Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Considering that a number of us - Dana3k, jje, myself - enjoy doing strong women characters, I was curious to get some input on the sites perspective on women heros. [Heroines?]
Especially, considering I've noticed the same trends the authors of that site have and I don't care to fall into that trap mysefl... how do you guys avoid the sterotype? Do you manage to avoid it fully? _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
(author's note: this is long-winded. Thank you for reading and not telling me to shut the heck up, because a lot of times, I apparently don't know how.)
Okay, speaking as a writer and a pundit here...
First off, read Ron Marz' response in the writers' segment. Great, well-thought out response, and right on a whole lot of levels. Traditionally, until recently, male characters were the 'name' characters of a lot of books that held their own shelf weight (Superman books, Batman books, Spider-Man books, etc.), so killing them off was essentially company suicide. The few times it happened, it was such a huge deal that it made national news or was either widely lauded or reviled by readers and the comic community on a whole (ie, Death of Superman, Emerald Dawn, Crisis, et al.)
Historically, female protagonists in comicdom for the first fifty years or so existed essentially as 'damsels in distress'. Lois Lane and Wonder Woman, two of the more notable names, didn't even really become 'strong' protagonists (meaning, they really became capable of functioning without a male counterpart) until the sixties, and even then, a lot of times, they fell under standard sexual stereotypes. It wasn't until very recently (late eighties, early nineties) that you began to see really strong and well-characterized heroines, and a lot of the time, those were swept under the rug by the various T & A heroines (quite a few of whom had about as much personality as a cardboard standee of themselves.)
This might be a little off the subject, but consider this as well. The DiD aspect of the heroines is still one that reverberates today... consider that bondage fantasies are probably what most people envision when the word fetishism comes around, and that superheroines tended, at least early on, to spend as much time captured as fighting crime. Heck, look here at Animo. Compare the number of Yvonne Craig-style models there are compared to Oracle, who is undoubtedly a strong-willed and very depthful character. I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't a fan of heroines as DiD. I'm sort of spilling my guts here, but I have a soft spot for the nonsense science stories of a long time ago featuring immobilized (read, frozen, statuified, the like) heroines, myself. I don't question it; it's just another bondage style that's just not so 'normal' or 'mainstream'.
(CAVEAT! I have nothing against Yvonne Craig, whatesoever-- quite the opposite-- nor do I have anything at all against the Damsel in Distress genre. However, I'm illustrating a point here. Do a search on her on google, and find out just how many damsel-in-distress/superheroines-in-bondage oriented sites she appears in, and keep in mind that she was introduced almost wholly as sex appeal and tittilation (no pun intended) to a camp show that is usually remembered with sympathetic groans rather than actual fond memories. This compared to a really insightful version of Barbara Gordon that I think most will agree has come along from a second-tier wannabe character to a real living and thriving woman in comics. And before you ask, yes the TV show that showed Oracle sucked, too.)
Point being? Yes, females have a history of being nothing more than victims, and writers use the hurting or killing of a female often as a device to gain sympathy, or to show how cruel and heartless their villain is. Is that an immutable trend? I sure as hell hope not.
As a writer, I'm helping to write two books that are primarily female-driven. I have no intention of making any of the females cookie-cutter types. In fact, I'd like to think we have some very strong female leads and supporting characters. A character in a comic has the immense possibility to be a lot more than a cute face and a nice rack. (Even angelic cleavage gives way to character development, sooner or later) Despite our bikini pics here, I would be utterly shocked if anyone here thought of their characters solely as sex objects, pin-up girls or centerfolds. There's too much personality, too much thought going into each of the characters and what part they play in the overall stories for that to happen.
The trick to doing that? Well, I can only point to my own experience. I don't treat the creation of a female character any different than a male one. For any character to exist, I have to have a viable reason for their creation. Even the villains-of-the-month have to have some vague semblance of a plan, rather than just appearing on a whim, Deus Ex Machina-like. (For those of you who saw the head-blown-off trickster pic I did, that's the reason for it. I personally can't buy into the idea that a villain's motivation is 'just to have fun'. One thing I'm trying my best to make sure of is that even seemingly innocuous villain happenings in the DAP comics have reasons beyond a simple 'we just decided to show up' worldview.) That means a little more story planning, sure. But in the end, it's worth it.
