schmevil

In Castiel's second appearance, he comments that he is a soldier of God, and does not perch on anyone's shoulder. If I'm not imagining things, he makes reference to the host of heaven, on several occasions, and their ongoing war against the legions of hell. In the Christian tradition heaven has an army, but there are lots of other things on their agenda. Angels are warriors, messengers, protectors and devoted worshipers of God. There are angels whose entire purpose is to praise God. There are angels who spend all their time delivering messages from God.

1. Is Supernatural's heaven just in total war mode, or is it really wholly given over to soldiering? The demons of hell clearly have purpose beyond releasing Lucifer from his prison, and bringing about the end days - overwhelmingly, demons seem to be interested in causing pain for pain's sake. Do Supernatural's angels have a similar side gig?( Read more... )

I want to do a post on this subject, but I've got to run off to work. So I'll just throw up a few questions, and get back to this later.


1. Is unauthorizied remix a fannish 'crime'?

2. If yes, why? Or: if all fanworks are transformative works (i.e. remixes of one kind or another), and are by nature unauthorized (save a very few exceptions), why is it 'criminal' to transform the creative works of other fans?

4. How does this strike you:

Capitalist copyright is about property is about money.

Fannish copyright is about credit is about status.

4. If the original creator is properly credited (Original vid by Dude. Remixed by Dude 2), does s/he have a leg to stand on if s/he hates the transformative work, and wants it gone? Can s/he do more than publicly eviscerate it?

Culled from badficwriter's post about how Scans Daily is changing, some of of my comments on the creators in scans_daily dilemma:

Regarding the creator/fan issue, the trouble is that in comics fandom, those spaces are already blurred. The comics industry and fandom is a drop in the proverbial bucket, compared to SW, ST or HP. It's a small world, and one in which there are fewer barriers to entering creatorhood. As hard as it is to break into comics professionally, it's a lot harder to become a movie director, or a billionaire novelist. We're in a fandom in which potentially, any of us could become creators, and in which creators are also operating as fans. Remember, we have a lot of members who produce their own webcomics, or are artists and writers working for small presses. Some of whom were using scans_daily to promote their work.

We're also looking at increasing numbers of creators wanting to get in on the action; to try to steer the conversation to their advantage, and use fora like ours, to promote themselves and their work. And although it might be more comfortable for us, we can't keep them out. We can't put up an anti-creator firewall. What we could do, is be as unwelcoming as possible to creators, but that amounts to a) begging for trolls; and b) excluding people like Gail Simone, Kurt Busiek, and Warren Ellis, who've figured out how to navigate the uncertain waters of creator/fan interaction on the internet. So the dilemma becomes do we exclude all creators, or find a way to potentially let all creators in? A community can't cherry pick its membership and still be open and welcoming - I think that would change the SD culture far more than moving away from creator-evisceration (live on channel 5!).

I don't think we have to kiss ass to be welcoming to creators. I don't think we should kiss ass. If I wanted to spend my fannish time fawning over say, Gail Simone, I would be on a Gail fansite, singing her praises. I also don't think that we're being ruled by the will of corporations. What we're being ruled by, is common sense. If we can't keep the creators out (and do we want to, completely?) then we have to live with them. We fans make up the majority of SD's population, and as such, we have more power to shape how creator/fan interactions will play out here. Yes, creators bring with them their creatorly power (a certain amount of authority to speak about their work, and the comics industry as a whole), but they are stepping into our space. We have a certain amount of ability to make those interactions work for us, and likewise, we have to bear a some responsibility for when they go pear shaped. Barring outright ignorance or trolling on the part of creators, which hey, in no way is on us. Or creator and corporate attempts to shut down our discussion, which again, is not on us, but instead reflects on their fear of fan power (fan space) chipping away at theirs.

And look, many of our conversations here will continue to be uninteresting to a lot of creators. Being less overtly hostile to creators doesn't mean they'll suddenly descend on us, in a flurry of self-promotion. Dealing with fans, even ones as mild as us *cough* are a challenge for quite a lot of creators. The fact is that some will never be interested in deepening their relationship with us - I hardly think we have to worry about Frank Miller showing up and complaining about his work not getting enough love.

