Utilitarian Review 2/21/15

Wonder Woman News

I am reading at Women and Children First on Thursday at 7:30. Be there! (something compels you.)

Aimee Levitt with a brief review and a preview of the reading.

Catherine Kustanczy interviewed me for Mic.

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Dana Schechter on why Natural Snow Buildings is the best band you’ve never hear of.

Caroline Small on Delany and comics definitions.

Me on Static and diverse mediocre genre product.

Kim O’Connor on Michael DeForge’s First Year Healthy and mental illness.

Chris Gavaler on how the evil corporate Hydra monster has hijacked Marvel.

Osvaldo Oyola on romance comics and the weirdness of heteronormativity.

Ng Suat Tong on Dylan Horrocks’ mediocre Sam Zabel, and pens as penises.

Robert Stanley Martin on what’s been overlooked at the Oscars.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the New Republic I said we should get rid of public intellectuals.

At the Atlantic I wrote about why we should keep the guilt in guilty pleasures.

At Pacific Standard I wrote about

— how copyright damages learning and how I had to use pirated scans to write my Wonder Woman book.

—who is and isn’t responsible in totalitarian regimes.

At Ravishly I wrote about:

—how scientists who fear alien invasion should read Octavia Butler.

—The hidden queer history of the blues.

— To Kill a Mockingbird and imagining that all the racists are poor people.

At Splice Today I wrote about how

Atheists should own their violence.

Scott Walker is scary, but not because he’s electable.
 
Other Links

Terrell Jermaine Starr on harassment of black women online.

Ta-Nehisi Coates remembers David Carr.

Aimee Levitt on chick lit, lit fic, and Single, Carefree, Mellow.

Mikki Kendall on why Mary Shelly isn’t the first sci-fi writer.
 

afe521e6-ed7e-4a42-8db6-673a4f203188

Voices from the Archive: Caroline Small on Delany, Definitions, and Comics

DelanyKC
 
Caroline Small wrote an interesting commenton Samuel Delany’s view of comics and Scott McCloud; thought I’d reproduce it here.

Jeet and Noah: I guess I am still deeply skeptical about the assertion that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman represent “Delany’s taste” in comics, rather than a strategic choice of writers to call attention to. I guess I just disagree that “taste” is what’s at stake here at all, or even that “taste” is a particularly useful category for understanding the role that Gaiman and Moore play in what Delany has to say about comics. (I realize I’m making a big deal out of something that I’m sure Jeet said casually, but it seems to me a particularly fecund slip…)

It’s not that I don’t agree to some extent: I find it deeply unpalatable when Delany uses words like “powerful, insightful and brilliant” to describe Scott McCloud. McCloud is the epitome of “middle-of-the-road” as far as I’m concerned. But I tend to read Delany’s praise as strategic rather than sycophantic.

I’m not sure what else from comics Delany could engage OTHER than Gaiman and Moore, given his project of deconstructing the binary between art and genre: despite those writers being palpably middlebrow (and with that I certainly agree), comics just doesn’t have a Marge Piercy or even a Sam Delany of its own that he could grapple with instead. And Gaiman/Moore have the strategic advantage, even over Piercy and Delany himself, of being very familiar to a great many people and therefore valuable as illustration. Jeet, are there comics creators/writers whom you think he should write about instead, that would be less disappointing, but still effectively work for his project?

I think the way I phrased my initial comment led to this notion that Delany exhibits some “highbrow” taste in literature, and that he hasn’t shown as sensitive an “ear” for comics. But — to use Jeet’s examples — Nabokov and Updike are really no less middlebrow than Gaiman and Moore. Delany’s fiction leaves no doubt that he reads and engages writers much much much more ambitious than Nabokov and Updike. But his project (and possibly but not necessarily his taste) dictates that he not privilege the highbrow at the expense of the lowbrow. I prefer to view him as capable of such great appreciation of human creativity that he privileges instead a synthesis of the entire spectrum: low, high, and middlebrow. There’s a “hippie appreciation” to his writing about art that I think has to be recognized and taken in context rather than at face value.

