Author: Ryan

I hadn’t thought so. But then I had to go out and buy the snazzy new Animal Man action figure. And then I had to go and do this:


Does anyone know where I can find a Lex Luthor figure that kind of looks like Grant Morrison? Although Morrison with hair looked like a not-quite-so-gothy Sandman, so maybe I can work something out there…

Is there a more perfect comic book woman than Kim Pine?

Clearly not. She could totally kick Power Girl’s ass, too. Well, if there were a sarcasm and dry wit competition.

Bryan O’Malley’s The Wonderful World of Kim Pine was easily the highlight of Comics Festival, the Free Comic Book Day offering of the Toronto Comic Art Festival. It had some pretty stiff competition, too: Short strips by Darwyn Cooke, Cameron Stewart, Steve Rolston, Kean Soo, Hope Larson, and Chip Zdarsky. Oh, and a special episode of Dinosaur Comics! Indeed, it all rocked quite a bit.

But is there anything better than a Kim Pine solo story? I just don’t think that would be possible.

(Just in case you missed the 2005 edition of Comics Festival, due to being in Antarctica or having a crummy comic shop in your area, it’s now online. Pretty spiffy, no?)

It seems vaguely odd to be writing a second post critiquing a column with which I generally agreee, but here we are anyway. (It’s probaby because something I completely disagree with can be more easily ignored, while “I agree, but…” provides a more interesting topic. I’m not a debater, I’m a quibbler.)

The general arguments that 1) people on the internet are overreactive ninnies, and 2) writers should be sensitive to others and observe the world around them, are perfectly sensible positions. The column gets a bit distracted, however, when it veers into the topic of censorship and what role it should (or, more relevantly, should not) play in comic books:

Content for adults is virtually impossible to create when you have a censor filtering out all adult content, because censorship encourages lazy art and writing. Content for adults can only be made by a thinking creator.

The second statement is completely true, but the first part doesn’t have much to do with anything.

Censorship has played a huge role in the development of commercial entertainment. Just look at The Hays Code which governed motion pictures, or the more familiar Comics Code. It’s difficult to argue that either of these bodies was a good thing, but it’s also impossible to deny the body of legimitately adult work that was produced under them.

In many ways, censorship forces creators to think: If you can’t show blood or sex, you have to find other ways to communicate those actions. If political commentary is off-limits, you have to hide it in metaphor and allegory. Jokes for adults can be buried within jokes for children.

It’s also worth remembering that anyone working on Big Two superhero comics is already faced with a brand of censorship: Corporate Editorial can veto just about anything, from plot direction to dialogue choices. This isn’t censorship in the tradional sense, but it’s nonetheless an significant force imposing its wishes on the writer.

If you’ve read this blog more than once or twice, you’re probably aware that I’m not seriously advocating the merits of censorship. But here we come back to the part of the column which which I have no disagreements: “Content for adults can only be made by a thinking creator.” I’d even add that quality content for any audience can only be made by a thinking creator. And that thinking creator is going to find a way to tell his or her stories regardless of exterior forces. The lazy writer is always going to take the easy way out: He’ll play by the censor’s rules because he doesn’t want to make waves, and when he’s free from those chains he’ll heap on explicit content because that’s the only way he knows to tell a story. The lazy writer will give you clichés and stereotypes and predictable plot twists whether he’s writing for Johnny DC or Avatar.

When Grant Morrison, to pick an example, is on his game, he can do whatever the heck he wants. He can give you an explicitly adult book like WE3 or The Invisibles, and in the same month he can give you mature and intelligent stories couched in fantasy like Vimanarama or Animal Man. (I wanted to make the bold point that Animal Man was published under the Code, but alas, it wasn’t. Still, there’s relatively little explicit content that book; it even crossed over with the code-approved Justice League Europe. In a similar vein, I’m mystified that Vertigo automatically slaps “Mature Readers” labels on all their books, even if that book happens to be Seaguy, Stardust, or The Little Endless Storybook. That’s just weird.)

Neither censorship nor pure, unadulterated artistic freedom are a guarantee of diversity, sensitivity, maturity, or, most importantly, good writing. What may be the real point of the article – that irate internet users’ cries for/against censorship distract attention from real debates – is quite true, but the column fell into a similar trap. Because, really, no sensible person wants censorship, and none of those who do understand much of anything about the creative process. That conversation is a meaningless sideshow that doesn’t have much to do with anything.

(And, apparently, provides a backdoor for nitpicking otherwise perfectly reasonable columns to death.)

It has come to my attention that some people aren’t reading Blue Beetle. This is clearly unacceptable, and must be remedied. Now, I’ll grant some of the would-be detractors a couple of points:

• Countdown was a wretched story, and DC’s continuing slaughter and/or general fucking up of the Superbuddies is stupid.
• The first six issues of Blue Beetle were slow, underwhelming, and featured some fill-in art that really wasn’t up to snuff.

But while DC’s treatment of their lighter heroes is discouraging, the new Blue Beetle is exactly the sort of book many fans lament these days. And this book took a big step up with #7, and has been on another level entirely since John Rogers took over as solo writer. It also helps that Rafael Albuquerque doesn’t seem to have any problems with monthly deadlines; indeed, the only problem with the up-and-comer is that he’s so good, I’m afraid DC is going to want to put him on one of their higher profile books soon.

So, that out of the way: Let me show you what you’re missing if you’re not reading Blue Beetle, courtesy of issue number fourteen:

Misunderstandings between Superheroes!

Strong parenting techniques!

Snappy narration!

Robot Attack Penguins!

In case I haven’t been clear: Blue Beetle is everything I love about superhero comics. It’s fun, funny, and creative. It has a great supporting cast. It’s got expressive and stylish art. It even integrates itself into the DC universe effectively, using characters and history that add to the book, instead of miring it in continuity and crossovers. That last one might be the highest compliment of all, coming from me, but here’s another along the same lines: This new Blue Beetle would have been a perfect fit for the old Justice League International.

DC might not be on a hot streak right now, but they’re doing a heck of a good job with Blue Beetle. Don’t let it go unnoticed: If you love superheroes, you should be reading this book.