The
pointless discrimination against comics fans’ freedom of speech
May 5, 2005
By Avi Green
I made an interesting recovery, if you’ll call it that, when I
looked through Archive.Org
recently, and found one of the Gut the Machine columns that Hero
Realm webmaster Alex Hamby wrote last year on July 6, 2004, the one
titled “Fanboys
find no Pleasure.” (I've also written some extra thoughts on
the columns he wrote on this article here.)
And having taken the time to re-read it, I can pretty much say that
it most certainly is worth trying to dissect the way my great
friends on the blogosphere, including Front Page Magazine’s
contributors, can with articles from newspapers from the NY Times
and the Washington Post.
(In fact, when finding them there again, I thought to re-edit my
earlier essay
in order to include links to them there as well, as you’ll notice if
you take a look there again.)
So now, let’s take another analytical look at the structure of an
awful column, which ranks right down there alongside another awful
column by the ultra-establishment Washington Post’s Terry Neal, which Hugh Hewitt
once deconstructed on his own blog some time ago.
So let’s see, what have we here for starters:
“It occurs to me while pursuing the local
message boards that at no time will a comic fan ever find peace.
It's a trait that is common amongst the fanboys and girls who
partake of our little pastime. Energy seems to be poured into
the effort to find fault in everything no matter what it is.
Entire threads can be found dedicated to the goals of tearing to
shreds any piece of creative work in order to find as much fault
in a product as is possible.”
Not neccasarily, although I will have to point out that it was Roger
Ebert, who could very well be Hamby’s very own role model, who
symbolized this trait when he compiled reviews of the worst movies
he saw into a book called “I
Hated, Hated, HATED this movie!” back in the early 1990s.
But in any case, Mr. Hamby is making the insipid error of assuming
that all comics fans, 100
percent, wall-to-wall, enjoy writing a negative analysis of comics
and their writers, artists, and editors, not to mention publishers
as well. Or, to put it this way, he makes it sound as if they don’t
enjoy anything, when what they write online alone doesn’t prove they
don’t.
“It seems to me that great pleasure is
derived from this. Message board posters enjoy the process too.
Many times the funniest posts to read are those insulting the
creative efforts of a writer, artist, company or even just an
idea. Such joy is derived from the casual gut-punch insults
toward an as-yet unseen project. And like an ex-wife with a
grudge to settle, the past is never too far away to bring up and
throw into the faces of some unsuspecting creator. All in good
fun though. All for a long enjoyable thread.”
Be that as it may, while I’m not going to justify it as the
healthiest thing one could do, I will say that it’s hardly the worst
thing one could do either, and that if I were Hamby, I would think
it better not to be concerned about that. No, what I would think as
concerning is what bad things that the industry could do, such as
what’s discussed in this old column
of mine, in example!
More seriously though, Hamby ignores the important point, that most
people who find fault in something aren’t saying so without reason.
And not for nothing are they doing so either. Simply put, the reason
why has what to do with their being fans of the characters, and what
makes them work. So in other words, if they feel that the direction
being taken is one of anti-patriotism (as in the Marvel Knights
Captain America), misuse of Mary Jane Watson or even Gwen Stacy in
retrospect (as in Amazing Spider-Man), abuse of Scarlet Witch, Sue
Dibny and Jean Loring (as in Avengers Disassembled and Identity
Crisis), and even the ignorance of continuity, which can also have
what to do with what I thought Mr. Hamby advocated: character
development (any and/or all of the above).
Most importantly of all though: whether or not it's a good idea, the
fact is - it's all part of the freedom of speech offered in the
First Amendment of the US Constitution!
The most annoying thing about this silly little diatribe of Mr.
Hamby’s is what appears here in bold, which looks to me almost like
a precursor to the second column he wrote under the Gut the Machine
title, about ex-wives with grudges to settle. What does he mean by
that? I’m not sure, but I will say that what he says there doesn’t
make much sense. Most divorced women aren’t usually that begrudging,
as he puts it, are they? Certainly not as much as the menfolk are
though, that’s for sure, as some psychological studies show.
