![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Tony Stark a womanizer? Not exactly.
Yeah, I said it. I don't think Tony Stark is a womanizer. I got to thinking about this after reading this thread on the CBR forums.
I said:
He isn't a womanizer and hasn't been for decades. Perhaps that's what his characterization was initially (I would argue otherwise, except in the reeeeally early days), but his sexuality is a lot more complicated than playah. I think, if you actually listed the women he's canonically had sex with, you'd be surprised at how low the number is for an international playboy. You'd also be surprised at how many of those sexual encounters took place in the context of a serious romantic relationship - and for a womanizer, he's been serious about a lot of women.
What SquidSquod is trying to get at, and you're missing is that 'womanizing' is destructive behaviour that's denigrating to both parties. It implies thinking of women as objects, which other than the typical hotchimamma kind of comments, Tony doesn't seem to do. Granted, he has some seriously sexist tendencies, but they fall more on the women-are-precious side of things, than on the women-are-for-me! side. Yeah, it's ok (morally, ethically, whatever) for Tony to be sexually active, and even really, really sexually active. That's totally in character for him - but his encounter with Jen was laughably out of character. I mean, astonishingly so. And it had some completely irredeemable shades of sexual violence, that Slott and editorial don't even seem to see (but that's a subject for another thread).
I think his relationship with Maya, as written by the Knaufs, is the perfect illustration of why Tony isn't a womanizer. Yes he's a guy who has, and enjoys casual sex, but he's also a guy with lots and lots of issues, who sleeps with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, and quite often ends up getting hurt. The Knaufs are right, I think, to point out that he's been burned a lot , and to have him cut down on the sexing around. Because let's face it - the guy's actual, in-comics pattern is to seek emotional intimacy through physical intimacy. This is a character who has the appearance of being a womanizer, but somehow keeps getting deeply, emotionally involved with woman after woman.
So Bendis will have him say things like "And that's why I'll never get married," after seeing Bob and Lindy argue, and yet on the other hand, he's contemplated marriage on more than few occasions.
Even Gage pointed out that Tony didn't get around nearly as much as he seemed to. It's really only Slott who's played up the playboy thing recently - Gage was working with the appearance of his being a playboy, but not so much the actuality. Note that when he tries to enjoy some time with Tyger Tiger it gets interrupted with another crisis. Brubaker may have had Tony sleep with 14 SHIELD agents, but he understands the character much better than Slott does. I trust him to be able to deal with a character's sexuality like a grownup, and do it in a psychologically realistic context.
But regarding the whole sleeping with subordinates thing: I really don't see this going away anytime soon. Tony's never respected sexual harassment legislation as much as he should. See his relationship with Pepper, way back when. It's one of the areas in which he thinks that rules are for other people. At the same time, he's always treating those women as people.
I agree with SquidSquod, in that if you actually show the character being a womanizer/playah/whatever, rather than just say it, you run the risk of making the character unretconably hateful to a lot of people. The key is to show Tony loving women, loving being with women, but not degrading them.
and in reply I got
If marvel was worried about the character being hated, they probably wouldn't have chosen him to headline Civil War in the first place. If you listen to all the critiism being tossed around by Stark, the fact that he sleeps around with SHIELD agents probably isn't that high on the list.
I recall back in the day Stark sleeping around with Wasp without her knowing that he was Iron Man. That was a respected teammate, and he was probably closer to Jan than he ever was to Jen. I'm not saying that he does what he did to Jen everyday... but it's not beneath him either. Like all good marvel characters, he's got issues... this is one of his. Can they make it go away? Sure. Will they? Probably not. Will the fact that he's a womanizing playboy hurt the character in the long run? I doubt it... it hasn't so far.
I don't even know how to respond to someone who thinks that Tony's relationship with Jan was just 'womanizing', or that his encounter with Jen was. I mean, good god. He used his secret identity to manipulate Jan into having a sexual relationship with him, that she otherwise would never have considered. That's, first of all, never been portrayed as something he does regularly, and second of all, not a ho-hum ordinary playah thing to do. I don't think it takes a radical feminist to see how fucked up that situation was, even for a guy who regularly lies about being a superhero to his girlfriends. That's Ant Man territory, right there, and they don't call him Irredeemable for nothing.