So for me the “disappointing” thing here is not that Delany has less sophisticated taste in comics than he does in literature: I don’t think we have access at all to his taste through his criticism, because he is far too fine a critic to be concerned with matters of taste.

What’s disappointing — although, really, it’s not so much disappointing as fascinating — is that as a writer he wasn’t able to make as much hay out of his perspective in comics as he was in fiction. Sam Delany’s prose SF really does participate in and advance his project of challenging the ways in which we presume genre cannot be art: Dhalgren is an essential, if not the essential, text for re-examining the conventional wisdom about how the strictures of genre characteristics preclude literary experimentation. But you both pointed out that his comics do not challenge the binary between genre and art in the same way. That’s interesting. Saying that he has middlebrow taste in comics is not sufficient to account for the fact that what Sam Delany has to offer can’t complicate and “elevate” graphic genre fiction in in the same way that it did prose genre fiction…

It’s a fun thread in general; Caro has some more thoughts, as do Robert Stanley Martin, Jeet Heer, and others.

Utilitarian Review 2/14/15

On HU

From the Archive: Aaron Costain on architecture and comics.

Christina Wintturi on why you can’t take the sex out of Barbie.

Me on Batgirl overturning the patriarchy.

Chris Gavaler on ouija boards and superpowers.

I interviewed Jordannah Elizabeth about her lovely new album.

Ibrahim Ineke on how the gothic and comics are intertwined.

On art, society, and fear of a Beyoncé think piece.

On how the right can’t even tell when it hates Jews anymore.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At Reason I wrote about how sex work stigma precedes criminalization, rather than the other way around.

At the Daily Beast I argued that Marvel comics aren’t better than the films in the handling of race.

At the Atlantic I reviewed Ted Gioia’s book on love songs (and Jessie J.)

At Ravishly I wrote about:

—the crappy cover for the new all-female Avengers title

Beyoncé and all the better versions of Precious Lord.

Dawn Richard and the reluctance to see black women as geniuses.

— being bored with your spouse.

At the Chicago Reader I did a review of a show on nudity.

At Splice I explained why Bobby Jindal insults John Boehner.
 
Other Links

Tessa Dare has a brilliant Taylor Swift fanfic.

Brianna Wu with some concrete actions folks can take to reduce harassment of women online.

Jessica Luther has a lengthy discussion of the implications of a Vanderbilt rape case.
 

jessie-j-who-you-are

Utilitarian Review 2/7/15

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Darryl Ayo on public readings of comics.

Me on reverse racism and segregation in Chicago.

Me on Andrew Sullivan and the Iraq war as blogging psychodrama.

Julian Chambliss on Flash, Arrow, and the history of the world’s greatest crossovers.

Chris Gavaler on Justified and how if a series goes on too long you end up with nihilism.

Me on Kathleen Gilles Seidel’s “More Than You Dreamed” and the how romance novels can be ambiguous.

Roy T. Cook with a transitional post for PencilPanelPage — they’re going to be posting irregularly rather than weekly. Check the post out for their votes for the best posts they’ve done so far.

Jog on Aamir Khan’s PK and gentle religious satire, Bollywood style.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic I talked about the possibility of suing people who don’t vaccinate their kids.

At Ravishly I:

— wrote about how the original Ghostbusters is a sexist piece of shit.

—wrote about This One Summer and adults being teens and vice versa.

—interviewed Julia Serano about making left spaces more inclusive.

— talked about Black Sea and hating men (unless they’re dead.)

At Splice Today:

— I wrote about P.C., Charles C.W. Cooke, and purity politics.

— I wrote about Andrew Sullivan and the hubris of humility.

At the Chicago Reader I reviewed stoned behemoths Drug Honkey.
 
Other Links

Kevin Carson on Watchmen and why you shouldn’t let the neoliberals have a monopoly on hating the government.

You don’t get much better than X-rated LaVern Baker and Jackie Wilson.

Shea Hennum expresses skepticism about Scott McCloud’s The Sculptor.

Kelly Conaboy on the disastrous 50 Shades press tour.

