're talking about speaking to one another, and things just verbally slip out, but when you're talking about online things like message boards, twitter, facebook, etc, you have an extra step that allows you to pause before you click post, preview posts, and/or edit your words as well for clarification or to remove things that you might instantly regret.

Maybe it's different if you're not as accustomed to viewing it in that way, but everything I see that's done digitally/electronically is basically a living document. We just happen to, for the most part, view those things that are posted or transmitted as locked in stone. They have both the permanence and ephemerality (is that a word?) of both printed and verbal words, respectively.

I think everyone has hit "Post" on something and instantly regretted it. I know I have. At least with message boards there's an edit button. But I do get the impression that with some people it's pure stream of consciousness, and they don't even read what they've written to check for spelling mistakes before posting, let alone think about it.

[BClayMoore]

The thing I find funniest is the notion of "not having a filter" when you're talking about posting words online. I know people who say the same thing about themselves when they're talking about speaking to one another, and things just verbally slip out, but when you're talking about online things like message boards, twitter, facebook, etc, you have an extra step that allows you to pause before you click post, preview posts, and/or edit your words as well for clarification or to remove things that you might instantly regret.

The thing about Erik is that I don't think he ever regrets anything he says or does. He doesn't see any need for a filter.

You should see him critique aspiring artists.

-Clay

[Suffering Sappho]

Misogyny can be applied casually, because misogynists apply it to casual things, such as cheap gimmicks.

"Well, he's not..." Same thing when it comes to racism, homophobia, etc. I know, they're strong words, but an industry that relies on fridging women to sell books is, in fact, misogynistic.

It doesn't mean they're out to oppress women, it just means it's such a default that they don't think twice about representing women that way.

If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you should address the practice of representing women that way instead of trying to change the label. The label has no inherent moral judgment beyond what it describes, even if we ascribe it that.

And if dudes agree, good for them. It means they aren't making excuses. Seeing posts like tghe OP is really tiresome, because it's all about making excuses. Sorry if it makes you feel bad, yo! Get over it. \o.o/

Yeah, I feel the same way a lot of the time too. It's gotten impossible to hold decent discussions in the media these days. You can't can't call out something as racist, or you'll be labeled a "reverse-racist" or be accused of playing "the race card". You can't call out something as sexist, or you'll be labeled a man-hater. I agree with Clay, that calling someone names is never the right way to go about things, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize an attitude or a comment someone makes. Those are two different things.

(This is in general, I'm not saying anyone is doing that in this thread. I'm actually really glad this hasn't devolved into name calling and stayed mainly on topic.)

[BClayMoore]

Yeah, I feel the same way a lot of the time too. It's gotten impossible to hold decent discussions in the media these days. You can't can't call out something as racist, or you'll be labeled a "reverse-racist" or be accused of playing "the race card". You can't call out something as sexist, or you'll be labeled a man-hater. I agree with Clay, that calling someone names is never the right way to go about things, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize an attitude or a comment someone makes. Those are two different things.

(This is in general, I'm not saying anyone is doing that in this thread. I'm actually really glad this hasn't devolved into name calling and stayed mainly on topic.)

I know. I've been hanging around the board for a couple of days because of this. It's been a long time since I hung around any message boards for long, largely for the reasons you cite.

Plus, I've been home alone all weekend trying to get a bunch of work done and haven't left the computer for more than an hour. (And I haven't really gotten much work done, either)

-Clay

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't think calling someone a misogynist or a racist (or that something is or something said is) is name-calling, though. They're very clear-cut terms.

If folks consistently use fridging, abusing, demeaning, degrading, and so on and so forth, women as plot points; when it's co common a practice that there's now a term for it, and it's all for the benefit of the big, strong guys (and the readers who lap it up), those folks have a streak of misogyny in them, and so does that industry.

I'd argue that sure, some folks do it to point out how wrong it is, but those times are rare. Most of the time, it's just yet another nasty exploitation in a genre that's rife with it. There's little consequence, or it's passed off as a joke.

I'm down with exploitation -- I appreciate suggestive poses and skimpy outfits on men and women alike, don't get me wrong -- but to pretend most of it is anything but misogynistic is willful ignorance.

It may not make people comfortable to label or be labled misogynists, racists, etc, but the answer is not to change or soften the word, it's to write better stories. It doesn't mean that that person wants to destroy the female race or that he hates women, but there is a lot of casual discrimination out there that many folks dish out, and they don't even realise that they do it because it's just such an ordinary part of the culture. You don't have to be a ravening monster to be influenced by these things.