But putting that aside for now, what else does he say in response to
the fanboys/girls’ misgivings?
“Why are fanboys (and girls) so hard to
please? Therein lies the mystery. Heck, those rational minds
that post in between the rants of the embittered masses are
right when they tell us you don't have to buy it. How true that
sentiment is with regards to Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman or any
of a dozen of the most popular and well known titles on the
market. If you don't like the works of Chuck Austen or Chris
Claremont you can find solace in the words of Joss Whedon. Just
as an example. And alternative surround us to create a
marketplace that offers up so much potential that a complaint
should never, ever be heard by anyone. Yet they continue.”
And if it’s really that mysterious, as he puts it, well, I may have
already answered it above, but let’s see if I can offer another
answer here too: because they really like the characters who’re
being misused, as I gave examples of above, and can’t stand seeing
them being put through the motions as they are. And it’s also
appalling and maddening to see them being featured in stories that
contradict their values and what they stand for, as was also noted
above.
He may be right that we don’t have to buy the books, but then again,
that’s the problem: as people who dig these classic characters, we
want to be able to buy them, and not have to be kept away. Hence,
it’s distressing whenever the companies publishing them will take
steps that will drive us away from our beloved comic book
characters. But what’s really irritating is how he obscures any of
the reasons as to why they would find fault with any of the above
titles, which just goes to show how biased he is in the favor of the
big two, or any other company whose steps suit his own positions.
And while Mr. Hamby may be right that we don't have to buy the book
if we don't like it, as he says, if he himself doesn't like what
other people have to say about it, well then in all due fairness, he
doesn't have to read what the people on the other end of the
spectrum say about it either, does he?
The most hilarious thing is how he mentions Chuck Austen, who’s long
been rejected by the audience, in a way that almost makes it sound
as if he’s on his side. Which is typical of some of the
double-standards he seemed to have from what I can recall, including
what did on John Byrne’s own work.
“Alright, this is where the few who
actually remember the origins of this site start calling
hypocrisy and lighting torches. Yes, in the beginning I called
for the heads of Grant Morrison and Bill Jemas. I did this
loudly and without any thought to what I was saying. I was
simply reacting in the most loud and public manner I could.
C'mon though, that was what, four years ago? Isn't it possible I
might have learned a thing or two since then? Right, a
thing...maybe two. It's with thirty-something eyes I look back
on the actions of my twenty-something self and I wonder what I
was so pissed off about. Maybe that's where the answer comes
back to me.”
Wow! And then, he does something akin to what some journalists do,
and that I once saw being done in an
issue of the New York Press defending the discriminatory
actions of Columbia University in NYC (which
I
also
discussed
on my blog earlier), by admitting to having been of the
negative camp regarding Morrison and Jemas’ steps with Marvel’s own
properties, but without even explaining why. Or, if he does, then
he’s making it sound as if he were doing it out of knee-jerk
motivations, the exact same position that he himself advocates when
defending Marvel or even DC’s steps with their own properties, as he
now does, when it came to panning Marvel’s own actions of yore. Gee,
and I thought the reason why he did was because he didn’t like what
or how the X-Men and other such Marvel books and characters were
being portrayed! If the approach was untrue to the idealistics that
the characters were created upon in the first place! Please, do tell
me something else I don’t know!
“We, as fanboys (and fangirls) are the
keepers of the flames lit in 1938 with the first superhero. We
are the ones who make the decisions about how the industry goes
by allowing our wallets to dictate what we want to stay and to
go. After all, was it not the comic fans who closed the party
door to the likes of Defiant, Broadway, Chaos! and CrossGen?
Were we not the ones who supported Marvel during the rough times
by remaining dedicated to them with our money? And isn't that
kind of power not capable of going to our heads just a little?”