And hey, Feministing gave away copies of my book.
 

mqq1yl2bgliqqqyi

The Most Popular Movie Column in the Entire World #6 – Notes on the Virtue of Cautious Satire

Six miles away from my office is a theater that plays Bollywood movies simultaneously with their Indian release. This is one such film.

***

PK
Directed by Rajkumar Hirani, 2014

 

PKPoster_zps91ef80ef

 
I think it’s high time we creative people in the film industry stop and think what we teach our children, the audience, and the future generation through our films.” – Aamir Khan, Satyamev Jayate, Nov. 9, 2014

The first thing you ought to know about PK is that it is the highest-grossing film in the history of Indian cinema; in fact, if you want to get boorishly local about it, liberal estimates mark it as the first Indian film to have breached the classic barricade by which to cordon pretenders off from the rarefied seats of Hollywood success: it has grossed in excess of $100 million. Indeed, at just over $10.5 million collected in the U.S. & Canada, PK is also the highest-grossing foreign-language film to have screened in English-speaking North America in 2014, and its global expansion is not quite done – a 3,500-screen wide release is now planned for China.

The second thing you ought to know about PK is that it’s a broad religious satire starring a Muslim celebrity, which has not exactly been the consensus image conjured by the international media from combining religion and satire in recent weeks – but then, Hindi film is so big a place that most in western arts reportage find it easy to just relegate the whole thing to specialist tastes, even when its successes burn historically bright.

And few are less unfamiliar with success then Aamir Khan.
 

8ae04cc7-3951-4840-a9b6-0c36718b026d_zpsmiykthab

 
As with many Bollywood stars, Khan is a scion. Both his uncle and his father produced and directed films, the former slotting him into his screen debut at the age of eight and subsequently producing his adult star breakthrough: Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak, a romance directed by one of Khan’s cousins in 1988. Soon, Khan became renowned as a lucrative ‘chocolate boy’ — very sweet, much-desired — even while he developed a reputation as a perfectionist, appearing in relatively few films per year. He first came before the eyes of international art house aficionados in 1998, when he appeared in Indo-Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta’s Earth; Roger Ebert gave it three stars, but this was nothing compared to what was to come.

In fact, if you’re like me — an English-speaking North American over the age of 30 — the first Bollywood film you ever heard a *lot* of critics discussing was surely 2001’s Lagaan, an unexpected global sensation big enough to catapult India toward a rare Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film; it was also Aamir Khan’s debut as a movie producer. He subsequently grew yet more remote, going completely inactive from the years 2002 through 2004 for personal reasons, only to return as frontman for a series of ambitious projects, the most notable-in-retrospect being 2006’s Rang De Basanti, a resolutely populist account of political awakening among a tidily diverse set of college chums.

Never mind that the noticeably 40-year old Khan was playing a character just under half his age, aided mainly by a floppy hairdo akin to Martin Freeman’s in the Hobbit trilogy; the film’s potent depiction of extremely close friendships transfigured through patriotic opposition to sociopolitical ills, up to and including political assassination, struck a chord with the filmgoing public. A 2008 thesis paper by one Meghana Dilip of the University of Massachusetts Amherst provides several examples of subsequent real-life protests fashioning themselves after events from the film, as well as some analysis of the film’s aggressive marketing: carefully tailored to enhance the work’s prestige as a venue for social messaging while also functioning as effective advertising for brand partners.

This was the path Khan would subsequently follow. In 2007 he would make his directorial debut with Taare Zameen Par (aka Like Stars on Earth), an ‘inspirational teacher’ drama concerning childhood dyslexia distributed in English environs by Disney. In 2008 came Ghajini, a vaguely arty revenge thriller reminiscent of Christopher Nolan’s Memento which became the highest-grossing Indian film ever, and remained so until it was dethroned by Khan’s next starring project: 2010’s 3 Idiots, an inspirational comedy about engineering students directed by Rajkumar Hirani, about whom more will be mentioned shortly. Other films would then vie for the heavyweight title, even temporarily gaining the lead, but all were swept away in 2013 by a tidal wave of kitsch – the riotously chintzy crime thriller-cum-global financial crisis parable Dhoom: 3, which marked the *third* time in half a decade that Aamir Khan had starred in the highest-grossing film in all the history of Indian cinema.

