Comics

Don’t Look At This Link Till You Get Home

Comics, Culture, Internet, Sexuality
Published on
'...and then they lezzed up'
'...and then they lezzed up'

Oo-er Missus Wikicommons….

I was a bit shocked, I admit, when I found these pronographic cartoons (your mileage may vary) by 18th century satirist Thomas Rowlandson portraying our antecedents – how shall I describe it – doing what comes naturally, in colour and in great detail.

This collection of respectable (it’s Georgian, innit) wickedness has well over a thousand bookmarks on delicious alone, which is unsurprising given Rowlandson’s explicit lubriciousness. I’m only surprised it doesn’t have more. I haven’t checked Digg.

Me? I only came across it by accident whilst googling for satire and cartoon archives, I swear.

Though I knew his political cartoons such is my usual tunnel vision I had no idea Rowlandson had drawn pornography, or even that you could get such things on Wikipedia. That seems astonishingly naive of me given that well-thumbed (no, that is not a euphemism) copies of both Cleland’s Fanny Hill and Defoe’s Moll Flanders sit on my bookshelves: I’m not a modern-day Mrs. Grundy who tries to play down the Georgians’ robust attitude to sex.

But I wasn’t aware just quite how robust it was. After having seen Rowlandson’s naughty cartoons I’m not surprised that Austen’s heroines were always blushing.

I’ll never read her or Maria Edgeworth with the same eyes again. Where’s my copy of Castle Rackrent? I feel a re-read coming on.

ObDisclaimer

Emphatically Not Safe For Work or if you are a minor or in a repressive jurisdiction.

It really is very naughty indeed.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Christian Voice breaks the ninth commandment

bigotry, Comics, Religion, Sexuality, Wingnuts
Published on

the Mattel Black Canary doll in question

In an unsurprising display of hypocrisy, UK “Christian” hate group “Christian” Voice has broken the ninth of the ten commandments, the one about not bearing false witness against your neighbour”, a commandment often broken by those socalled Christian groups more inspired by hate than love. This particular group has been best known for going nuts about Jerry Springer: the Opera, where they managed to convince the cancer charity Maggie’s Centres to decline a four-figure donation from the proceeds of a special performance of the opera. In a rare display of karma, their head nutcase, Stephen Green then sued the makers of the opera for blasphemy, lost the court case, was ordered to pay the legal costs of his opponents and now is in danger of going bankrupt. Couldn’t have happen to a nicer guy.

Nevertheless this hasn’t stopped “Christian” Voice from making a nuisance of themselves, this time being offended by something very important indeed: a Barbie doll! Said Barbie doll, being part of a range of figures modeled on famous DC comics superheroines, is dressed in the costume of Black Canary, a heroine with a pedigree going back to 1947. The “Christian” Voice activists however insist that this is a “S&M Barbie” and “pure filth”, which in my book is definately bearing false witness to both Mattel and DC.

As you can see from the picture, only a loon would describe this as a “S&M outfit”, but of course if Christian Voice told the truth and said they were disgusted with a mildly sexy dressed Barbie doll even more people would laugh at them than they do now. By breaking the ninth commandment they at least get their press release in The Sun, which is always in for a bit of moral panic, even if their regular page three feature hardly confirms with the kind of morals “Christian” Voice allegedly supports.

and hey, what’s more important: actually attempting to abide by some of the most important commandments of your religion, or getting your name in the papers?

Comment of the Day: Truth, Justice but not the American Dream

Comics, Life under Capitalism
Published on

Dirk Deppey, of the comix newsblog Journalista comments on the recent court decision to grant part of the Superman copyright to the heirs of Jerry Siegel. As you may know if you’re into American superhero comics, Jerry Siegel and Joes Shuster created Superman in the thirties, tried to interest various newspaper comic syndicates for it with no success, only to end up with a bargain, borderline criminal publisher in the new but still very marginal field of comic book publishing. Superman not only made that small publisher into what was for decades the biggest comics publisher in the world, but was part of the foundation for the giant Times-Warner empire, not to mention gave the nascent comic book industry a flying start, with millions of people following the adventures of Superman and his many imitators each month. Then came the radio serial, newspaper strip, movie serial, animation series, tv series, motion picture series, computer games, more animation and so on und so weiter.

