Book News
Official release date for “Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism” is still January 14 — but the Kindle edition is now available for download at Amazon.
If you look at that link you’ll see that there’s also been several reviews posted by folks who got early copies: Albert Stabler, Adrian Bonenberger, and Peter Sattler all said very kind things about the book.
And hey, if you download the Kindle version and love it and want to share the love, please leave a review on Amazon. Every little bit helps, they tell me.
On HU
Featured Archive Post: Julian Chambliss on the slimming down of Amanda Waller.
Me on Adam West’s worst villain.
Me on the sensuality of Bat-gas.
Charles Bell on Atari, past and present.
Osvaldo Oyola on Serial, Lost, and the virtues of endings that don’t end.
Chris Gavaler on TV superheroines of his lovelorn youth.
Chris Gavaler on post-traumatic superhero syndrome.
Michael A. Johnson on the Judith Forest hoax and the crisis of authenticity in autobio comics.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At the Atlantic I wrote about comics’ gendered insecurities, cosplay and pop art.
At Pacific Standard I wrote about
— Donald Pfaff, who says our brains are hard-wired for altruism. I am skeptical.
— Edward Baptist’s book on the history of slavery and how America is built on torture.
At Reason I wrote about:
— why many sex workers have criticized Anita Sarkeesian.
—Eric Posner’s book about the problems with human rights law.
At Ravishly.com I wrote about
— Fantagraphics’ new gay manga anthology Massive and how we all eroticize men.
—Taylor Swift, Beyonce and the dreary pedestal of white perfection.
— Maddie and Tae and feminism and sexism in country music.
At Splice Today I wrote about:
— publishing my book and experiencing neurotic terror.
—the fact that nobody really cares that much about the New Republic.
I got mentioned in this press release about trans porn star Mia Isabella. (very NSFW)
Other Links
Ta-Nehisi Coates on TNR and race.
Jonathan Bernstein makes the case that John Boehner is a great speaker of the house.
Helen Redmond on the problem with draconian painkiller regulations.
Your New Republic link is wrong.
About Cosplay– I think it perfectly legitimate for a con-goer to consider many cosplayers to be pests. They are bullies, basically, taking over the common space to the detriment of everyone else.
And no, the majority of cosplayers aren’t feminine.
Not sure what you mean by “not feminine”. Cosplay is coded feminine, in part because the majority of folks involved are women, in part because fashion is seen as feminine.
Do you consider fans pushing and shoving to get to a table to be “pests” taking over common space to the detriment of the majority of con-goers who are there to cosplay? It just sounds like the same clubhouse stuff; some people have a right to be there, some don’t. That seems mean-spirited, and I don’t see how it helps anyone’s bottom line.
The first link for Splice.com also links back to the Swift and Beyonce article. Sure hope somebody got fired for that blunder.
Sorry about the links; they should be fixed now.
“[T]he majority of folks involved [in cosplay] are women.” Honest question: Do we know that? Alex seems to say the opposite is true.
Noah’s claim seems right to me, based on the images that flood the net and my own daughter’s social circle, but appearances, like costumes, can be deceiving. Male costumes — for men who dress as men — derived from anime, TV, videogames, and even superheroes may simply be less elaborate and noteworthy. (How visually arresting is your 30th Superman, or someone dressed in in Sherlock’s greatcoat and scarf?) And of course, people may be a lot more interested in taking and posting snaps of women in appealing/sexy costumes.
I don’t know if there’s demographic research…the video doc I saw about it seemed to suggest the scene was mostly women. There are definitely men who participate, though.
Every con I’ve been to has been split down the middle as to sexes, with probably slightly more men. No, cosplayers do not ‘code’ feminine. If anything, dressing up as comics or fantasy characters has always been coded masculine/nerdy.
Noah:
“Do you consider fans pushing and shoving to get to a table to be “pests” taking over common space to the detriment of the majority of con-goers who are there to cosplay?”
Fans generally don’t push and shove; they line up. They show consideration for their fellow human beings. Which is more than you can say for some narcissistic, selfish cosplayer blocking an alley for a photo-op, or swinging a sword or an axe in a crowd.
Fashion and sewing are all coded feminine, in general. Bart Beaty argues that comics is often coded feminine as well, and I think there’s something to that. These labels are arbitrary of course, but comics geeks are often seen as failed men, which ends up being default feminine.
It seems pretty narcissistic and selfish to me to go to the internets to condemn large groups of people because they approach your hobby differently than you do, which is what Broderick, etc, did.
“Fans generally don’t push and shove; they line up. They show consideration for their fellow human beings. Which is more than you can say for some narcissistic, selfish cosplayer blocking an alley for a photo-op, or swinging a sword or an axe in a crowd.”
Some fans are considerate. Some cosplayers are rude and selfish. Doesn’t mean they represent the whole of their group.
Some cosplayers are professional, and some are simply fans representing what they like by dressing as them. I think to put them in the “enemy” category in the way Broderick has is really mean-spirited and speaks to an ignorance of modern comic fandom.