And hey – this isn’t to say that every film starring Khan was a popular bonanza. But even as the likes of Dhobi Ghat (2011, lyric ensemble drama about life ‘n shit) and Talaash (2012, very serious cop drama about regret ‘n shit) failed to set records, Khan was planning his next big move in social justice entertainment. It was not enough to be the Quality Superstar. He was going to be the Oprah of India.
 

1805360f-3a23-4d85-a638-eb71e504a97e_zpsc65fien3

 
Satyamev Jayate debuted on May 6, 2012, airing simultaneously on national and cable networks on late Sunday mornings to maximize family viewership. It has since run 25 episodes across three seasons, dubbed into numerous languages and streamed online with English subtitles. Each show adopts a discreet topic: domestic violence; alcoholism; dowry; road safety; LGBT acceptance; tuberculosis; caste; toxic masculinity. The aim, generally, is social hygiene via slick suites of emotional appeal, with creator/co-producer Khan seated before a studio audience, coaxing tales of trial and triumph out of guests from across India. The host weeps openly seemingly once per episode, but his tears are not shed for nothing; each broadcast also offers a poll by which viewers can SMS a vote and a small donation to one or more specially designated non-governmental organizations, thus ensuring a tangible result while the credits roll. It was all a huge enough success that season 3 added a subsequent hour-long live show after each episode, in which Khan would interact with viewers on the applicable issue.

And it was into this context — premiering, in fact, the very month after the final episode of season 3 — that PK arrived. By this time, Khan had made extremely explicit his feelings on Bollywood’s propagation of objectified women and aggressive, thoughtless men, and there was really no better filmmaker with whom he could have collaborated in opposition to that than Rajkumar Hirani, of the aforementioned 3 Idiots. Faultlessly dignified and widely successful, Hirani made his name on the Munna Bhai series of comedies, the second of which (Lage Raho Munna Bhai, 2006) had prompted an interest spike in Gandhism, not unlike the observable social impact of the roughly contemporaneous Rang De Basanti – was it fate that brought Khan and Hirani together?

Perhaps it was good business sense. Hindi film has enjoyed a long history of popular movies dedicated to educating the public on social issues; Hirani, for example, is an avowed fan of an earlier social film exemplar, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, though it is Hirani’s works with Khan which have found the most success with such films right now, in an era of grander financial scale and especially meticulous marketing. Hirani readily states that the film came specifically from “a desire to say something,” message-wise, rather than any specific storytelling goals, which perhaps added a special dose of calculation to the project’s timing. It follows an earlier religious satire, 2012’s OMG – Oh My God!, which director Umesh Shukla based on both an Indian play and a 2001 Australian comedy, The Man Who Sued God; undismayed by the similarities, Shukla would come to deem his and Hirani’s works dual entries in a genre, and perhaps we should think of it in terms of generic devices, as a means of best divining its message.
 

421b1b02-ca4e-47fd-a8d1-ef82caa9b7a6_zpskhhevxvq

 
As PK opens, Aamir Khan is introduced as a humanoid space alien arriving nude on Earth; this is possibly inspired by another Australian film, 1995’s Epsilon (aka Alien Visitor), but Hirani and co-writer Abhijat Joshi draw from the wider global pool of fish-out-of-water entertainment: no sooner has Khan arrived on terra firma than his shimmering remote beacon is snatched by a thief, leaving him stranded in the midst of humanity with no pants on his ass and no way for his spacecraft to pick him back up.

MEANWHILE, IN EXOTIC, FARAWAY BRUGES, Anushka Sharma plays a young Indian woman who tumbles into a ruthlessly cute relationship with a Pakistani man; alas, no sooner has their obligatory romantic montage/song sequence ended than Sharma’s parents, beholden to a charismatic Hindu godman, voice their religiously-motivated doubts as to the endurance of any conceivable relationship with a *gasp* *choke* Muslim. The couple nevertheless plans to marry, but when the wedding day arrives Sharma finds herself alone, reading a Mysterious Note in which her love apparently severs their union and requests she never try to contact him again. Against all notions of common sense, she doesn’t, and returns heartbroken to Delhi to pursue work at the home of the emotionally destroyed: television journalism.