Now, does that mean there will never be a character death, or one of the characters going through some sort of loss, simply because I don't personally advocate doing it without reason? Nah. The opposite side of the argument is that if there's no jeopardy, there's no book. So I don't think you can wholly stay out of the stereotype, simply because even a strong heroine has to fall prey to loss of some sort, be it supporting characters, powers, or what have you, just to keep tension. Who would want to read a book (even a comic one with great artwork) in which the title heroine wins every battle, attains every goal, or solves every crime without any worries whatsoever?
Okay, rambled on is putting it lightly. There's my $1.50 in 10 cent portions. Good discussion thread, though, IB! _________________ "It is perfectly easy to be original by violating the laws of decency and the canons of good taste."
Hrmmm.... heh heh. No argument on the DID: I grew up on the pulps. Doc Savage, The Ghost that Walks [The Phantom for benefit of those who might not know what I'm talking about], Tarzan, the Grey Lensman, Dumarest of Terra, Wierd Heroes. I even submitted a few shorts to Wierd Heroes before it went under.
Although.... Patricia Savage and Jane Porter/Lady Greystoke weren't precisely fainting lilies to always be pulled out of the fat by the male hero. Both could hold their own on the few occassions the writers highlighted them.
I both agree, and disagree with what a couple of the creators said on the subject vis a vis the main character syndrome. That doesn't fully explain why they fell into the same sterotypes in some of their books in an era when the DiD syndrome was being challenged and broken.
Spiderwoman comes to mind... the character was badly mishandled, depowered, and basically used as a throwaway character... predominately as far as I could see because the writers couldn't see where to go with her. Ms. Marvel/Carol Danvers is another example: someone basically depowered and psychically raped as a hook fo an X-Man/Avengers plotline.
NOTE:A pretty damned well written and well drawn X-Men/Avengers plotlin, but that's besides the point: Why pick Danvers? Why not a male secondary character with similar abilities, and similar situation as being "not a main role character"? Plenty to choose from in both X-Men and Avengers. Could screw over and psychically rape Havok without anyone lifting an eyebrow. ;]
I also agree with the second half of your post: that's what I hope to do - treat the female characters the same as I would a male lead.
Conflict is essential: Jessabel Ringer/The Avatrix is the embodiement of a totemic being in a worldline where she's assumed [or had thrust upon her] the mantle of the guardian of that world - it would be silly if her growing into that role didn't entail hardship, conflict, and loss as she struggles to grow into a hero and live up to the mantle.
Scorpia is the anti-hero counterpart. She's a female corporate counter-assassin/assassin who's one of the best in a business where she has to be as cold blooded, ruthless, and competent as any male in the profession. Along the way [Hopefully], she's thrust into a position of having to choose to become something more than killer, or else become the tools of the enemy of the few things she holds dear by remaining absolutely true to her training and to the codes and ethics of the profession.
Both are in a position where the ongoing character tension is in the constant choice: Become the beast, or control the beast and use it... only approached from different mirrors: cold blooded killer in one, young and slightly innocent in the other.
That's one of the things I find fascinating about Women in Refridgerators. I don't care to have a caracter that's shock value, but it's always been my belief that in order to break "the rules" [break the sterotype in this instance], you have to understand what you're breaking as intimately as if you were following it.
Good $1.50, Argo. A lot in that to re-read and to chew on.
And don't bother apologising for being "long winded" in here *lol* - I'm one of the founders of the Long Winded Bastard Club. ;] _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Truth be told I think there is an underlying reason why so many of us 3d artists/writers have female heroines. That is: (1)when we started the Poser male was as ugly as sin. Mike is better but, (2) 90% of everything available is for the DAZ female form.
That said. We aren't excused from responsibility for what we do to our characters. And intense self-examination can lead down some very strange pathways.
Kelly is my first female lead. Scared me to death when I started. What do I know? I'm a guy. The first thing then was to change my internet handle of ten years to "jje". I'm consciously hiding my sex. Sure talk to me long enough and it's obvious but to my semi-vast number of readers I don't want "me" anywhere in the picture. It's not my needs that I'm writing about. It's Kelly's.
Then there was the above mentioned DID issue. Kelly being a film-noir detective can and does get herself into story driven peril but as I began to write HCK1 I started adding rules to the character concept sheet. "If I couldn't do it to Humphrey Bogart I can't do it to Kelly". So, no bondage, that's a rule. But DID is an element of film-noir mysteries. Thus Nicky Belmont was born. My blonde, clothes conscious ditz . Frankly she is hopeless in HCK1. Uncle Emo the Raccoon even sees her as a sex object. What she has become in HCK2 I think is going to shock everyone. She's been written expressly to play off the "dumb receptionist" stereotype. I can't (won't) tell you what happens but suffice to say I start by dropping her alone into the middle of the Louisiana bayou in the middle of the night.