I read Tony and Jan's relationship as being a case where Tony couldn't quite see how badly he'd fucked up (and how badly he'd fucked up both Jan and himself), until he saw the fallout. He didn't even see how he was wrong, until after he'd lied to her. Not because it was ethically acceptable to him, but because he wouldn't allow himself to see it - there are moments where he almost admits it, but his superhuman powers of denial keep him from the realization. I also read it as being indicative of there being something really wrong in Tony's head, and for the record, even before her finding out, it's already got him thinking about drinking. He hurts Jan not because he wants to hurt her, but because he's selfish and really incredibly messed up - I think that it's crucial that his biggest moment of sexual jerkitude, comes during a period where he's psychologically unstable, and recently sober (and soon to fall off the wagon again). I don't know, call me crazy, but I don't think that's a coincidence.
But it is interesting that his relationship with Jan was never portrayed as anything but wrongwrongwrong, whereas his leaving a partially clothed Jen by the side of the road, after shooting her cousin into space, lying about it and sleeping with her while she was under his command, is getting virtually no attention outside of She-Hulk. What he did to Jen was deliberately and consciously cruel. And as much as Tony's been portrayed as a jerk, I've never read him as being cruel, at least not deliberately so.
I don't know, am I crazy? Please, tell me if I am.
I think it's important to draw a big line in the sand between the above two incidents, and the rest of the character's sexual history. You can't ignore them, but I think they're far from representative.
I also don't think that the character's canonical sexual history actually upholds the playboy label. I mean, I could accept it, if we could concede that he's one of the least successful playboys in the history of ever. The guy starts out engaged, and then gets serious about, at the very least, four women. He's shown to be unable to sustain casual sexual relationships without a) his girlfriend trying to kill him; b) his developing feelings for her; or c) both, usually both. Many of his most self-destructive relationships are with friends, or long-time acquaintances - he's constantly seeking out sexual relationships with people he already knows and trusts. And he's borderline masochistic about holding onto the relationships that cause him pain. Madame Masque, Pepper, Rumiko, Sunset Bain, Maya. I mean - dude.
So, thoughts?
I said:
He isn't a womanizer and hasn't been for decades. Perhaps that's what his characterization was initially (I would argue otherwise, except in the reeeeally early days), but his sexuality is a lot more complicated than playah. I think, if you actually listed the women he's canonically had sex with, you'd be surprised at how low the number is for an international playboy. You'd also be surprised at how many of those sexual encounters took place in the context of a serious romantic relationship - and for a womanizer, he's been serious about a lot of women.
What SquidSquod is trying to get at, and you're missing is that 'womanizing' is destructive behaviour that's denigrating to both parties. It implies thinking of women as objects, which other than the typical hotchimamma kind of comments, Tony doesn't seem to do. Granted, he has some seriously sexist tendencies, but they fall more on the women-are-precious side of things, than on the women-are-for-me! side. Yeah, it's ok (morally, ethically, whatever) for Tony to be sexually active, and even really, really sexually active. That's totally in character for him - but his encounter with Jen was laughably out of character. I mean, astonishingly so. And it had some completely irredeemable shades of sexual violence, that Slott and editorial don't even seem to see (but that's a subject for another thread).
I think his relationship with Maya, as written by the Knaufs, is the perfect illustration of why Tony isn't a womanizer. Yes he's a guy who has, and enjoys casual sex, but he's also a guy with lots and lots of issues, who sleeps with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, and quite often ends up getting hurt. The Knaufs are right, I think, to point out that he's been burned a lot , and to have him cut down on the sexing around. Because let's face it - the guy's actual, in-comics pattern is to seek emotional intimacy through physical intimacy. This is a character who has the appearance of being a womanizer, but somehow keeps getting deeply, emotionally involved with woman after woman.