No kidding. This is the same man who himself once gave a hostile,
unfavorable interview to Mark Alessi because he was upset that
anyone could have the gall to criticize Marvel for anything, even
when it came to business! The same man who only read one book by
CrossGen, that being the Negation, as he once admitted, and he’s
saying that we closed the door on them? For heaven’s sake, so did
he!
“Yesterday there were two events that
made me wonder whether or not we were capable, as comic fans, of
finding enjoyment like we did when we first discovered this
medium. I ran to a neighbor's news site down the street to check
out their preview of Avengers #500. With my eyes I devoured each
and every image and word turning the page like a mad fiend
hungry for more. I was excited about Avengers for the first time
since Wanda dropped that cliff on Wonder Man. Finally I came to
the end of page twenty-three and was dying to know if others
felt that same excitement. Instead I find page upon page of
people complaining about Bendis's dialogue or the presence of
too many explosions. How can too may explosions be bad in any
visual medium? How is that bad? Would we all prefer more talking
heads? Really.
Kidding.
Naturally.”
About what exactly would you be kidding, Mr. Hamby? Wanda dropping a
cliff on Simon Williams? I don’t know for sure, but I do know that
the reason why fans were complaining was apparently because a] the
dialogue was juvenile, b] the storytelling approach was very slow,
something Bendis seems to have made a reputation for, so that story
arcs of at least 5 parts can be produced for trade paperbacks, and
c] the explosions were, to be quite honest, pointless in their
presence and for little more than shock value, which has become a
sad staple of comics like these in recent years.
Otherwise, noone was complaining about the explosions. That’s
something those of us familiar with adventure comics are used to
seeing much of the time in comics. What displeases us though, is if
it serves little to no genuine storytelling purpose.
In fact, the way he talks about Wanda, now that I think of it,
sounds fairly disrespectful of the character, and so I suppose he’s
trying to make it sound – confusingly at that – as if he’s just
kidding as a defense for what he says. Well, duh!
“Then, last night, I go to see
Spider-Man 2. Yeah, like most of you. And I am sitting there
eating this thing up like candy. I'm not seeing any of the
problems that I saw with the first movie and I'm just getting
swept up in it. I'm riding this wave and I'm thinking, wow,
isn't it cool that Spider-Man is on the big screen and alive for
more people than he's ever been. My wife, my kids and I loving
it for what it is. Then I return home and decide to catch up on
what people are saying and it's the same things over and over
again. This was wrong. That was wrong. I didn't like this or
that. As I read I'm wondering if they might have seen a
different version from what I've seen. How could they find so
much fault in something that was just meant to be fun.”
As usual, Mr. Hamby over-exaggerates without even providing any
genuine facts to back up what’s arguing about, claiming there was
negative reaction to the Spider-Man movie in a way that’s much too
out of the blue to sound convincing. And most laughable about his
argument is that he ridicules anybody who criticized the movie for
being fun, when here he himself supports taking that very fun out of
the comic books themselves! Guess that means that he really did
enjoy Straczynski’s hack work on Gwen Stacy then, eh?
“This is the way it goes. I wonder
though, is it the power that makes us, as a group, so damned
critical? We did, after all, support this industry through the
rough patch known as the 90's. Maybe it was that effort thrust
upon us alone to support our hobby that made us become like
parents always wanting our child to do better than we expect.
Yet, looking at it like that, are we forgetting to take a moment
to look at the kind smile that is looking back at us with
unwavering devotion and love?
Next: A
response to Gail Simone's Women in Refrigerators, which I hate!
Learn why in 30...”
That last part I’ve already dissected a few months ago, of course.
But aside from that, did it ever occur to Mr. Hamby that he’s not
making things any better by insulting the fans, making it sound
almost as if what they should do is to just give up the hobby of
comics reading, and assuming that the audience are all, one and all,
addicted to the problem of letting the “collector’s habit” as some
call it, get the better of us? Some people in the audience did after
all think to stop buying a title because they found it appalling,
and didn’t let the collector’s habit become more important than
storytelling quality (or even their wallets), and while the problem
of thinking that collecting every single issue no matter the quality
is still prevalent, there are some readers who’ve thought wisely not
to let it get the better of them, and have dropped this or that book
due to the quality going down in their viewpoint.