Like IB says. Break the stereotype.
Writing HCK2 has changed my whole idea of what DID means. At one point I had Nicky nearly beaten to death; typical DID. And it struck me as so phony, so predictable I dumped about 20 pages of script and started again. Distress happens sure enough but I want it to be honest emotion. Bondage is easy, finding what actually touches the emotional center of a woman and using that, is hard.
Something I've never told anyone. You all are aware, I suspect, that I have editors who regularly beat on me and my story. Well, I go a bit beyond that too. I hold focus groups whenever I get stuck. Seriously. I have about 15 pages of script currently that I know do not ring true. Eventually I'll get some beer, wine and munchies and let the group hash it out.
Three years ago, the first time I accidentally did it, it produced this page:
http://www.hatcheckkelly.com/P04.html
Those damn shoes. But I learned something valuable about an element that frankly wasn't on my radar as important. So much so that the shoes keep popping up and the story evolves. So later in the story I decided to create a mildly funny set-up and pay-off that no man has yet to get:
http://www.hatcheckkelly.com/P22.html
and the top of
http://www.hatcheckkelly.com/P23.html
Real subtle but the idea I passed to the group was that I wanted to show something that had never been shown in comics before as far as I could tell and to not make a big deal about it.
In film-noir everyone is a victim. No one is happy at the end of "Chinatown". The same is true in HCK2. It's defining what victimizes each character that's tricky. For Nicky, in an odd sense, it's humorous, since she remains true to her archetype, the dizzy blond receptionist. For Kelly it's going a lot deeper and a lot darker.
Finally, sex and language. In DID the woman's body is always out there and the threat of sex is imminent. The antagonist uses language to build tension, to intensify the distress.
So in HCK2: no T&A, no swearing. More rules. Back in 1980 I spent a fascinating summer with Frank Daniels who taught Graduate Screenwriting at Columbia University and at Sundance. One of many things that came up during the all-night bull-sessions the group held was the issue of swearing and flesh. Frank explained it this way: Once you say "@#$%" where do go with your dialog to show further stress? Once your actor goes full-frontal where will you go for the next erotic bump?
In porn movies, once they get down to it, that's it for the movie. Everything past that is variation on a theme. In "Scarface" every other word out of Tony Montana's mouth is "@#$%" and it's hilarious. Only Pacino could pull it off, I think. Even so, he's trapped by the word. He's not able to use a lesser language and still show the same intensity. Contrast that with the end of "Gone With the Wind". Even today that "damn" is the best "@#$% you" I've ever seen in movies. Simply because it's the strongest word in the whole film.
The interesting result of these two rules is that I'm having a great time teasing the reader. Showers, baths and clothing changes. It's like old-time burlesque. You see what you think you see. Kelly and Nicky's relationship? I leave that to the reader while giving contradicting information. The last time I had a group, a great scene about breast development appeared. It's since been cut, I am the final arbiter after all. It's my name that's going on the cover. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try to shoehorn it in somewhere before I'm finished.
Wow talk about getting windy and going far afield. Pretty clear that the whole DID thing bothers me as an artist ain't it?
I feel like we're on a dais at a con.
I guess I just joined the L.W.B. Club
Know the rules before you can break them effectively.
Wether it's genre rules, characterization rules, language rules, storytelling and plotting rules, or visual rules, that's a mantra that should probably be engraved in the forehead in block letters on every writer and artist.
That's an area where "Post Modernism" becomes a parody of itself as the artists doing it don't understand the rules they're trying to disregard. [Bear with me, I think I'm going someplace with this]
Roger Zelazny is a joy to read because it's evident in every line that he loves language, he knows the way that language and writing works intimately - and he turns the conventions and structures on their heads creating poetry in the process. It's evident in the differences between Guns of Avalon and Catseye. He makes it work effectivly because it's obvious without being intrusive that he knows the structures by heart.
Ditto for Steven Brust in "To Reign in Hell". Both authors create genres, and recreate them.