So Bendis will have him say things like "And that's why I'll never get married," after seeing Bob and Lindy argue, and yet on the other hand, he's contemplated marriage on more than few occasions.
Even Gage pointed out that Tony didn't get around nearly as much as he seemed to. It's really only Slott who's played up the playboy thing recently - Gage was working with the appearance of his being a playboy, but not so much the actuality. Note that when he tries to enjoy some time with Tyger Tiger it gets interrupted with another crisis. Brubaker may have had Tony sleep with 14 SHIELD agents, but he understands the character much better than Slott does. I trust him to be able to deal with a character's sexuality like a grownup, and do it in a psychologically realistic context.
But regarding the whole sleeping with subordinates thing: I really don't see this going away anytime soon. Tony's never respected sexual harassment legislation as much as he should. See his relationship with Pepper, way back when. It's one of the areas in which he thinks that rules are for other people. At the same time, he's always treating those women as people.
I agree with SquidSquod, in that if you actually show the character being a womanizer/playah/whatever, rather than just say it, you run the risk of making the character unretconably hateful to a lot of people. The key is to show Tony loving women, loving being with women, but not degrading them.
and in reply I got
If marvel was worried about the character being hated, they probably wouldn't have chosen him to headline Civil War in the first place. If you listen to all the critiism being tossed around by Stark, the fact that he sleeps around with SHIELD agents probably isn't that high on the list.
I recall back in the day Stark sleeping around with Wasp without her knowing that he was Iron Man. That was a respected teammate, and he was probably closer to Jan than he ever was to Jen. I'm not saying that he does what he did to Jen everyday... but it's not beneath him either. Like all good marvel characters, he's got issues... this is one of his. Can they make it go away? Sure. Will they? Probably not. Will the fact that he's a womanizing playboy hurt the character in the long run? I doubt it... it hasn't so far.
I don't even know how to respond to someone who thinks that Tony's relationship with Jan was just 'womanizing', or that his encounter with Jen was. I mean, good god. He used his secret identity to manipulate Jan into having a sexual relationship with him, that she otherwise would never have considered. That's, first of all, never been portrayed as something he does regularly, and second of all, not a ho-hum ordinary playah thing to do. I don't think it takes a radical feminist to see how fucked up that situation was, even for a guy who regularly lies about being a superhero to his girlfriends. That's Ant Man territory, right there, and they don't call him Irredeemable for nothing.
I read Tony and Jan's relationship as being a case where Tony couldn't quite see how badly he'd fucked up (and how badly he'd fucked up both Jan and himself), until he saw the fallout. He didn't even see how he was wrong, until after he'd lied to her. Not because it was ethically acceptable to him, but because he wouldn't allow himself to see it - there are moments where he almost admits it, but his superhuman powers of denial keep him from the realization. I also read it as being indicative of there being something really wrong in Tony's head, and for the record, even before her finding out, it's already got him thinking about drinking. He hurts Jan not because he wants to hurt her, but because he's selfish and really incredibly messed up - I think that it's crucial that his biggest moment of sexual jerkitude, comes during a period where he's psychologically unstable, and recently sober (and soon to fall off the wagon again). I don't know, call me crazy, but I don't think that's a coincidence.
But it is interesting that his relationship with Jan was never portrayed as anything but wrongwrongwrong, whereas his leaving a partially clothed Jen by the side of the road, after shooting her cousin into space, lying about it and sleeping with her while she was under his command, is getting virtually no attention outside of She-Hulk. What he did to Jen was deliberately and consciously cruel. And as much as Tony's been portrayed as a jerk, I've never read him as being cruel, at least not deliberately so.
I don't know, am I crazy? Please, tell me if I am.
I think it's important to draw a big line in the sand between the above two incidents, and the rest of the character's sexual history. You can't ignore them, but I think they're far from representative.