At the end, what he does, to say the least, is to imply that classic
old argument, “it’s only entertainment,” something that even Joe
Quesada resorted to when he spoke with Michael Medved and Michael
Lackner in 2003 about what Marvel was doing with Capt. America and
even the Avengers. (And, come to think of it, still is, albeit like
DC, they too may be taking a more metaphorical approach.) And again,
of course, to obscure many important points.
With that having been dissected, let us now turn to some of the rest
of the second
column he wrote, on August 10, 2004, to see what more
meaningless exercises in futility he wrote, and to learn even more
why I won’t miss being at that website anymore:
“Well, it's that time again. Time to
pull down the Gut the Machine box and see what tricks lie
therein. This is the second of what I'd like to pretend will be
a regular column. I say pretend because I am clearly late with
this month's contribution and the subject matter, as if four
sentences in, is a mystery to me.”
Oh, now isn’t that funny. He resorts yet again to a classic defense
of his actions by making it sound as if he admits that he’s lost in
space and doesn’t know where to go! Keep suspending your disbelief…
“ROUGH CUTS/OUCH
Last week
I lost my virginity to the god of the comic book printing press.
My first creative work was published by the great guys over at
Viper Comics. As insane as it may sound they came to me, asked
me to contribute a short story to Dead@17: Rough Cut, and sit
back to enjoy the fame and fortune that would come from the
writing. The experience was quite a blast. Josh created a fun
universe with Nara, Hazy and all the corpses one could scream
at. Being asked to volunteer what little talent I have to add to
his universe was a real pleasure and I'd do it again in a
second.”
Somehow, it doesn’t strike me as all that surprising or insane, as
he so pointlessly puts it. But as for fame and fortune, well, I do
hope that he’s familiar with what Andy Warhol said about it: “everybody’s famous for fifteen
minutes, and then they’re off the air.”
I’d strongly suggest Mr. Hamby also take note of that.
“I knew I'd have a blast doing this the
second they showed me the art of the guy I'd be collaborating
with. Martin Abel (you can visit his site at martinabel.com if
you're over 18) is my kind of guy. You'll understand the minute
you look at his art. He took an idea and made it explode off the
page. His art is described as sexy by paperbackreader.com and
they're right for saying it. His stuff is sexy. So, if for no
other reason get Dead@17: Rough Cut to see sexy images by one of
the next hot talents to make this industry tremble with
anticipation.”
Yeah, right. That stuff he says is sexy just so happens to include
what looks very much like p*** and lesbianism together! Need I
continue? I’m actually rather glad that the picture he put there
next to that paragraph on the page he posted back then isn’t there
now.
“I should be a good boy and mention
everyone else. Rough Cut is a collaboration of many many people
all working very hard to contribute something great to this
project. Jason Burns, Egg Embry, Ben Hall, David Hopkins, Scotty
Law, and Sean Stephens all contribute something unique to this
book and all prove to be formidable talents who will sail the
comic industry ocean under tall masts and golden flags. One
after the other brings some sort of magic that impressed me to
no end upon reading it. It's an honor to be in a book with them
all.
Jessie
Garza's, Viper's front man, put together a good solid idea with
Viper Comics. He's got big plans but a humble idea of how to get
things done right rather than rushing too quickly and risking
missing the goal. In this market, that's a big deal and has
earned him a lot of my respect. Add to that his support of all
the people that have come into contact with Viper in any
creative endeavor and you've got yourself a very unique leader
at the head of a very unique company.
And then
there's Josh Howard... who I now owe some small portion of my
soul to. He'll go down in history as the guy who discovered me
(and here I thought Bill Jemas was going to get that credit).
Thanks, Josh!”
Many people though they may be, that does not a good book make. So
this aimless column of his comes off as little more than a
promotional advertisement, a problem a lot of the columns he
publishes now on HR seem to have – because he either hired any of
the contributors for that purpose, or saw to it that they’d comply
with that position.