Frank Miller is in comics what Zelazny and Brust are in literary, becuase he understands what makes a hero tick: his portrayal of Captain America in the Kingpin storyline is one of the few portrayals of what in a lot of cases used to be "Marvel's Joke Character" that I've seen - he captured the essence, the pathos, and the nobility of the hero in a very few deft strokes, while showing the inherent tragedy of the role.
You're right, JJ. Film Noir has inherent structures to the genre. [may as well call them that rather than "rules" - they're not as codified as rules] So does Pulp as done by Burroughs and Robeson, so does Space Opera as done by Doc Smith, so does the hard bitten detective genre as typlified by Mickey Spillane, so does Heroic Fantasy as exemplified by Howard and Norman [in the first 5 Gor novels - I'd prefer to forget the last 17 ].
You already hit on that in depth, eloquently, that if you're doing film Noir, there's certain structures you can't play with unless you're doing it deliberately and with malice aforethought, knowing what you're trying to do by turning the convention iside out - and knowing that if you don't pull it off it'll fall flat.
I don't really have a lot to add to what you said there....
*******************************************
Sex is a hard thing to handle in this context.
For whatever reasons [Heh - the lack of stuff for Mike and Dork has a LOT to do with the preponderance of females in Poser art.], by virtue of choosing to do strong female leads, we're already breaking a convention: the realm of the Hero is at least subconciously identified with the male character.
What we're dealing in is archetypes, and redefining those archetypes in a different shape.
John Wayne is an achetype: on a speculative Tarot lineup, he'd be the distillation of the Cowboy - the western hero.
Clint Eastwood is one also. Two of them: The Man with No Name is the archetypical anti-hero, Harry Callahan is The Law, in the way the Judge Dredd tries to be and sometimes fails on a basic level.
Steve McQueen and Richard Boone: The Gunfighter. I know - Eastwood's MWNN could fit that, but the MWNN is a archetype unto itself. Josh Randall and Paladin almost define the image of the Gunfighter in a way that to one degree or another, all others partake a bit of that definition.
Wolverine is The Beast Within: the man constantly balance on the razors edge of becoming his beastial nature.
I'm sure we can build one hellofa list.... Mike Hammer - The Hardboiled Detective, Travis McGee - The Outlier of Kipling, Tarzan - The Noble Savage, and many, many more... but the short list shows the drift:
Culturally - not personally, but down in our guts where we live - our mythic arcetypes are generally associated with male or female representations in certain areas. Hero is one that traditionally seems to have a predominately male association. When we redefine it in a female package, we're treading in unfamiliar ground... we begin breaking a sterotype at that moment. There's no [or very, very few] definitive roadmaps and signposts to aim us along the path of redefining the Hero in female form.
Our cultural refferents going back to the Illiad and before present us a different roadmap...
Heh. I said sex was hard to handle - I managed to sidestep it almost completely and wandered off into Gender instead. ;]p~
Sue me. ;]
*******************************************
I'm going to submit here that that's a possible reason for why the mainstream comics industry so mishandles the redefinition of the archetype of Woman as Hero. Possibly one that a number of the writers aren't even aware of.... even while it's biting them in the ass.
Of course, it may be just that they're not skilled enough writers to redefine it... but when you look down the list of creators in the genre, that can't be the case: Neal Adams, John Byrne, Frank Miller, and a number of others of those people are extremely skilled.
A blind spot in the industry possibly? Defined by the editorial constraints of not wanting to much with what sells?
Possibly. In the 70's and 80's during the Dark Phoenix timelines etc, maybe.
Now - when genres are being redefined, and there's a market for strong women roles and leads and some of those featuring women heroes are top selling covers... probably not. And there's people still mishandling the Woman as Hero even in books ostensibly featuring them.
Note: That's not neccessarily the case here in the online strips. That's one of the reasons I brought the concept up here.... the majority of the creators seem to be stepping a bit outside the sterotypical handling of the roles. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Joined: May 30, 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Mesa Arizona
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:13 am Post subject:
Well, I would join the long winded bastards club.. but I got to go to work.
It is fair to say that Kayla didn't come to fruitation because of Posette/Stephenie, they were just representations of a character. The character was actually a roleplaying figure that never got game time. The dude who was running the game decided to back out, and well, I thought the backstory was good.
If you really look at it, most of Light through Darkness was done in a Jesus Christ format.
