On HU
Erica Friedman began the week with a discussion of the Bechdel Test and the manga Silent Mobius.
James Romberger wrote about the late horror comics of Alex Toth.
I used Laura Mulvey’s gaze theory to talk about Moto Hagio’s story “The Willow Tree.”
Richard Cook discussed St. Olaf’s appearance in the Big Book of Martyrs.
Vom Marlowe reviewed James Love’s Bayou.
And we finished the week out with the conclusion of our roundtable on Charles Hatfield’s Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature. Charles himself has two posts (about his writing and rethinkings of his book, and about Gilbert Hernandez) and I had a reply because I’m incorrigible — and there are some spirited debates in comments as well.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At Splice Today I review some Roger Corman produced Alien knock offs just released to DVD.
But what’s most notable about these movies is not who gets killed, but who doesn’t. Because the greatest thing about Alien, the thing that gave it its real bite (as it were) wasn’t the gruesome beauty of its special effects or the brutal claustrophobia of its mise en scene… Or, okay, it was those things, I’ll admit. But it was also its twisted ruthlessness. Alien looked like a sci-fi film, but it walked like a slasher. Everybody in that movie was ruthlessly humiliated—especially the brave het heroes, who ended up raped, impregnated, violated, and dead, dead. The only one who gets out alive was that uber-final girl, Ripley, who was hard-assed and butch as hell, and when she left she didn’t need no stinking man, because (as I mentioned) all the men were dead.
Also at Splice I reviewed a new album by Eurodisco weirdos Majeure.
Long before Westerners had discovered philosophy, or even consecutive thought, the ancient Mayans were predicting a day in 2012 when Hegel’s brain would be uploaded to rotating satellites, creating a dialectical Skynet which would order the crucifixion of all humans and then broadcast impenetrable prose to their rotting corpses. Scientists today still wonder at the perspicacity of these ancient cultures, which—using nothing but the basest computers woven out of specially prepared obelisks—managed to predict the bloody demise of the hidebound print-based media, the rise of the cyborg antichrist Ke$ha, and the reverse rapture of materializing silly-bands which are even now drowning the world in a multi-colored kaleidoscope of hollow Platonic forms.
At Madeloud I reviewed Antony and the Johnsons new album.
Also at Madeloud a review of some depressive mopey but chimey black metal by Happy Days and Eindig.
Other Links
It’s good to be reminded now and then that before Gary was beloved and respected he was really, really, really loathed. (Our own Alex Buchet comments extensively on the very rancorous thread.)
Shaenon Garrity has been on fire recently. I kind of have no interest in ever reading Scott Pilgrim, but this review is awesome.
The Groth imbroglios: talk about a blast from the past. I thought that one was in the nursing home sipping steak through a straw. You should be so lucky to have people talk about your evil deeds in criticism so many years after the fact.
Did he apologize abjectly for running a faked letter? I can understand why David is kind of mad forever; that’s really not good….
And yeah, I’m sure all my sins will be forgotten much faster than that. I’m not nearly as mean as Gary, more’s the pity….
My distinct impression is that Gary is far from “beloved” even today, actually. That thread, train wreck that it is, is just one reminder that he still makes lots of comics people’s blood boil, whether for good reason or not (I really have no idea about all that — it’s before I started following American comics criticism)
Noah–
Gary apologized and retracted the editorial written in response to the fake Peter David. He also announced that, as a result, TCJ would follow a policy of verifying letters from industry professionals. TCJ didn’t have that policy before that because there hadn’t been any need. This was the first and only time the magazine had been punked like that.
I thought David’s reaction was ridiculously over-the-top even then–and that had to have been 17 years ago. Why the hell is he digging up this non-troversy and rehashing it now?
As far as I can tell, David’s just rerunning old columns in order of their first appearance. So it isn’t necessarily about rehashing it per se (though he’s certainly willing enough to discuss it in comments.)
The way I remember it, Groth’s apology was also a further slam on PAD, saying that the latter’s own views were fairly represented by the forgery, so the mistake was understandable. I can understand why he wouldn’t have taken it to heart.
David’s decision to rerun this piece belies his claim that Groth is not “important” enough to bother with.
Groth is beloved and respected? You guys at TCJ really do believe every bs thought that goes through your heads.
And your very own Alex Buchet showed what a complete douchebag he is in that thread. But this should surprise nobody; apples and trees and all that.
I think it’s a fairly mechanical thing, though, Charles H. It would be weird if he were rerunning all his columns and left that one out.
But he’s obviously still mad about it, there’s no doubt about that.
Hey Dave. Well, he’s beloved and respected in some circles — not everywhere obviously!
Whoa Nellie!
I was deliberately trying to keep that clusterfuck away from HU. I mean, if you read my column, I’m the Hooded Utilitarian’s Mister Rogers.
But sly Noah’s worldwide network of agents has ferreted the whole sordid mess out. Still, I can’t complain. (I can’t complain because I still have family in North Korea. Mr Berlatsky is a powerful and influential man.)