Our particular fannish expression exists in a legal gray area (and it's a very dark shade of gray). We've seen our community shut down, and some of our members threatened. Right now, not just the rules, but also the community norms are in flux. None of us know what this community will look like in six months. I for one vote AWESOME, but, yeah. That's up to you guys too. :)

It's my opinion that we can being critical without being vitriolic. We can hate, with the power of a thousands suns even, without shaming ourselves with nastiness and outright abusiveness. And ultimately, I don't think that creator-bashing is an essential part of our culture. (Maybe comics culture as a whole, but...)

I had a thought. Indulge me.

Mark Millar has a new project coming soon in Wolverine. It's called Old Man Logan. It's a future tale, about what Logan looks like, in a post-superhero world. Millar says that he was initially inspired by the superlative Unforgiven. At first that got me crazy excited, because Unforgiven is one of my all-time favourite Westerns. I thought I might be reading a Wolverine comic for the first time in years.

Then I read on. ( cut for spoilers, though I'm sure most of you don't care )

Now, I'm not one to call for fewer mutated freaks in my superhero comics, particularly in my X-comics, but let's face it, this can only end in tears. All criticisms of Millar aside, he's got too many disparate ideas in there to explore in the short time he's alotted - he's too ambitious, and when compressed into a short story arc, it's going to be complete and utter crack. And probably not the good kind.

Still, the idea of doing Logan's Unforgiven is imho fantastic, and it's what I want to talk about today. Unforgiven is an old story. Like A History of Violence, it tracks a criminal who's gone straight, found a family and a normal life. All is well, until some outside force invades their little slice of paradise, and starts to tear it all down. In A History of Violence, it's a chance encounter with two criminals on the run. In Unforgiven it's nature itself - the farm is failing, the children are sick, and when an offer of one last job comes along, it's too necessary (not too good) to refuse. Both movies are about how you can't outrun your past, and you can't outwit fate.

There's also the non-criminal version of the story, which you can find in 3:10 To Yuma and so many other movies. Really, it's one of THE Western stories. It's a story about masculinity, humanity, duty and loss. And if you hadn't guessed, it's a story I'll never get tired of.

Now imagine a many years post-superhero world. Logan has turned his swords into ploughshares and for a time he's happy, until something goes wrong. Something forces him back into the world he chose to leave behind, too tired, too exhausted morally, spiritually and physically to keep on saving the day.

Break him down, and what Logan is, is a cowboy. He's a character type that's very much at home in Westerns.

Logan's abilities, both natural and acquired, are all of the body, they're all very human - the character is the antithesis of everything technological. So many of his stories have him outwitting technological solutions to the special problem he poses, or having his enhanced senses turn out to be superior to some new gadget. His eternal dilemma is controlling those pesky berserker rages he's plagued with - the monkey on his back is his own animal nature, which constantly threatens to overtake his human reason.

And then there's his character - his affinity for dying traditional cultures, particularly that of Japan; his contradictory needs for solitude, and then human society, just to keep him sane; his personal code of honor, that he's willing to overlook, if the need is great enough; his love of the simple pleasures; his willingness to be talked into sacrificing it all for the greater good, even when he doubts the existence of a greater good.

He's nostalgia, pure and simple. *** Everything about the character recalls to us a bygone era that never was. A time when men were men, and life was nasty, brutish and short. But sometimes, if only briefly, beautiful.

( Read more... )

A couple months back I started reading Birds of Prey posts on scans_daily. It seemed like a fairly cool book, and I decided to read from the start. So I read all the way from the first mini to issue 114 - a few months behind the current issue. Chuck Dixon and Gail Simone are the two writers who really shaped this book. Dixon developed the idea of the Birds, and established their mythos. Simone made them a family.

I appreciate a lot about both of their runs, but in terms of exciting storytelling, I think that in many ways, Dixon's is superior. Dixon had a very clear idea of who the Birds were and gave them a mission that distinguished them from all the myriad other DC super-teams. He maintained a tight focus on short, mission-focused arcs that combined James Bond-like espionage, Indiana Jones-like adventure, and the particular wackiness of the DC universe.