I also don't think that the character's canonical sexual history actually upholds the playboy label. I mean, I could accept it, if we could concede that he's one of the least successful playboys in the history of ever. The guy starts out engaged, and then gets serious about, at the very least, four women. He's shown to be unable to sustain casual sexual relationships without a) his girlfriend trying to kill him; b) his developing feelings for her; or c) both, usually both. Many of his most self-destructive relationships are with friends, or long-time acquaintances - he's constantly seeking out sexual relationships with people he already knows and trusts. And he's borderline masochistic about holding onto the relationships that cause him pain. Madame Masque, Pepper, Rumiko, Sunset Bain, Maya. I mean - dude.
So, thoughts?
no subject
It was still wrong wrong wrong, because he knew she wouldn't choose to be with him if she knew he was Iron Man, but I don't think he manipulated her interest. That implies a maliciousness that I don't think he felt.
I take your point. I think it would be better if I said that he was unconsciously manipulating Jan, while being conscious of his ability to manipulate others, and of Jan's emotional makeup - so he knew he could do it, but didn't admit to himself that he was doing it. The reason that I think he manipulated her interest is that he makes a concerted effort to be what she wants. Yeah, that's something that everyone does at the start of a new relationship, but in the context of his sudden interest in her, and his obvious emotional need, I do think that it's more than just their being compatible and Tony's being on his best behaviour. I would have to reread the issue to support it, but that's my gut feeling. ;)
Now granted, this is a matter of interpretation, but I read that as an indication of how desperately he wanted a relationship with someone he truly liked and trusted.
No, I agree with you completely, and his argument with Steve does really bear this up - he was very defensive in that scene. Steve's rebuke is doubly painful, because it exposes Tony's dickery, and it could be interpreted by Tony as a rejection, a removal of Steve's emotional support.
But I must admit, after actually reading those issues, I've been surprised that no one seems to realize that Tony was also in a very emotionally fucked up period during that relationship.
I tend to think of this in relation to Hank Pym - the hint of sexualized violence or abuse tends to blind you to what's going on with the guy. So you get all these fans and writers who are convinced that Hank is a 'wife beater', when it was clear to me that physical violence was never a part of their relationship, outside of that one incident. I think that as a reader, male or female, it's hard to get past certain things. I mean, Tony/Jan has been troubling me, but now that I've started to talk it over, I'm starting to see more of what was going on with both characters. There's a distastefulness to certain subjects, that makes you want to either dismiss the character, or dismiss the subject. In the case of Tony/Jen, I kind of want to dismiss THAT subject - I can has retcon?
Jen's marriage was annulled, after it was revealed that her feelings for her husband were the result of a 'love zap' by an ex. It's an incredibly stupid storyline. Actually, most of the stories that explore Jen's sexuality are as mixed up, and weird as Tony's. Shockingly, a lot of comic book writers don't know how to handle the subject with maturity. *g* Anyway, by the time Tony and Jen have their fling she's single again. I'm with you on the no-married-women thing - pretty sure I've read the same thing, though I can't recall where.
no subject
*laughs* But I'm already following Iron Man, Captain America, Mighty Avengers, Marvel Adventures: Iron Man, Marvel Adventures: Avengers, Immortal Iron Fist, and various mini-series (two, at the moment...I think)! Do I really need another title to keep track of?
And make other people to acquire for me?I take your point. I think it would be better if I said that he was unconsciously manipulating Jan, while being conscious of his ability to manipulate others, and of Jan's emotional makeup - so he knew he could do it, but didn't admit to himself that he was doing it.
*nods*
The reason that I think he manipulated her interest is that he makes a concerted effort to be what she wants.
Hmmm. Yeah, this is totally true. And Tony Stark knows more about what she wants and/or needs right now than he should, because Iron Man knows the details of what went on between her and Hank. Inappropriate, thought not intentionally malicious, and (as you said) very much driven by Tony's emotional need at the time.
Steve's rebuke is doubly painful, because it exposes Tony's dickery, and it could be interpreted by Tony as a rejection, a removal of Steve's emotional support.