And yes, in Hollow, there is an abused girl and she is exploited. Larime wrote the scene and that character, but that character is modeled on some of my teenage life. (She's not my analogue past some of what happened to her, though.)

[BClayMoore]

I don't think you can call depicting characters in suggestive poses or skimpy outfits "misogynistic."

That doesn't compute.

Hell, I don't even think it's sexist to appeal to prurient interests. I just think it's simple-minded marketing.

-Clay

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't think you can call depicting characters in suggestive poses or skimpy outfits "misogynistic."
No, that would be 'exploitative'. Misogynistic is the rape-and-or-murder-without-much-consequence plots that keep coming up.

It's 2010, mans, not 1910.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Read Erik Larsen's Twitter, and he's right about one thing that he wrote:

" Jack Cole's Plastic Man was the straight man in a crazy world, post-Cole he's largely been a goofball. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone "

Word-for-word Ethan Van Sciver quotation. But whatever.

EVS

[BClayMoore]

Read Erik Larsen's Twitter, and he's right about one thing that he wrote:

" Jack Cole's Plastic Man was the straight man in a crazy world, post-Cole he's largely been a goofball. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone "

Word-for-word Ethan Van Sciver quotation. But whatever.

EVS

You two should hang out.

-Clay

[Gail Simone]

Good lord, no!

[c. page]

The thing about Erik is that I don't think he ever regrets anything he says or does. He doesn't see any need for a filter.

You should see him critique aspiring artists.

-Clay

i've heard he notoriously brutal in his critiques. which can be both a good and a bad thing, i suppose.

[Gail Simone]

See, I think these critiques SHOULD be brutal.

I want to be nice, I want to be encouraging, but if someone brings me a book to critique they had better be prepared for me to tell the truth because nothing else will do them a lick of good in getting pro work and being Paula Abdul could actually damage their chances tremendously.

[Suffering Sappho]

I guess I just want to leave room to grow by not using "sexist" or "misogynist" to describe a person. A sexist, racist, misogynist, etc person won't change, but behaviors and attitudes can be changed. That's just how I handle those terms, but to each their own. I wouldn't stop anyone from saying another person is bigoted if they really felt they were. To me, it would take a lot for me to label a person that, but a consistent pattern of it might lead me there. I think your average person might not even realize what they are doing, and are just repeating things they hear in mainstream culture. If that sort of person's first encounter with equality supporters is "YOUR A (fill in term here)!", they might just run off and think they were right all along and that activists are just crazy people. But if someone should really know better, then they deserve to be called out on it.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

You two should hang out.

-Clay

I've been out with Erik Larsen once or twice. The last time was with Robert Kirkman though, and Robert is definitely the extrovert in that situation. So Erik didn't talk much. But he smirked a lot. :)

Larsen's Savage Dragon was such a huge influence on me when I started in comics...I have a lot of respect for his work. But I think someone should build a huge three headed Mount Rushmore to him, John Byrne and Peter David, and watch it collapse under it's own weight. The three of them are exactly the same guy, and yet they always seem to snipe at each other in columns and magazines.

[Reverend Smooth]

I think your average person might not even realize what they are doing, and are just repeating things they hear in mainstream culture.
That doesn't mean it, or they, are not consequently misogynists or racists or whatever else.

People can change, actually.

And generally, if folks say misogynistic or bigoted stuff, i tend to go o.O at first, and if they keep it up, I tell them to knock it the fuck off. "That's misogynistic!" probably contains more syllables than the person is worth.

Unless they're just being mildly so, at which case there's usually a gentler takedown for it.

But that doesn't stop the person or the behavior from being misogynist or whatever it is, and refusing to label what it is for what it is is, I dunno. I'm a direct person. I don't like it when people pussyfoot around things just because it's uncomfortable.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

See, I think these critiques SHOULD be brutal.

I want to be nice, I want to be encouraging, but if someone brings me a book to critique they had better be prepared for me to tell the truth because nothing else will do them a lick of good in getting pro work and being Paula Abdul could actually damage their chances tremendously.

I'm very kind in my critiques, because unless it's a hot girl, I don't care.

[Grey Warden]

See, I think these critiques SHOULD be brutal.

I want to be nice, I want to be encouraging, but if someone brings me a book to critique they had better be prepared for me to tell the truth because nothing else will do them a lick of good in getting pro work and being Paula Abdul could actually damage their chances tremendously.