“WEAPON X/SAVE AS...
News came
down this week that Marvel is canceling Weapon X. This does not
a happy man make me.”
After what Tieri did with Iron Man, Wolverine, and a few other
titles at Marvel a few years ago, I on the other hand, could
honestly not care less. And frankly, I'd rather not bother to save
it as anything, not even to hard disk!
“For those living under a rock, Frank
Tieri has done a fine, if under appreciated, job with Weapon X.
He tells an exciting and complex tale using those forgotten
characters from Marvel's past. Characters like Wild Child,
Aurora, Sauron, Marrow, and a host of others have appeared in
this title and all more interesting than their first outings. In
recent times the writer has creatively injected Mr. Sinister
into the mix by involving him in the overall history of
mutation. The way this was done was pure brilliance in concept
and execution.”
And would’ve been much easier to appreciate, I’m sure, if it hadn’t
been for the fact that Hero Realm was otherwise one of the very few,
if at all, who actually supported Tieri and Weapon X when it was
being published. So what else is new?
“I'm one of those people -- prepare to
gasp -- who loves Marvel characters and continuity. I believe
Tieri does as well. But for those who are intimidated by the
concept of continuity and its expansive reach all the way to the
back end of time, fear not! Weapon X is as easy to follow as any
title out there. The jump on points are frequent and none too
confusing. Anyone not convinced need go no further back than War
of the Programs, which was a mere four issues back. Fans of
Morrison and Claremont can enjoy this run that cleans up any
loose threads between their varying ideas. Weapon X and Weapon
Plus both have meaning now thanks to Tieri and he does so
respecting both writers' efforts.”
Yeah, I’ll bet. And as for Mr. Hamby actually loving Marvel
characters and continuity, well then, why didn’t he ever stand up
and protest the hack job they did with Capt. America when they
published him under Marvel Knights?
“Let me just wrap this all up by saying
that this book is worth saving. It's worth saving -- and this is
very big in today's market -- because it is worth reading. How
many books are capable of being described that way? More than
ever before, yes. That's the reason why this one shouldn't be
cancelled.”
And some of the other things he said above that I dissected are why
even this editorial of his can’t be taken seriously either.
As for the third and last part, that’s been dissected already even
earlier, but even so, there is something here that could still be
focused on. I’d written a note about on
the
blog
I
own a few months ago, but it’s also worthy of note here too:
it’s what Mr. Hamby said a few months later, after he’d done the
deed: he was talking on
this
thread
here
from
December about how the site was now hosting paid
advertisements, and at the end, guest what he said? Prepare for the
shockeroo:
"Lots more coming down the pike. Some
big, like I've hinted at before. Some not so big but still just
plain fun. All of this attention and I didn't even pick a fight
with Gail Simone. Heh!"
Gasp! So in other words, after all that gabbering on about nothing,
he admits that he wanted
to try and sting at Mrs. Simone deliberately! Some professionalism!
And with that, I’d say he pretty much confirmed even more why I’m
glad not to be wasting any of my precious time on his website
anymore. If that’s how he’s going to treat people who wanted to be
his friends, then I guess he’d best get a new hobby.
As we draw to a close, here’s one last thing I’d like to dissect,
that being the “next time” part at the end of the second editorial
he wrote:
“THE/END
That's it
for this week. Next time I'll bring you recipes for Bendis and
Millar French Toast made with Brioche.”
Umm, wasn’t that supposed to have been “this month”? Oh, never mind.
In any case, I’m glad that he didn’t say anything about whatever
Bendis and Millar were doing. It’s just not news I’m interested in
anymore, and seeing how he wrote these columns, I wouldn’t expect
anything he says about them to be any better than what he did last
year.
Copyright 2005 Avi Green. All rights reserved.
Home FAQ Columns
Reviews
Links
Favorite
Characters Special
Features Politics
Blog Comics
Blog Food Blog