That didn't occur to me until you said it, but oh, so true. *hugs Tony*
I tend to think of this in relation to Hank Pym - the hint of sexualized violence or abuse tends to blind you to what's going on with the guy. So you get all these fans and writers who are convinced that Hank is a 'wife beater', when it was clear to me that physical violence was never a part of their relationship, outside of that one incident.
I wonder how I would have reacted to that story line if I'd read it at the time it was released, stretched out over the months. Coming at it after the fact, I've always been totally bemused by the fact that people always refer to Hank's "history of domestic violence". A single incident does not a history make! But people have very emotional reactions to that type of violence, so I do see why it loomed very large in people's minds.
There's a distastefulness to certain subjects, that makes you want to either dismiss the character, or dismiss the subject.
*nods* I understand completely. Sometimes, when I get to a part of canon that I don't like, I just don't want to think about it. Not think about it, not talk about it, and I want the canon to stop dealing with it ASAP so that I can start ignoring it. The fact that the nature of comics canon makes it so easy to pick and choose what canon you "keep", mentally, makes it that much easier to ignore difficult subjects.
Which is not always a bad thing, but sometimes poking at them more does reveal interesting things about the characters. (Of course, sometimes it just reveals how little the writer of the story line knows about the characters...)
In the case of Tony/Jen, I kind of want to dismiss THAT subject - I can has retcon?
Wait long enough, and it's almost inevitable. *g*
Jen's marriage was annulled, after it was revealed that her feelings for her husband were the result of a 'love zap' by an ex. It's an incredibly stupid storyline.
Argh! The ex being Starfox, yes? I think I read that somewhere else, probably in another post of yours. Or maybe I'm thinking that because I read Starfox's appearances in the Avengers not too long ago.
Actually, most of the stories that explore Jen's sexuality are as mixed up, and weird as Tony's. Shockingly, a lot of comic book writers don't know how to handle the subject with maturity. *g*
*laughs* Oh yes, very shocking. *g* But frustrating, too. :-( It's sad that the sexuality of strong women is so often screwed up.
Anyway, by the time Tony and Jen have their fling she's single again.
That's...better? Hard to be sure, given how mixed up this story line seems. :-(
no subject
Yes. Always. ;) True confession time: I've stopped buying all of the Avengers titles. If someone happens to upload an issue, and I happen to come across a link, then I might download it, but I can't justify actually spending money on Bendis' molasses-like storytelling when I'm enjoying other books so much more. I'm hoping that SI is the shot of adrenaline he needs to pull all his plot threads together and get things moving.
I'm reading Ms. Marvel, DoS, She-Hulk, Wonder Woman, Pax Romana and Transhuman monthly. I'm reading Y: the Last Man, Preacher, Alias, Buffy Season Eight, old Wonder Woman, Nightly News, Criminal and Transmetropolitan in trades.
And I'm working my way through a massive folder of downloaded comics that include the entire Avengers run, Captain America v5, Immortal Iron Fist, Sensational She-Hulk, a metric fuckload of old mystery and horror comics from both DC and Marvel, Birds of Prey, Scalped, Jonah Hex etc etc.
So I hear you, but of course you will always NEED MOAR TITLES, because that's just how comics fandom is. *g*
I wonder how I would have reacted to that story line if I'd read it at the time it was released, stretched out over the months.
I read a lot of comics after the fact, and I've noticed to that my reactions tend to be very different from people who follow the book month to month. I guess when you're reading individual issues you get an opportunity to solidify your opinions, before the next chapter comes along to shake things up. And of course there's a difference in how much time has been invested - I might read an entire run in a week or two, whereas someone else has been reading it for years. So of course we'll be coming at it from different places.
The fact that the nature of comics canon makes it so easy to pick and choose what canon you "keep", mentally, makes it that much easier to ignore difficult subjects.