The Pagans being persecuted by the Christians..much like the Romans did with the Jews/Christian. Kayla was born in a snowy horse stall, almost the same as described about Jesus. A wise wizard comes. The only difference in this scene from the Jesus format, is I killed the mother as I didn't know what to frankly do with her..
Kayla grows up knowing very little of her destiny. Then one day, she finds it. Then she turns her back on her goddess when her parents died. OF course, that didn't follow the bible, but since I am not a professed christian, you can give me some leway. She died for someone else..then she is reborn. The similiarities were to prove a point, that when Christians persecuted the non's, they were no different from the Romans..as much as they say "We are.."
Legend continues was written on the premise that she is a teenager..what do teenage girls do. What do teenage girls think? What do teenage girls wear? Even with "Welcome", Kayla is still in her teenage state..but shows the wisdom of a 1073 woman.
As far as nudity and sex, I tend to use these as little as possible, but when they do happen there is a reason for it. Same goes for the language.
Kayla is weak and strong at the same time..and that makes her different from others from the DiD. I know, Madison was a DiD..but that is because she is young and doesn't know of her true potential;) Eventually she will, and her powers will rival Kayla.. not that you will see the "War of the Goddess"..
_________________ Dana Haywood
<a href=heresyproduction.com>Heresy Studios</a>
Joined: May 30, 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Mesa Arizona
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:00 pm Post subject:
Hey hey.. there no need for name calling..
Sadly, I am going to do a little female killing in my comic in the next issue..but it is story related, and no real characters. It is one of the dark aspects of my comic..and at 5688, I am not going to complain that my readership dwindled because of it.
Actually, I can't really call the girls I am going to kill as "DiD" since they aren't really weak characters so to say. They will be prominant figures of the coven in the story that are being executed through a purge. They are dying because they are being killed by monsterous human beings in a deluded dream. A cult or something, I guess.
Will Kayla have a say.. ya.. but she can only do so much, and Roq is devious. So pretty much it all comes down to the boiling point.. which will be a few issues away.. can Kayla stand up to Roq..or worse yet, can Madison? It should prove to be an interesting aspect of the story as it gets darker..and darker..
But you know, I think there honestly been a shift in my storylines if you read from beginning to end. Before I was only violating a few rules on the CCA..now I am violating just about all of them.. except for the portion about advertisment since I don't do much except for a banner, and such. However, there been a lot of sex, a lot of language, a lot of this and that lately. Either I grew as a artistic fellow, and decide what the heck.. just don't hold back.. or I stop taking medication.. one or the other. Heresy has grew beyond the original barrier as originally it was supposed to be pg-13 content, now it has mature content.
I think the best way to avoid stereotype is by creating your own, to be honest. I created a redhead who will fight for what she believes in, and will not give in without a fight..whether she is ripping your head off, or what. Does she have licensing potential as W.Woman has supposedly, who knows. What Kayla does have is her own identity, and her own ability to become an individual in the comic. That what I try for all my character so they aren't cookie cutters...trying to make them individuals.
You know, I honestly don't know what I am saying. .so I am going to head to bed before I babble on about the 34th Triangle of 7 leagues under the sea.
_________________ Dana Haywood
<a href=heresyproduction.com>Heresy Studios</a>
"I think the best way to avoid stereotype is by creating your own, to be honest. I created a redhead who will fight for what she believes in, and will not give in without a fight..whether she is ripping your head off, or what. Does she have licensing potential as W.Woman has supposedly, who knows." - dana3d2k
Wellll... it strikes me that there's a flaw inherent to the handling of all characters - male and female - in mainstream comics, that the creator owned comics shouldn't have. I'm including a lot of the "indie" publications in mainstream, because insofar as they have changes of writers and scripters affect a book, they're prey to the same flaws. And I'm counting the online strips as creator owned, because all of the ones I'm familiar with are done by 1-2 people or a very small team, or an individual.
The flaw in the mainstream books is that they do change writers and artists and scripters, sometimes frequently. And the new team won't neccessarily share the vision that either the character creator or the previous team had. Often the new team is thrust into the job without the time to research and acquire the character and storyline background, not always, but often.