Sharma, as I’ve noted before, can be an entertaining presence; like a utility player from the bygone age of American studio films, she plays basically the same character in every movie, modifying her good-hearted effervescence from ‘extremely bright’ to ‘actually blinding’ as the role demands. She’s pretty subdued here, perhaps out of respect for Khan’s full-bodied schtick as the alien, PK – so named for his eccentric and questioning ways, as ‘peekay’ is a term suggesting drunkenness, which everyone assumes is this crazy guy’s problem. Staggering around with jug ears and ill-fitting stolen clothes, his eyes straining so as never to blink on camera (it’s alien!), his muscles bulging from the physical conditioning Khan presumably underwent to look good in nude scenes, his mouth lipstick-red from constantly chewing paan, PK may look like a professional wrestler lost between gimmicks, but he’s not tipsy; he just wants to find his damn beacon, which has regrettably fallen into the hands of a religious leader who’s passing it off as a divine object. Could this be the same godman who messed up Sharma’s romance? Might the alien and the journalist team up to expose religious shenanigans in India?! Have you ever seen a movie? Like ever??
 

6eb3a6a7-cf41-4132-8a6c-bcb34139cb15_zpseuxfxwpk

 
The heart of PK is in the alien’s observations about life in this crazy mess called a country. Humans make love in private, but make war in public! You know. Midway through the first half, Khan relates to Sharma a long flashback about how he learned the ways of the human; aliens communicate telepathically, but they can also download another entity’s store of knowledge through prolonged physical contact, so many (many) jokes are devoted to PK attempting to hold the hands of random men and women, only to be aggressively rebuffed. Message-wise, this functions in two ways. PK *is* certainly behaving inappropriately, but he’s also an innocent, an adult child, so the audience simultaneously feels sorry about the men exploding in homophobic rage, though they might also sympathize with their gay panic, given that men holding hands is such an extraterrestrial abberation. Similarly, the audience may feel the women are right to fend off the unwanted advances of a strange man, though aren’t they overreacting just a little? PK the alien only wants to be nice, and so PK the movie has it both ways, playing into social norms as a means of sugaring the pill – perhaps with so much additive that the medicinal effect is nullified.

A similar trick occurs when Khan begins inquiring as to religion, having heard that God is in charge of India, and reasoning that He, of all people, must know where to find his beacon. But oh – all these religions are contradictory! The gods must be crazy! The Catholics drink wine at mass, but when PK tries to bring some booze to the mosque, he’s chased away by an angry mob… segueing into a montage of every major religion pursuing him in a similarly outraged manner. Balance is the key.

Balance might also be a necessity. Feature films screened in India must undergo censorship via the Central Board of Film Certification. Guidelines promulgated by the Central Government pursuant to the Cinematograph Act of 1952 provide that films must avoid “visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious and other groups.” Indeed, the presence of censorship has occasionally been invoked to shield PK from religious and political argumen; check any well-populated comments section of an internet post relating to the film, and you’ll see plenty of accusations that Hirani is kissing Muslim ass, that Khan is concern trolling the Hindu majority, that the film’s treatment of various faiths are, in fact, wildly unbalanced, etc. But if a statutory body has already evaluated the damn thing for such offense, the argument goes, what legitimate grievance can you have?

Or let’s try another question: what is the PK philosophy of religion? Broadly, it cosigns the general theme of Shukla’s OMG – that religion should not turn so much on icons or intermediaries, but one’s personal relationship with the divine. Those of us in the U.S. (again: boorishly local) may find it not so dissimilar a take to that of evangelical Christianity, except the Indian films mean it to apply to all faiths, with none superior to another, distilled to their ‘essence’ so that the point where they are distinguishable is uncertain. OMG and PK, however, can be distinguished by the former’s insistence that there is, in fact, true divine power at work; Hirani & Joshi offer no such reassurance, pivoting instead toward a secularism where religions are but changes in costume; fashion. Very urbane, but cognizant of their audience. Only space aliens explicitly lack any religion in this film, which creeps right up to the precipice of agnosticism, but does not make the final leap, content to have its hero and his media enabler focus on exposing the chicanery of individual crummy religious representatives, thus inspiring a nationwide social media movement the filmmakers and star all but beg the audience to take into the real world. Hell, they did it before!
 