I love that too, because in some ways, comics are the ultimate fandom. There's just so much flexibility for RPers, fic writers and even run of the mill fans to relate to the canon in whatever way they like - it's incredibly open in a way that most fandoms can't be. The only thing that comes to mind as being similar is soap operas, which have such long and meandering canons that people can see the characters in wildly different ways, and still be in line with the source material. Soaps even have retcons!
The ex being Starfox, yes?
Yup. I'm so not a Starfox fan. *shudder*
no subject
These days, I actually don't buy anything until it comes out in trades, just because I destroy single issues really quickly, and I never reread them because they have no spines, so I always forget what I have. So all the titles that I follow, I download. I do always buy the trades when they come out, so I refuse to feel bad about this; if I wasn't reading the downloads, I wouldn't be reading them at all.
And I'm working my way through a massive folder of downloaded comics
Heh. Me too, although my massive folder is actually the official Marvel DVD of the complete Avengers. I also have the official Marvel DVD of the complete Iron Man, which is next up after the Avengers. And then I'm gonna start working my way through the complete run of the West Coast Avengers, Force Works, and then I think I'm gonna have to bite the bullet and read all of Captain America, too, which I wasn't originally intending to. *g*
So I hear you, but of course you will always NEED MOAR TITLES, because that's just how comics fandom is. *g*
*laughs* I am so completely learning this. *g* Between all the historical crossover events I run across via the Avengers and the Secret Invasion, I just know I'm going to end up reading every freaking book in the Marvel U!
I guess when you're reading individual issues you get an opportunity to solidify your opinions, before the next chapter comes along to shake things up.
*nods* And I think one also gets more emotionally involved when you have to wait and wait for the storyline to resolve itself. Reading through Avengers after the fact, storylines just seem to fly by; six issues (the typical arc) don't take long to read. But if you spend six months immersed in that story, then it gets to you a lot more.
There's just so much flexibility for RPers, fic writers and even run of the mill fans to relate to the canon in whatever way they like - it's incredibly open in a way that most fandoms can't be. The only thing that comes to mind as being similar is soap operas, which have such long and meandering canons that people can see the characters in wildly different ways, and still be in line with the source material. Soaps even have retcons!
You know, I didn't think about soaps being similar in some ways, but that totally makes sense! It's the length of the run that does it. And comics can be kind of soap operaish sometimes, too. *g*
Anyway, this is the first time I've been in a comics fandom, so it's also my first experience in a fandom with this kind of flexible canon. It's definitely interesting.
Yup. I'm so not a Starfox fan. *shudder*
I don't mind him too much, at least in the Avengers stuff I've read, but there is something vaguely creepy about his "pleasure power".
no subject
Oooh. I've been thinking about picking up the DVDs. How do you find them? What's the interface like? Tell all. Also, when you get to West Coast and Force Works, you have to let me know if they're worth checking out. I've been waffling.
And I think one also gets more emotionally involved when you have to wait and wait for the storyline to resolve itself. Reading through Avengers after the fact, storylines just seem to fly by; six issues (the typical arc) don't take long to read. But if you spend six months immersed in that story, then it gets to you a lot more.
Absolutely. I also find that some titles just read really differently. I read an article recently about the limitations of the pamphlet form (ie monthly issues, 30 pages), and how they really warp the stories. I find myself getting frustrated with redundant information, cliffhanger endings and thin characterization. But what are you gonna do? ;)
You know, I didn't think about soaps being similar in some ways, but that totally makes sense! It's the length of the run that does it. And comics can be kind of soap operaish sometimes, too. *g*
They always say that wrestling is a soap opera for boys - I think comics qualify too. Maybe it makes it easier for them to admit they like all the relationship drama when there's lots of punching going on in the background? ;)
I don't mind him too much, at least in the Avengers stuff I've read, but there is something vaguely creepy about his "pleasure power".