The X-Men are a good example of this. There was a 3 part add-on book published in the early 80's called the "X-Men Chronicles" [or close to that, might not be the exact title] that covered the creation of what at the time was called "The NEW X-men" - a kind of a "making of" book filled with Q&A and interviews and essays by the creators, writers and artist of the series. It covered the transitions from the first New X-Men book through the infamous Dark Phoenix storyline, into the later stories by Bryne. It gave a fascinating look into the "whys" and "hows" of story and character decision, and how they were affected by team/writer changes. And how some things, like the death of Jean Grey, were affected by editors decisions that the writers and plotters couldn't do much about. [When in doubt, blame Shooter ]
Some areas that struck me in that were how characterization changed when new writers switched to a team, and how they too time to get used to the characters and figure out how to handle them: one writer hated Nightcrawler and couldn't get a handle on him, so he made him the groups buffoon. Another had a major change happen to Wolverine through a purely "Looks cool!" decision - having the claws pop out the back of the hands rather than from the gloves... The entire Dark Phoenix storyline came about because of an editorial decision that "No, she HAS to die, she was bad, she roasted an entire planet of brussels sprouts, she's got to PAY for it, dammit!" that changed an entire storyline.
Some of those effects made for better characterization, some didn't.
Frank Miller's Daredevil saw the same kind of transitions: from Miller's grim, almost psychotically intense and driven Daredevil of the Kingpin storyline, through a sucession of other writers until he mutated...
It's possible that a lot of the WiR shock effect deaths happen due to similar effects: writers who just aren't sure what to do with a character on a book they've inherited, don't like a character, don't have a handle on him/her/it...
**************************
Individual creators don't have that problem - we have other ones. ;]
You're not likely to have someone take over Kayla, Dana, that doesn't know how to deal with her... ditto for JJE and Kelly. I know William Nighthawk, Jamie, and Scorpia like the inside of my head, if I screw them up, it's my fault.
We've got the opprotunity to carry through our visions true to the characters and to the storylines in our heads, shape the characters according to our views of their growth and development, and how the effects in their lives are going to shape them. We don't have the problem of someone else taking over the character and making a writing decision that's not true to them because they're not familiar with the personality and storyline.
I'm sure one of the downsides of that is that it leaves out the option for a fresh perspective on the characters - if we get jaded or in a rut, we'll have to dig ourselves out of it. ;]
_________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Joined: May 30, 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Mesa Arizona
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:17 pm Post subject:
Well, you are damn straight I wouldn't let anybody do Kayla unless they did her right. That what I love being the writer and artist, and dreamer, and (the list goes on) of heresy is that I can change the entire story at anytime because I feel like it..but it won't be because I didn't get the feel of kayla. If I didn't have a feel of kayla, I have no business doing the comic in the first place.
I once got into an arguement with someone about how kayla should look. Someone was showing me a texture, and me personally.. it didn't go with the feel. Of course, they also said "Make her a Vicky 2".. the problem with that is.. Steph and Vicky are two different types of meshes, and I was lucky to get Kayla in stephenie.
One of the things that she appeared to have a problem with, was the texture.. "It didn't look right."
KAYLA IS A FRICKEN REDHEAD! I USED A 86 PICTURES OF A NUDE REDHEAD TO GET THAT TEXTURE! Yes, she is freckled..but that makes her uniquely beautiful. I don't want her looking like some Hollywood movie star with the glamy skin. .I want her looking like an average girl. Cause her body is of an average girl who gets possessed by the spirit of Kayla.
Another problem with the texture she showed me was the texture was too.. tanned. It was too dark for what I envision as kayla..Kayla is supposed to be pale.
As an artist and writer of a uniquely successful online comic..I think I got the right formula for what makes heresy ticks. yes, I do change a few things around, and surprise people..but for the most part, the story is true.. kayla is true. and Roq is true.
In my humble opinion, a lot of the creator owned comics out there are much better then some more of the mainstream stuff going around, because of the simple fact that the owner is most likely able to respond to people and produce artwork that stays almost consistant..and people don't go "Isn't kayla a lesbian?" somewhere down the road.
In my case, Kayla is the same now as she was before.. (no she is not a lesbian..nothing wrong with lesbians, just not kayla style.)
Madison I technically don't own..since Madison is a character created by a friend in oklahoma, but she loves how I use her character, and remain true to most aspects. Otherwise, (and she is a real redhead) I would get a big oklahoma slap on my face.