How much did Siegel and Shuster get paid for the rights to all this, which has made millions upon millions of profit? One hundred and thirty dollar. Yes, for a few years they were paid rather well for their work, but that was solely for their labour, not for their creation. Once DC realised they didn’t need them anymore, the first time they got uppity, they got chucked. Siegel stayed in the industry and eventually had to work for DC again as just another scripter, while Shuster, eyesight failing, went to work for the post office and eventually was discovered almost broke and living in obscurity. With the success of the seventies movies DC was shamed into giving them some compensation, but as Dirk Deppey says, that original deal was a refutation of the American Dream:

I wish I could remember where I read it — I’m tempted to credit either Neal Adams or R. Fiore — but one of the most damning things I ever read about the Siegel and Shuster legacy was that it was a refutation of the American Dream. One of the defining principles of the United States, after all, has always been the notion that regardless of the circumstances from which you began in life, if you came up with the right idea or hit the right motherlode you would profit from it accordingly, and pass the wealth along to your family when you died. I don’t know if the “rags to riches” story was invented by an American, but it was almost certainly perfected by one.

The story of how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster brought Superman to DC Comics, and how DC subsequently treated them, turns this notion on its head. $130 and a job — that’s what Siegel and Shuster got, and they only had the latter so long as they were willing to play ball. And when Siegel and Shuster did try to better their circumstances, they were quickly shown the door. Jerry Siegel found himself crawling back to DC Comics, writing for their mediocre wages in the 1950s and 1960s, his most famous creation published with no credit for its author and no compensation for its success. Joe Shuster found himself working for the Post Office, unable to draw due to his failing eyesight and drawing no income for the legendary work that he’d done decades before.

I See You Baby, Shading That Ass

Comics, Life under Capitalism, Women
Published on

Wonder Woman then:

Via Pen-Elayne here’s comics editor and blogger Occasional Superheroine on why some modern comics should be classified as erotica, not comics.

T&A Superheroines pose in every panel in a manner than accentuates their chest or ass. They often are depicted on covers half-naked. T&A Superheroines are ostensibly “empowered” females, tough wimmens…but written mostly for the males in the audience.

[…]

But that genre needs to be recognized and called what it is — fantasy/soft-core erotica. It’s not about mainstream superheroines. It’s not for children. It’s not the norm. It’s specialized.

Exactly. It’s the same reason why I stopped reading comics aged about 14. I just got too irritated as female characters were reduced to identikit hair, breasts, buttocks and pudendae. Similarly I’ve never really developed a taste for manga (it’s the creepy eyes) or most genres of anime. I’ve tried but the the fetish for big breasted yet childlike women drives me away.

As if superheroines like Supergirl, Catwoman weren’t hypersexualised enough already, along comes the porn makeover.

Wonder Woman now:

But hey, each to their own. I just wish some comics fans would stop trying to dignify what’s a pefectly legitimate sub-genre in it’s own right, graphic art/erotica/adventure/porn (choose your own description), with canonical status and then expecting women who do like comics to accept that kind of objectification as literature.

Of course graphic novels and comics can be and are literature, but I do agree with OS and i’d take it further: that the portrayal of superheroines has gone a long way down the road towards violent porn and away from any resemblance at all to actual women, while still claiming to be all about empowering the chicks.

Some might call it empowerment: I call it wank material.

That’s fine. Wank away if the spirit moves you, who am I to crriticise? But if the industry admitted that that is what it is they’d lose a big chunk of their ‘respectable’ market.

I don’t suppose a lot of parents look twice at their kids’ comic collections, but if they did I suspect they’d be shocked and want it banned. ‘Twas ever thus; here’s a portion of the 1954 Comics Code:

  • Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
  • Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.,/li>
  • Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
  • Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.,/li>
  • Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
  • Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
  • Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

I’d hate to be the killjoy who shut off teenage access to graphic adventure porn, better graphic than real if you ask me, no-one gets hurt. And I’m not suggesting a heavy-handed new Comics Code Censorship isn’t the way to go.

I suppose one way around the problem would be for comic illustrators and auithors to willingly model their female characters less on ‘roided-up S&M porn stars and more on actual women, albeit with amazing superpowers. I’m not holding my breath: women aren’t the market these comics are now aiming for. I just wish they’d admit it.