Yeeeah. These kinds of powers always creep me out. I'm seriously uncomfortable with real sexual coercion (and not say, roleplay), and heavy emotional manipulation. Especially when so many writers aren't really interested in the implications - they just want to get back to moving the plot along.
no subject
I like them. Everything on them is in PDF format, so they're nice and stable. (Unlike .cbr files, which are always crashing the viewer for me.) The interface is kind of silly: PDF pages that open other PDF pages, so if you want to flip between the issue and the index and the higher level indices, you have to use the "Window" menu. And the issues are organized chronologically, so you have the 1960's index, and then the 1961 index, and that links to the issues.
But since they're all PDFs, and the folders and files are very clearly named on the DVD, I don't use the indexes at all anymore (unless I want a quick review of all the covers in any given year; the covers are shown on each year's index page). I just open the folder for the year that I'm reading and open the issue I want directly.
The big downside to the DVDs is that when they say "The Complete Avengers" etc., what they mean is all the issues of that specific run. The DVDs include the annuals, but they DON'T include special issues, like Giant-Size issues, or extra issues that enhance certain storylines, etc. This has drive me crazy occasionally, because stories keep finishing or starting in special issues.
Still, it's hard to beat 535 issues for $50.
Also, the DVD occasionally tells me that an issues I've clicked on doesn't exist. Possibly this is my computer, or the fact that I've been using the DVD continuously for about four months now. I just eject it and put it right back into the drive and it works fine.
Also, when you get to West Coast and Force Works, you have to let me know if they're worth checking out. I've been waffling.
Will do! I suspect Force Works is going to suck, given when it was written. 1994 to 1995: right smack dab in the middle of the Era of Bad Comics. We'll see about West Coast Avengers.
I read an article recently about the limitations of the pamphlet form (ie monthly issues, 30 pages), and how they really warp the stories. I find myself getting frustrated with redundant information, cliffhanger endings and thin characterization. But what are you gonna do? ;)
Oh yeah, the redundant information is definitely my biggest pet peeve. I understand completely why they have to do it, but every time we get a repetitive flashback or panels and panels of summarizing past events via dialogue I want to yell, "You could be using this space for characterization! Or to rationalize this silly plot! Argh, wasted time!"
The constant cliffhangers don't actually bother me that much, strangely.
They always say that wrestling is a soap opera for boys - I think comics qualify too. Maybe it makes it easier for them to admit they like all the relationship drama when there's lots of punching going on in the background? ;)
*laughs* More like it's easier for them to pretend they don't like all relationship drama when there's something else they can point to as to why they watch it. *g* Must maintain that macho facade.
These kinds of powers always creep me out. I'm seriously uncomfortable with real sexual coercion (and not say, roleplay), and heavy emotional manipulation. Especially when so many writers aren't really interested in the implications - they just want to get back to moving the plot along.
So true. The majority of writers treat sexual coercion and even rape as if it's the same as the character getting punched (or punching someone) a few times. And it isn't.
no subject
The constant cliffhangers annoy me because it of what it does to my experience when reading a run straight through. It's like story-story-OMGCLIFFHANGER-story-story-OMGCLIFFHANGER-lather-rinse-repeat. I don't, it gets to me after a while. I feel like shouting OMG! DIAL DOWN THE EMOTION!
"You could be using this space for characterization! Or to rationalize this silly plot! Argh, wasted time!"
Totally agree with you on this. So. Much. Agreement.
The majority of writers treat sexual coercion and even rape as if it's the same as the character getting punched (or punching someone) a few times. And it isn't.
I have the same problem with the telepathic shenanigans. Some writers don't understand how much that kind of forced intimacy would screw a person up. Especially superheroes, many of whom are already such dysfunctional personalities.
no subject
It does give the story arc a very punctuated rhythm. Instead of a slow build and a climax you get this very quick up and down, which can be jarring.
I have the same problem with the telepathic shenanigans. Some writers don't understand how much that kind of forced intimacy would screw a person up. Especially superheroes, many of whom are already such dysfunctional personalities.
*nodding* And they also never deal with the fact that most people outside of the situation wouldn't realize or wouldn't believe that telepathic control was responsible, which means a lot of people would be reacting to the controlled person as if they were responsible for what they did while under control.