I'm not in favor of a brutal critique, but rather honest and demanding, which to me helps a person out tremendously.

For example, I've looked over various people's papers and writings. I insist that they bring their A game to the table. Make it professional, formatted correctly.

I don't think its rude to demand certain things of papers. I do ask, and I lose interest if the person can't muster the effort to let me see their work when its good, as if they should have the option to slack off, or that I can't see the work polished.

To me it screams of I want your best while giving you a partial presentation. I don't want to shoot anyone down but damn, give me something to work with.

[Reverend Smooth]

See, I think these critiques SHOULD be brutal.

I want to be nice, I want to be encouraging, but if someone brings me a book to critique they had better be prepared for me to tell the truth because nothing else will do them a lick of good in getting pro work and being Paula Abdul could actually damage their chances tremendously.
There's ways to do it, but one should be honest.

I try to never critique my nonprofessional (or non-aspiring-to-be-pro) friends unless they directly ask me, and I try to keep it technical if they do: fix this, correct that, this proportion is off, line weight is dodgy.

"This sucks!" will never help anyone improve, though following that up with WHY it sucks might; a friend of mine did this years ago when I was learning to color with Pantones. Instead of getting butthurt about his simple, "It sucks!" I asked him why, and he was so surprised and gratified that I didn't take it personally that he showed me the proper technique and let me have free run of his studio and very expensive art toys.

[Gail Simone]

I don't mean pointlessly brutal, but sometimes a slap in the face is more helpful than a pat on the back. AND it separates out the serious from the not-so-serious.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I don't mean pointlessly brutal, but sometimes a slap in the face is more helpful than a pat on the back. AND it separates out the serious from the not-so-serious.

It also really depends. A not-so-great 17 year old is going to get a more encouraging review from me than a no-so-great 42 year old with a family. I mean, fuck it. It's not going to happen for you, pal. Back to work. :twisted:

[Gail Simone]

I guess I don't mean 'mean' so much as 'no bullshit sugar coating.'

I think you can say the truth and still be not a creep about it.

But sometimes you can't say the truth and still be liked.

And the truth is more important than being liked.

[JKCarrier]

" Jack Cole's Plastic Man was the straight man in a crazy world, post-Cole he's largely been a goofball. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone "

No argument there. It's one of the problems with having to shoehorn every character into the homogenized "DC Universe" -- just as Captain Marvel needs a sunny, whimsical universe in order to function properly, Plas needs a wacky world to react to. I thought Kyle Baker came up with an interesting variation on that, basically casting Plas as the hapless husband in a 1950s sitcom.

[NickT]

I don't mean pointlessly brutal, but sometimes a slap in the face is more helpful than a pat on the back. AND it separates out the serious from the not-so-serious.
But I disagree with the seperation thing, you can be serious and have someone who is overly harsh stop you. Plus, people can become more serious over time.

[BClayMoore]

No argument there. It's one of the problems with having to shoehorn every character into the homogenized "DC Universe" -- just as Captain Marvel needs a sunny, whimsical universe in order to function properly, Plas needs a wacky world to react to. I thought Kyle Baker came up with an interesting variation on that, basically casting Plas as the hapless husband in a 1950s sitcom.

I liked the PLASTIC MAN mini by Phil Foglio and Hilary Barta.

http://image2.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/61744082112.1.GIF

It's twenty years old now, but Barta remains one of the best cartoonists in comics.

-Clay

[Suffering Sappho]

That doesn't mean it, or they, are not consequently misogynists or racists or whatever else.

People can change, actually.

And generally, if folks say misogynistic or bigoted stuff, i tend to go o.O at first, and if they keep it up, I tell them to knock it the fuck off. "That's misogynistic!" probably contains more syllables than the person is worth.

Unless they're just being mildly so, at which case there's usually a gentler takedown for it.

But that doesn't stop the person or the behavior from being misogynist or whatever it is, and refusing to label what it is for what it is is, I dunno. I'm a direct person. I don't like it when people pussyfoot around things just because it's uncomfortable.

I guess the stuff I'm talking about would be classified as mild comments that just need a little nudge to get them in the right direction. Out and out hateful stuff I don't hesitate to label as hateful (Like NOM for instance). And, yeah, I do get pretty tired of tip-toeing around things so as not to offend the bigots. People have really latched onto this "reverse-racist" or "feminazi" thing, and I find one of the best ways to keep those comments down is to make it clear I think a certain book or view is the problem, not that I have a personal thing against all men and so I'm making crap up. Although, no matter how carefully I try to word something, I always get accused of simply being a man-hater and just needing to get laid or something, so maybe it is a stupid approach anyway. :frustrat: Oh well, I'll just keep trying.