Under Simone, the Birds started to lose focus. Instead of only being a proactive super-taskforce, Oracle decided to 'police' the meta community, by tracking down those who 'went too far'. She expanded her pool of operatives, and with the inclusion of powerhouses like Big Barda, the Birds started to look an awful lot like other super-teams. Then came Misfit, and all pretense of the Birds being a relatively low-power, low-profile team of super-spy-adventurers flew out the window. Arcs dragged on. And on. And it became increasingly difficult to pinpoint what made the Birds unique, aside from their vaginas.

There is a lot about Simone's run that I love. Love the friendships between the Birds. Love her dedication to continuing the theme of salvaging characters that were left by the wayside, and developing them into something new and interesting. Love Black Canary's development, and the entire arc of her training to be a better fighter. Love. What I don't love is the way the book took a left turn into Girly Justice League-ville, near the end of her run.

Probably the standout period for me, is just after Lady Blackhawk joins the team, when Oracle is trying to redeem Savant and Creote, and Black Canary is an unstoppable freightrain of pwn. It's also a period marked by cracktastic, kung fu teamups, like this one:



OMG! Soon after this undeniably awesome teamup, the book started to lose the sense of danger that made it interesting. The Birds increasingly started to play in the big leagues, leaving behind their dirty ops background. The McKeever Birds, who fight giant robots in Metropolis (albeit unsuccessfully) are a far cry from the ones who served up righteous helpings of pain to the wicked, (wo)mano a (wo)mano. Though I only recently spreed through the book, when others have been invested for years, I still find myself missing those Birds.

Simone, in opening up the book to the larger DC universe, and establishing Oracle's ability to call in the big guns at will, started the trend that's lead us to teen meta brawls, giant robots and a complete absence of any reason for the Birds to exist. What Simone did wasn't all bad. Under her, the Birds rolled along fairly comfortably, balanced between outright superheroics and being a crime fighting strike team. But under McKeever, everything she built fell apart, because he lacks her ability to strike that balance, and the mostly gentle sense of humour that helped it all hang together.

Simone's Birds were comfortable, easy to read and easy to identify with.

I'm starting to think, by the way, that this is the defining feature of her writing: comfort. Simone isn't a really challenging writer. She's not going to blow your mind, but put her on an ailing book and she'll steer it back on track, and deliver issue after issue of solid writing.

My ideal Birds would be something like Gail Simone redoing the Chuck Dixon plots, for added humanity. Or possibly just a whole lot of Black Canary punching people, and Huntress and Catman flirting...

***

Late as usual, I've discovered Monster. Holy awesome opening credits. Gotta love the wank in the comments:

"Okay newschool faggots, Deathnote does NOT compare to Monster. Deathnote became retard from creation. The creator of Deathnote cannot even read or speak english, that's why the title isn't death notebook. Whereas Monster has actual German in it etc."

Deathnote became retard from creation. You heard it here first.

But in all sincerity? Monster=OMG BEST ANIME EVER!!1!

I don't really feel like doing an Iron Man reaction post. Maybe after I've seen it a second time, which was supposed to be last night, but the rain and PMS drove me back inside.

Instead I want to talk about Steve/America/Tony, the unspoken OT3 of the Steve/Tony ship. And by that I mean friendship, working relationship, romantic relationship - however you read them, my comments are (mostly) general enough to apply. However, I’m not sure how interesting they will be to people who aren’t me. Fair warning: extreme TL;DR.

Captain America and Iron Man, (and Steve and Tony), represent two different clusters of American ideals. Within the Marvel Universe, more than most heroes, they are representatives of America, and of the American military industrial complex. Captain America is the one they* chose. Iron Man is the one they earned. Neither has been exactly what they'd like - neither has been quite as good for business as hoped. ( Read more... )

What's up with the writers? I mean, really? I was thinking about writing a post detailing all the ways in which Dan Slott projected his conflicted feelings about sexuality onto She-Hulk. Then I saw this post by box_in_the_box, and I realized that we're not done with this phenomena, even though Slott's left the book.

PAD says:

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to side with the "not a good idea" contingent. I think any normal man who would have sex with She-Hulk is courting disaster. I don't care how stiff your stiffy is: She-Hulk's vaginal muscles alone, if she were to orgasm, would be enough to earn you a trip to the E.R. The price of a tumble with She-Hulk being broken bones pales in comparison to the prospect of a broken boner because, yes kids, it can break, and not all the king's horses, men or Viagra will put Humpty back together again. Lambskin Trojans? Forget that. Tony Stark must have used an amored condom. The Invinicible Iron Man Thing.