So in closing, if this is how mainstreams want to do it, fine let them..because one of these days, the online comics will take over the world of comics.. it's true.. it damn true. _________________ Dana Haywood
<a href=heresyproduction.com>Heresy Studios</a>
Although I won't stop buying Indies - I LIKE kicking back in my recliner with a bag o' chips, a cold non-alchoholic beer, and a stack of brand new comics. Kicking back with a brew and my laptop to read the next installment of Liberty Girl [as much as I love Liberty] doesn't have the same feel to it. ;]
Sometimes the mainstream formulae works: having Wolvie's claws pop out the back of the hands rather than being a costume gadget [during the Bryne Hellfire Club sequence] WAS a cool looking idea, and it added a neat element to the character. Ditto, having Scott and Jean Grey fighting for their lives on the moon with Jean comitting suicide made for a poigiant story - but the editorial rational for doing it was seriously flawed in a comics universe where you have some guy named Galactus wandering around that eats planets for a living. Sheesh - and they thought Dark Phoenix should be punished cuase she fried some asparagus people? How sexist can you get?
*snicker*
Women are supposed to be homemakers. She was just cooking dinner. A politically correct one too - it was vegetarian, dammit! ;]
*AHEM* Sorry, went off on a bit of a tangent there. Ummm... where were we? ;] _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Joined: May 30, 2002 Posts: 524 Location: Mesa Arizona
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:19 pm Post subject:
You never know in the world of comics. I mean, what they going to do to a guy who can eat planets? I mean, come on.. even Superman would have trouble with that dude.. while Dark Phoenix on the other hand.. she is another story.. she is mortal and can be killed.
While the web comics might not have the same feel as paperbacks..true.. you can't kick back on a recliner with them in your hand, or have a nice cold non-alcoholic drink.
However, let say hell with the disadvantages, and talk about the advantages:
You can view it from anyplace, 9 out of 10, it is free..and hell, we can get to know the people behind it. Something hard to do with some of the others.
On our side, we are guarenteed some global exposure because rather then sending paper backs across the globe..we use our TCP/IP to do it.
So while Liberty may not have the same FEEL.. I think you might want to get adjusted so you can get a feel for it while enjoying the feel of paperbacks. Cause internet has opened up a whole lot of options for would-be artists. _________________ Dana Haywood
<a href=heresyproduction.com>Heresy Studios</a>
I like the differences in nature of the online form. I've seen a couple of excellently done flash based comics that wouldn't be able to be done in traditional media. I think that the online media has potential to be extremely complementary to other mediums, maybe as opposed to being a replacement for them. Done well, it allows for a different type of expression that you can't get in printed media.
Still.... Mog like paper. Mog strong like bull. Mog smart like tractor. Mog make mark old fashioned way - with feces on bristol board. *snicker*
Hrmm... considering that dung formed a component of a lot of pigments, could we use that to make the case that a lot of traditional art is crap, I wonder... ?
I may ramble a bit, because I'm in one of those frames of mood. It's Sunday - too late in the weekend for non-disjointed musings. Jointed musings?
Galactus has always had an element of Deux ex MAchina about him, by virtue of what you pointed out. He's an elemental force... you don't fight him, you bypass him or divert him or hide from him. Stories featuring him always failed on a number of levels by virtue of that, just as a lot of the old Omnipotent Superman stories in the days when Supes could move planets failed - damned near impossible to create a credible challenge for him so there was always an awareness that there'd be some trick challenge that ruined the suspension of disbelief. [For me anyway]
That's possibly why the Dark Phoenix saga is the one I've focused on - for now - out of the other examples of WiR badly handled. Jean Grey made a credible tragedy... and in focusing initially on the internal struggle for self mastery, they had the potential for an immensly powerful and more heroic story than was produced. A chance that was thrown away....
The classic dichotomy: Dionysus vs Apollian nature. Rennaissance vs Crowleyism. Master the beast or become the beast.
Jean Grey lost that struggle for a breif time, and became the beast and was consumed by it.
Focusing on that innate defeat, and the struggle of the character to choose between gaining control of the power or being consumed by it - as the storyline started out - would have created an epic in that literary form for the time. It would have establish the character as a hero... instead it became a cheat.
A male character might not have been handled that way. Wolverine wasn't, in the miniseries. He was given almost the exact same choice... not the godlike power [although he was later in one of the annuals], but the choice of looking into the mirror of his darker nature and becoming the beast, or choosing to acknowledge the beast and to choose to become other. 'Course, you can argue that by that time he was a main series character and unkillable, whereas Jean Grey was a supporting role, but the difference shows that it could have been done with the other character - and it wasn't. The annual I mentioned shows that it's not merely the godlike power that's the problem - power corrupts absultely - because Wolverine was allowed to hold ulitimate power in his grasp... and to put it down and walk away from it.