76db137c-7382-43a3-9b51-9c3688659644_zpscovnvwu8

 
Now, I am not an alien, and I cannot read your mind, and you are not right here so that I can hold your hand, which I know you would let me, but I can nonetheless hear what you’re thinking. Of course this movie made $100 million, it’s a silly product! It’s safe! My god, a satire that makes every effort to avoid upsetting anyone! It’s a fucking sitcom!

Hirani, it must be said, is upfront about the cadence of his storytelling. “We are trying to make it simple so that it reaches as many people as possible, because in India you are talking about literacy levels which are from 0 to a 100.” It is similar to the careful packaging and broad distribution of Khan’s Satyamev Jayate – the intent is to be mass communication, with as wide a reach as possible.

Or, in other words, theirs is a cautious satire, wary of causing offense because the implication is that offense or aggression will cause the masses to turn away, and restrict the message, then, to like-minded souls (who don’t need it) or interested opponents spoiling for a fight. They will be the voice of reason, thus accessing the undecided, the busy, the unpracticed; from there spreads the vine. What does a Presidential candidate do in a U.S. general election? Move toward the center. Hirani, Joshi & Khan, then, if you’ll allow a pun, are truly political artists, operating on just as prominent a nationwide level, and raking in returns befitting a chief executive.

But maybe something else is happening too.
 

34b8a999-5d24-41b3-8aa5-2e8eba9fe711_zpssihrtvlz

 
It is about half an hour from the end when the religiopolitical indistinctness of PK suddenly reaches a tension so acute that it becomes fascinating. Khan is preparing to debate his godman nemesis on live television, with the former’s beacon and the latter’s reputation on the line, when he is contacted by a good-hearted lowlife friend played by Sanjay Dutt, who also starred as the good-hearted lowlife protagonist of Hirani’s earlier Munna Bhai series – truly this film has dotted every i and crossed every t. Dutt has found the thief that stole Khan’s beacon, thus disproving the godman’s claim to the item’s ownership/divinity, but before this news can be disseminated a bomb blast rips through the train station, killing both the thief and Dutt.

The film never confirms who did it. However, when the cameras start rolling on the big television event — any similarities drawn between it and a certain actual show featuring Aamir Khan are yours to draw — the godman is hardly disinclined from pointing out that perhaps ol’ PK’s inquisition has proven counterproductive; I mean, he’s certainly not happy that people died, it’s an awful tragedy, of course, but maybe also a teachable moment, because, y’know, certain groups just can’t handle criticism like that. Eager to demonstrate the insights his close relationship with the beyond have brought, the godman also brings up the whole unfortunate incident of Anushka Sharma’s punctured romance, which finally moves Khan to action. He’s touched Sharma, you see. Heck, he’s in love with her! But in downloading her thoughts, he was also able to ascertain the truth behind her hidden sadness. That Muslim boy didn’t send Anushka Sharma a Mysterious Note breaking off their wedding at all! Anushka Sharma read the wrong note by accident! That boy was still crazy about her, AND IF YOU GET ON THE PHONE RIGHT NOW, ANUSHKA SHARMA, ON THE PHONE TO BELGIUM LIVE ON THE AIR, YOU’LL FIND OUT THAT YOUR MAN HAS BEEN CALLING THE EMBASSY OF PAKISTAN EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME TO SEE IF YOU’LL EVER COME BACK!

Needless to say everybody pretty much shits themselves at this point, while the godman can only glower. He has been totally defeated – hoisted with his own petard. His own disciple, Sharma’s father, grabs the beacon from his hands. The charming thing about PK is that its stakes are pretty low; the godman isn’t a supervillain, he’s just a liar and a petty tyrant, managing his fiefdom through compelling narratives that exploit social fears to widen divisions, and thus reduce the risk of incursion onto the feifdom. Do not trust Muslim men with Hindu women; the man will leave. If the godman truly had divine access, he might have seen the cosmic game being played: this narrator, beaten by a better narrative. A ludicrous, goofy, contrived popular narrative, SO much more compelling than any of his recycled biases. Metaphorically, he has been destroyed by Bollywood. The prejudice of religion, ousted by movies. It is an aspirational vision for these filmmakers, this star. The assurance that they are doing more than making money.