Is it possible that She-Hulk can't reach climax? I suppose. That would explain her bed hopping: An ongoing quest to find a man who can send her to Happyland. Me, I wouldn't want to roll those dice. I'm not sure how any guy would consider the bragging rights inherent in bagging the She-Hulk worth risking the rest of his sex life for, should he happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when She-Hulk finally gets her G-spot hit.

So Dan Slott writes stories about the evils of promiscuity, and PAD thinks that She-Hulk is physicially incapable of having sex with a 'normal man' and that her 'bed hopping' is a consequence of her not being able to find a man who can withstand her mighty vaginal muscles. That's 31 flavours of fail right there, folks, particularly considering that Jen and She-Hulk are both sexually active, and both canonically enjoy sex. ( Read more... )

So I just spreed through Grant Morrison's New X-Men and I'm left with an overwhelming feeling of... huh. His ideas, while interesting and fun, often work against the X-Men mythos, to the point where his run is destructive of the brand. It's easy to see why they decided to retcon and overwrite quite a lot of his Big Ideas, and chose Joss Whedon as his successor. I'm just starting Whedon's run but it's far more in line with the X brand than is Morrison's - it's
very much what the company needed, in order to keep the the property viable.

* And I say this knowing that he brought in new readers. I question whether they were the kind of readers Marvel could milk for 20 years though.

The problem with Morrison's run is that it tried to change the world of the X-Men in a way that was incompatible with the shared Marvel Universe, and that severely limited the kind of day-to-day superheroics that keep a franchise plugging along, decade after decade. Morrison's run was a reinvention, and really freakin' cool reinvention at that, but I quite often got the impression that he didn't really like the X-Men.

Characterization was painfully thin at times, sacrificed in favour of plot, and the run is largely devoid of quiet, team moments. And it's those quiet moments that really make a teambook work - this is a team that can barely stand to be in the same room together for any period of time. Which is fine, in and of itself, but I'm not even talking about the tension between Jean and Emma - Morrison is really focused on one-to-one dynamics, and hardly interested in the group.

( yay and nay )

This post is basically a bookmark of an interesting discussion, but I also have a request.

Can anyone link me to posts about the 'queerness' of straight women reading and writing femslash? I remember some discussion of this months ago, but I can't find it now.

hth_the_first: slash communities and queer fan communities.
telesilla: Academics and Straight Fans.
mecurtin: Take pity on my fail; also, my possibly unpopular opinion and What I mean by 'queer'.
ithiliana: response to telesilla's post.
fairestcat: Queer People, Queer Acts and Queer Spaces.

***

Also, icon - love, hate, indifferent?

I read this essay a few months ago, about Snape's death. Specifically it was about how his death was undignified, silly and generally unworthy of such a great man.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, I think Snape pretty much hit the motherfucking jackpot in the Potterverse death sweepstakes. Getting your head bitten off by a snape/horcrux beats the hell out of stumbling through a veil, or getting offed by Molly freakin' Weasley. I mean, if there was a way to go that was unworthy of Snape THAT would be it - getting taken out by a jumped up housewife. And hey, at least he got a death scene. Not every fan favourite can say so much. Nothing says "Your favourite character is unimportant and you're an idiot for loving him" like reading about him dying somewhere, off page.

And come on, we're talking about a guy who was so deep cover that we couldn't be certain of his loyalties until he was dead. Although I've always known how it would turn out. I'm not sure how a surprise attack by a magical attack-snake works out as a bad death for him. I mean, who expects attack-snakes? Really.

The fact that Voldemort took Snape out with Nagini rather than dueling him actually speaks to both their intelligence: "Hey maybe it's not a good idea to directly fight a guy who: 1) has obviously been spying on me for years; 2) knows my moves and a hell of a lot of dark magic, besides being the only other wizard to fly without a broom; 3) is the dude who KILLED DUMBLDORE. Especially considering that 1) I'm in the middle of an assault on Hogwarts, which is defended by students, teachers, the Order of the Phoenix and all six trillion members of the Weasley clan; and 2) I'm gearing up for a battle to the death with my arch-nemesis. Maybe I'll just ninja this fucker instead!"

In conclusion, I'm pro snake bite. Good night and good luck.