Not even a difference in writing and editorial teams in those instances to account for it: all three sgas had a number of the same creators.
Unconcious or subliminal sexism? That a man who is part beast can become the noble savage and turn away from corruption, whereas a woman faced with the grasp of ultimate power must be destroyed or punished?
And if so, why? Something subliminally discomforting about portraying the distaff sex as being as inherently strong of nature and character as the male? And as capable of heroism?
I keep remembering Kipling's sardonic thoughts on the subject - the female of the species is far deadlier than the male.
_________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Hmmm I've been lax on my windedness. So, deep breath...
I'm a voracious reader. When I got married the first place on my honeymoon my wife and I hit with all the money that the relatives gave us was this discount bookseller we both love. The house is filthy with book of all types and disiplines (I'm reading Stephan Wolfram's newest tome "A New Kind of Science" to give you some idea).
That said, there are only a very few that I can say changed the way I think and the way I look at things. One was "Stand on Zanzibar" by Zelazny. It shattered all my preconceptions of what a writer does and how to go about it. It fired my imagination and creativity and a lot of very very bad prose flowed out of my electric typewriter because of it.
The other was (you knew this was coming) Watchman. The book that IMO changed everything about what comic fiction was all about in America. When I had discovered it I had been out of the comics mainstream for nearly ten years. Before that? Well, child of the 50's and 60's with lots (comparatively) of money to spend. And anal retentive to boot. Yup there are over 70,000 titles in bags and boxes in my attic and closets covering the entire Silver age. But around the time Kirby went to DC and the Darkseid epic petered out and died in Supergirl of all places, I was tired of the emptiness of it all. The only thing that seemed to change was the cover prices. 15 pages of kick, bam, boom and 5 pages of never resolved angst. So I floated on the periphery after that, Heavy Metal, the European New Wave.
Then that bastard Miller had to go and change everything, god love'em.
Books! Real books with covers and beginnings, middles and "mercifully" ends. The monkey was right up on my back again. So I still don't buy comics any more. But GNs of all shapes and stripes? I love it. Anyone else read "David Boring", or "Jimmy Corrigan"? You have to have read "Maus". Ever get lost in Linda Barry's insane life? Or Millers even more insane "From Hell"? Last week I picked up Sacco's "Palestine".
See, I thing we're on the verge of something. GNs have been just below the mainstream radar for quite some time. We're due for a breakthrough. Where bankers will scan panels on commuter trains and polite cocktail company in the Hamptons will debate four-color vs b/w crosshatching.
It will never last, it's true. But we are due.
>You're not likely to have someone take over Kayla, Dana, that doesn't know how to deal with her... ditto for JJE and Kelly.
HEH Try me!
Give me the wherewithal to put together a stable of computer artists and writers and see what I do. I love being JJE creator of HCK but I'd much rather be Walt Disney.
What were we talking about. Oh yea women.
I don't think it is unique to comics that strong women character are few and far between. At the end of the day there's always some group of fat-assed white guys in shiny suits pulling the strings. There is no Laura Croft marketing empire without first the over-ample Laura Croft rack. In Alien2 Ripley did a Rambo but based on purely female sensibilities and drives. They fixed that in the next two movies didn't they? Rambo always gets to fight another day, not so Ripley. Just more of the Lady Jane Grey story.
It's all part of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Female comics stars never sold as well as the male, viz Wonder Woman. Therefore fewer resources were given to them, writers didn't have to work as hard producing titles that, as a result sold poorly etc etc. So she's reduced to the tortured sidekick. Nowadays they may attempt to write more depth into the female character, but it's the buff hunk who leads.
I think its funny. We all began stuck with limited geometric resources. Make your lead a girl or be satisfied with producing a product that's extremely ugly.
That's not necessarily true anymore. You wouldn't know that by listening to us though. We've become very protective of our dear personas. I think that is a very good thing.
OT: In two months I'm being showcased by a friendly software company. They want samples. Tonight I went through HCK2 for the first time since I started. Very quickly, out of sequence using a little slide viewer I got for Os X. I had evidence (unfounded thank god) that some images never saved properly.
Anyway... I am one very troubled artist, that's clear. But it's in there. Rough to be sure. But I can see it, it's there.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
].