Yep, I let my hothead take over under the deluge of abuse; Cet animal est très méchant– quand on l’attaque, il se défend. It’s why I refrained from engaging Domingos a day or two ago over his supposed travails on the TCJ messboard…
I think it’s hilarious how Peter David tries to paint me as a cunning minion of Gary Groth, even calling me a Groth employee.
For the record: I have never met, communicated with, or had any interaction whatsoever with Gary Groth. I don’t consider myself to be published by TCJ but by HU. Like all other contributors, I don’t receive a penny for my posts.
I consider that I have only to answer to Noah Berlatsky as an editor. I’ve never had any inkling that Groth or any other TCJ editor has exerted any influence on the contents of HU.
If ever they tried, I’m confident that I know where Noah would suggest they stuff their ‘helpful’ suggestions.
Actually, tcj does give me a small monthly stipend, which I distribute among the regular bloggers. It’s not technically nothing, but it’s very, very close.
I wish I could pay columnists and guest posters.
The contract says that tcj doesn’t have any editorial say in HU. The only time I have meaningful contact with Gary pretty much is when he comes over here to tell me I’m an idiot in comments.
Careful, there’s a sock passing as Groth,’GG’, in the comments– you can find it in the third Tintin column, right at the end of the comments.
If anybody wants a good laugh, they should follow the link and read that column. I’d forgotten just how deliriously paranoid it is.
Alex, I think that’s Gary Gygax….
Oh, this is hilarious.
Come to extend your trolling here, Mike? You’ll find the atmoshere less congenial for it than at Troll Central, i.e. Pater david’s site.
BTW, I’ve proved that Peter David doctored the time-stamps on my posts to ‘prove’ I was a publicity hound. What a maroon. It’s bad enough to be a liar, but it’s pretty pathetic to be an incompetent liar.
Noah, I actually prefer not being paid…if I were, this’d be like an actual job instead of a pleasure.
Believe me, nobody here is getting paid enough to mistake it for anything but a hobby.
Alex,
I hope Noah won’t mind (since it’s kind of boring puzzle solving stuff), but since I seem unable to post over at PAD’s board (we have a history) here’s what I tried to put up there (twice):
Regarding that time stamp controversy. That’s easy enough (haha) to clear up without asserting machinations, but maybe not in the heat of argument. You originally denied being a Groth employee (11/9 @ 3:27 pm) in response to PAD’s reference on 11/9 @ 1:20 pm to “various Groth employees and supporters who probably wound up here for the first time because they got a Google alert” and *not* to his later reference on 11/9 @ 10:13 pm that “[w]e already have a Groth employee” which has mistakenly become the subject of controversy. Note that you quote “employees” — plural — not “employee.” It’s important to note that PAD said “wound up” and not “might wind up” — meaning that he was suggesting (“insinuating”) that Groth employees were already here, and, of course, the only likely candidate was you. Thus, you were entirely justified on 11/11 @12:21 pm in thinking it was a reference to you, that he had “insinuated” it. (PAD stated explicitly that he knew what blog you wrote for, adding further evidence that he in fact meant a “Groth employee” was already here when he made his statement.) The mix-up on time-stamps and which post you were responding to started with PAD’s denial on 11/11 @ 2:28 that he had you in mind when referring (in response to GM) to “various Groth employees and supporters who probably wound here” (again, from 11/9 @ 1:20 pm), but had merely “made a sweeping reference” (as if his sweeping reference wasn’t with you in mind). From that, PAD claimed it “provably wrong” that “you brought it [the relation to the Hooded Utilitarian] up in direct response to my [PAD’s] so-called insinuations.” PAD is correct that you brought up your affiliation in response to his reply to GM on 11/9 @ 1:20 pm that contained the “sweeping reference” to “Groth employees.” In response (on 11/11 @ 3:13 pm), you mistakenly quote from a later reply he made to GM (i.e., 11/9 @ 10:13 pm), for which others have taken you to task, and you’ve accused them of time-stamp switching. No underhanded time changes were needed. You did, in fact, and contra PAD’s assertion, only bring up your HU association in response to his quite obvious insinuation that “Groth employees” were already here. You’re just incorrect on which post that insinuation occurred in.
I don’t mind; I was kind of wondering vaguely what was going on there, but was too lazy to work it out myself (validating Jeet’s worst suspicions.) So thanks!
Alex, if anyone reads the thread at PAD’s blog, i really doubt they’d take away that i’m a troll.
Perhaps a tad tactless in responding to cuisine-challenged bridge substructure symbiont, but not one myself.
Are you any relation to Terry Austin (not the comics one, the self-styled “Terror of USENET”)?
Nope.
Mike, how do you justify the filthy abuse I am subjected to there?
Guys, let’s not do this here, huh?
Okay.
Just a last thank-you to Charles Reece for his forensic work.
Over on David’s site, it shut a deal of people up and exposed a few others’ lies, so again, thanks.
I “justify” nothing; i need to “justify” nothing – you, my friend, were the one who showed up and began ranting and spouting accusations of Sinister Machinations Against Poor Innocent you.
How do *you* justify your last effusion:
All right, I’m going to close this thread then.