I’m not sure about the idea of geek being failed masculine coding as feminine, there are a lot of different kinds of “masculine”; being interested in mechanics and science is often considered “geeky”, but its still coding very masculine, and I think the same is true of the nerd culture comic stuff. I’d say its maybe more of a infantalization thing than a feminine thing?
I may be wrong, but Broderick’s stance strikes me as just another example of the pervasive “get off my lawn” attitudes one sees among older generations of the comics community. There’s probably some jealousy at work there, too. If you want another example, just look at the contempt superhero and indy-comics fans had towards the manga buffs.
Broderick came up as an artist in the 1970s, when comics conventions were little more than back-issue flea markets. The comics-pros, who were used by the organizers to promote the conventions, were the stars of these affairs back then. The cosplayers were considered the lowest rung of geekdom and generally sneered at. These days, the conventions are full-blown media fairs, and outside of the Hollywood people, the cosplayers are the centers of attention. The news outlets, who paid no attention to the conventions in the ’70s and ’80s, now cover them and gravitate immediately to the cosplayers. The comics pros, particularly the older-generation ones such as Broderick, have become marginalized and all but ignored. One can well imagine the situation irking them to some extent.
Nathaniel, children are always linked to women, though; so infantilization and feminization tend to go together.
I agree they go together, and the stereotype of man child living in their mothers basement is pretty strong in that sense, but in terms of creators I would have thought it was coded fairly masculine – so I suppose it depends. I’ve not read Beaty’s book so I can’t really comment, it’s an interesting idea though.
Robert Stanley Martin:
“[…]when comics conventions were little more than back-issue flea markets. The comics-pros, who were used by the organizers to promote the conventions, were the stars of these affairs back then. The cosplayers were considered the lowest rung of geekdom and generally sneered at.”
That is utter, utter, bullshit. I can say that because [i]I was there.[/i]
The costume show was always the high point, the climax of every convention.Generally it would be on the third day of a three-day-weekend con, with maybe a parade and a prize ceremony. Sometimes these cosplayers got acknowledgement in the comics themselves, notably in the Rutland Vermont Parades which were depicted by such Marvel stars as Roy Thomas, Russ Andru, Bill Everett,Sal Buscema, John Buscema, Vince Colletta, Tom Palmer, Bob Brown, Steve Englehart, Gerry Conway, and Len Wein; or by DC artists such as Neal Adams, Dick Giordano and Dennis O’Neill.
Costumers were respected and encouraged, but it was understood that they had their own space and time; i contrast this with the fey thugs of modern cosplay, who think any public space is theirs to privatise.
Noah, you really don’t understand the notion of a commons, do you?
And BTW, I am not happy about you lot shitting on Pat Broderick from on high.
This man contributed mightily to mainstream comics. Off the top of my head: Firestorm, Captain Atom, Legion of Super-Heroes, Batman, Swamp Thing, Planet of the Vampires, Captain Marvel, Howard the Duck, Conan the Barbarian, Man-Thing, Lords of Light and Darkness, Twilight Zone, etc, etc…Also drew the first full nude fuck scene in Marvel history (for [i]The deadly Hands of Kung Fu[/i].) And so much more.
Broderick has been a victim of the repulsive agism now institutionalised at all comics publishers. For him, as for so many artists of his generation or older, conventions are an essential souce of income: from selling old pages, making sketches, taking commissions.
I can imagine the frustrated anger of an artist such as Broderick who, having shelled out serious money to rent a table and hotel room and gas money to attend a con, finds himself cut off from the fans by a bunch of costumed shits.
Personally, when I go to a con I enjoy seeing some good cosplay; I don’t enjoy a gang of costumed asshats blocking my way.
Noah:
“It seems pretty narcissistic and selfish to me to go to the internets to condemn large groups of people because they approach your hobby differently than you do, which is what Broderick, etc, did.”
No, this is NOT what Broderick did. For Broderick, a professional cartoonist for the past forty years, this is NOT A FUCKING HOBBY.
That apart…I think Noah should really give some thought to the notions of the Commons, and that of civility.
Alex, you need to stop shouting.
Sometimes folks can make money off of their hobbies. Some cosplayers do so too. Then people sneer at them for that. Here you are sneering at them because they don’t make money. It’s a double bind. Double binds are usually indicative of prejudice. The problem isn’t what the cosplayers do or don’t do, or are or aren’t. The problem is that people have decided they’re evil or wrong, for reasons which I think have a lot to do with gender.
I understand the commons. You have made no case that cosplayers are somehow worse or ruder than anyone else, except your repeated, and angrier and angrier assertions. That’s not especially convincing. Calling people “shits” and “asshats”, and getting louder and louder about it…that doesn’t make the other people look bad, you know?
Seriously, though; if you keep shouting and cursing I’ll start deleting your comments. That’s not adding anything to the conversation, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate the civility you claim to want to uphold.
Also, cons are privately owned; you’re not complaining about public space vs. private space; you’re complaining about people using the space for hobbies that aren’t paying vs. using the space to sell stuff. If there’s a crowd control issue, that’s a problem the cons should probably deal with, but it doesn’t have much to do with the notion of the commons.
And, thinking about it…I don’t think this thread is going to go anywhere good from here, so better part of valor is just to close it. Thanks for your thoughts, all.