And as far as critiquing art goes; I was both an art student and a writing tutor at one point, and the key is for the criticism to be constructive. Just saying "You suck" does no one any good, but saying "This sentence isn't clear, can you tell me the subject?" or "I don't understand how this painting reflects sadness, I see more anger. Maybe you could use blue instead of red" etc.

[Grey Warden]

I don't mean pointlessly brutal, but sometimes a slap in the face is more helpful than a pat on the back. AND it separates out the serious from the not-so-serious.

I guess being stringent is one thing. When I saw brutal I imagined "Mommie Dearest" (relentlessly) brutal. I've sat on some harsh critiques. The best ones have been able to strike balances between encouragement and bluntness.


It also really depends. A not-so-great 17 year old is going to get a more encouraging review from me than a no-so-great 42 year old with a family. I mean, fuck it. It's not going to happen for you, pal. Back to work. :twisted:

I dunno Ethan. If someone loves something a lot they should try harder at 42 more than ever. If they can't take the criticism, then they would need to find something else to do.

I love writing enough so even if people gave negative feedback about what I wrote, I would still want to do it, and keep on doing it. I love picking up tips and new ideas. I also don't believe in giving up on your dreams.

[BClayMoore]

The best thing is when someone asks for your opinion on their work and then argues with you when you give it to them.

-Clay

[stealthwise]

The best thing is when someone asks for your opinion on their work and then argues with you when you give it to them.

-Clay

Sadly, that might be why they asked. :)

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I guess being stringent is one thing. When I saw brutal I imagined "Mommie Dearest" (relentlessly) brutal. I've sat on some harsh critiques. The best ones have been able to strike balances between encouragement and bluntness.



I dunno Ethan. If someone loves something a lot they should try harder at 42 more than ever. If they can't take the criticism, then they would need to find something else to do.

I love writing enough so even if people gave negative feedback about what I wrote, I would still want to do it, and keep on doing it. I love picking up tips and new ideas. I also don't believe in giving up on your dreams.

Grey, yeah, but if you've seen a lot of portfolios, you do run across people who have absolutely NO talent, and no chance of developing enough skill to ever make a living at comics. And yet, you can tell they're putting a lot of time and effort into it. At some point, give up on your dreams. For the good of everyone around you.

EVS
Dream-squasher.

[Grey Warden]

Grey, yeah, but if you've seen a lot of portfolios, you do run across people who have absolutely NO talent, and no chance of developing enough skill to ever make a living at comics. And yet, you can tell they're putting a lot of time and effort into it. At some point, give up on your dreams. For the good of everyone around you.

EVS
Dream-squasher.

I see your point.

I have seen a lot of academic papers that scream "needs major work," and I've seen people not give their papers the quality revisions they so need.

[Gail Simone]

If someone genuinely wants to work in comics, I ask them if they are prepared for the truth, understanding that it is solely my opinion, but it's an opinion based on some experience.

If they say yes and mean it, then I feel the truth is the only thing that will do them any good. Sometimes the truth is, "You need to work more on this, you need to remake your pitch," and sometimes it's bigger, like more training or working on anatomy or taking some writing courses.

But I only have a few minutes and I just think being untruthful but kind is damaging and cruel, in the end.

[Reverend Smooth]

If one is going to try to make it in any creative career, one had better get used to a fairly brutal business. If you have dreams or illusions, drop them: those may come AFTER you are successful, and most people aren't successful. And if you aren't ready to hone your craft until you are close to, or at the calibre, of the people you want to emulate, don't bother.

This is a business, and the aim of that business is to push a product and make money. In this case, the product is not only art and stories, but everything that revolves around them: various rights, movies, scripts, concepts, toys, whatever merchandise, etc.

Good art can and does succeed, as does a whole lot of bad. But this business isn't there to make dreams happen. So if you just go in with dreams and not too much work ethic or willingness to take a hard look at your own work, you won't make it.

Some people are lucky to make good initial impressions, or get good gigs early (but that usually does involve talent). Some don't. That's just how it is. So there's no point in getting upset over a harsh review if it is less about the person making the art and more about the art itself, especially if different folks are saying the same thing. Evaluate the criticism and see if it's something you want to do, or not.