The dream of art to save the world.

Utilitarian Review 1/30/15

AphexSwiftReleasedOctober2014DavidRees

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Erin Polgreen wonders whether journalism comics can be funny.

Chris Gavaler on superheroes, billionaires, and his mother.

Me on blasphemy and Charlie Hebdo (and the most offensive cartoon you’ve never seen.)

Ng Suat Tong with a list of the Best Comics Criticism of 2014.

Em Liu examines Hollywood’s problem with the Asian male.

The spike from Jacob Canfield’s post has largely passed; we’re back to wending our quiet and mostly anonymous way through the internet. Sort of a relief.

Shonté Daniels with a short review of the stealth video game The Marvelous Miss Take.

Chris Gavaler argues that we are in the age of popularism (move over post-modernism.)

And finally I urged everyone tell Jonathan Chait to shut up.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic

— I interviewed Johnetta Elzie about women in the Ferguson marches.

—I reviewed Point of Honor, which tries to create a post-racial Confederacy.

At Ravishly

— I wrote about the gendered genre confusion of David Rees’ Aphex Twin/Taylor swift mashups.

—I interviewed Kathleen Gilles Seidel, one of my favorite romance novelists.

—I talked about Ms. Marvel fighting Islamophobia in San Francisco

—I explained why being lazy is good for your marriage.

At Splice Today

—I explained why liberals shouldnt’ want Palin to run.

—I advised Freddie deBoer to be a uniter if uniting is what he’s into.

At the Reader I talked briefly about Kaki King, guitar god.
 
Other Links

Katherine Cross on Jonathan Chait and toxic activism.

This Sady Doyle Chait takedown is maybe my favorite.

And I still really like this Angus Johnston piece about defusing conflict on the left (and in general.) I like the updates as well.

Utilitarian Review 1/24/15

Wonder Woman News

This Wednesday, at 6:00PM, I am going to be signing books at the lovely First Aid Comics, 1617 East 55th Street, Chicago, IL 60615. If you are in Chicago, come on by and chat about space kangaroos!

Lauren Davis did a really fun interview with me; we talked about Steve and castration and Etta Candy and love leaders, which haven’t come up in other interviews so much.
 
Other News

Jacob Canfield talks about the depressing and overwhelming response to his viral internet piece on Charlie Hebdo which ran on HU.
 
On HU

Featured Archive Post: Subdee on Britpop and Phonogram.

Josselin Moneyron looked at a year of Charlie Hebdo covers (most of them aren’t about Islam.)

Folks asked me questions about Wonder Woman, and I answered.

I interviewed Andrew Hoberek about Watchmen and neoliberalism.

Sarah Shoker on whether science fiction will lead us to a better future.

Naphtali Rivkin on Junot Diaz, Isabel Allende, and superbildungsromans.

Kim O’Connor brings you fables from your comics industry.

Michael Carson on American Sniper as authenticity kitsch.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At the Atlantic:

— I wrote about Bart Beaty’s new Archie book and the advantages of no continuity.

—I explained that the point of The Man in the High Castle is that the Nazi dystopia isn’t that dystopic.

At Ravishly:

— I talked about why Beyonce and Wonder Woman are alike (they will save the world through sex.

—I argued that Lucy in the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe can be seen as a feminist character.

At Pacific Standard I reviewed Edward Struzik’s Future Arctic, about practical responses to climate change.

At Splice Today I wrote about

— why you can write about a trailer without seeing the movie.

— how my cat does not want to be cozy.

At the Chicago Reader I did short reviews of

— a nifty Posada tribute show

—woozy loungey hipsters Woo Park.

 
Other Links

Forrest Wickman on how women don’t get credit for their music.

Anthony Failola on the French Muslim community and Charlie Hebdo.
 

LionWardrobe12