Do Not Siege Walled Cities - 287
Necklace of Bread
HOLIDAYS IN
We’re approaching the holidays and I’m excited to spend them with my parents. My father is 0% Italian, but that was his circle growing up. So he’s got that peculiar tick where I have to be fed at all times. Which is nice in principle, but I am worried I’m about to go back to my wife fatter than I left. Wish me luck.
Here’s Hot Chocolate, the mini-rooster wearing a ring of bread around his neck. I found him like this in the afternoon. He was confused why the other birds were pecking him.
DESIGN CORNER
I’ll try to make it a habit to pull from my ‘cool designs’ folder every newsletter. Sometimes a cover, poster, or box art I like. Other times, like today, a character.
Could she hold that gun in real life? Definitely not. Is her outfit practical for… anything other than sitting ringside at a Tyson fight? Definitely not. But she looks cool. Design success.
“OH NO! HE DIED!”
The collapse of Diamond Comics happened in the most anticlimactic fashion I could imagine. And it makes me nervous.
If you write this off as “things change,” you’re being accurate but not terribly truthful. Yes, things change. But we tend to remark on them when for decades we believed they never would.
From the time before I entered comics professionally to very recently, it was understood that Diamond was an entrenched monopoly that controlled comic books in a fashion that Triads would envy. It was never going anywhere.
And then it just… did. Covid; market pressures; competition; etc etc. New distributors took major clients. Barbarians at the gates. The empire fell. Carved up and seized by upstarts. And now it looks like the business is in its final struggle.
The fact nobody seems alarmed by this speaks to, perhaps, how small and unserious an industry this is.
I don’t want anyone to shed tears for the company they all said they hated for decades. But… you’d think the funeral would at least be worth talking about.
MAYBE IT REALLY IS THAT EASY
A game I’ll never play came out recently. Marvel Rivals is a hero shooter, a genre that requires great character design if the game hopes to connect with players. Apparently, Marvel Rivals has met that standard.
I personally don’t find these designs interesting. But the enthusiasm is difficult to avoid online. So, good on the designers.
Marvel is very much NOT a sure-thing in games. They’ve had some very quiet releases and a couple outright failures. Likewise, hero shooters are a risky gamble. Players have brands they’re invested in and it takes a lot to dislodge them.
But, despite those factors, this game is killing it.
Many commentators and critics are putting that success on the strength of the character design. Those unafraid of tripping into what passes for politics in game commentary say “they gave the players what they want.” Those who don’t wanna wade into those waters are saying it without saying it. They’re going with “the designs are fun.”
I should mention this game hit the same week as the trailer for the new Naughty Dog property, Intergalactic. Notable because people love ND games and are excited, but also because the lead is a bald woman of average proportions. I’ll offer that I found her design more appealing than thicc Squirrel Girl. But many presumed there’s an agenda to it. The topic of “what players want” is burning hot in the comment-sphere.
As a comic book fan first, I apply the lens of a reader. And looking at the success of this game makes me wonder if the zero-sex-appeal policy at the corporate publishers is a good idea. I should be honest and acknowledge that the Big Two do dabble in trashy pinup covers. But it’s clearly meant to be ignored by ‘credible’ press and disavowed by editors. A ‘necessary evil’ perhaps.
I used to defend the pivot to sexlessness because I acknowledge that comics need to reflect the moment they’re created in. And post-MeToo a lotta media has struggled to understand itself. Is it ‘bad’ to titillate readers? “Depends on the reader,” is how they look at it.
But I don’t think I can defend it anymore. Some people like to look at characters that look like they work for the water department. Others like to look at runway models and muscle beach devotees. These are just preferences. Completely divorced from any reasonable moral judgement. And you can offer both without undermining a brand. So, why marginalize the preference that makes money?
I mean, just being logical about it. Taking the social ballast outta the topic and attempting to see it for what it is: Why do the thing that doesn’t work as well?
HOW A WRITER MIGHT PROCESS A NEWS ITEM
This week the woman at the center of the 2006 ‘Duke Lacrosse Scandal’ recanted her allegations and apologized for lying. She’s found Jesus while in prison for murder and seems to be shedding some guilt from her conscience.
The media is covering it, but I don’t think they’re doing a terribly good job of describing the magnitude of the thing in 2006. This story fed into (and off of) every nightly news viewer’s presuppositions about race, class, and the protections or disadvantages inherent in each. It was a feeding frenzy.
And then the story began to fall apart. One of the accused has an alibi. The accuser was unable to identify her alleged attackers in the first two passes of photo lineups. And, more damning, tests proved she had a number of men’s DNA on her, but not the lacrosse players’.
The accused were, nevertheless, arrested.
Some of the media hedged. And others held the line. Culture war talking points. Rich kids vs marginalized sex worker. Frat assholes vs struggling black woman. Rage all around.
In interview, the accuser’s story changed. A lot. Corroborating witnesses couldn’t corroborate. Physical evidence didn’t support the claims. Eventually, the prosecutor is pulled from the case. An attorney general stepped in and announced the charges are dropped for insufficient evidence. And, importantly, in the view of that office the accused were innocent.
That took a year.
The lacrosse players sued Duke and were awarded large sums. To some people, that makes it no-harm no-foul. But only a person without dignity would take money over the ability to walk in a room and not have the worst presumed of them. Money cures fewer things than the comments section presumes.
If you’ve ever been accused of something you didn’t do, you know it’s, above all, destabilizing. Particularly if you’re a trusting person. Nothing will birth a cynic faster. But, if you haven’t had that experience, you might repeat expedient shibboleths like the credulous “believe all women” or the particularly dark “something must’ve happened.”
If you’re a writer, you observe people. You study dynamics and interactions. You can have the most bleeding heart in the world and wish to empower women in any capacity you can, but you cannot ignore what you know: Motivations vary and are not subject to rules that fit on bumper stickers.
Specific to comics: I don’t know what Neil Gaiman did or didn’t do in his life. But I do know during MeToo, when he was looking wet-eyed (he’s always wet-eyed) telling us to believe all women, he did not believe what he was saying. Not because he’s guilty of sexual impropriety. I don’t know what he’s guilty of. But because he’s a writer. And moreover he’s a good writer. He’s not shitting out a monthly for Marvel and painting characters with the broadest possible brushes. He knows people don’t always make sense. He knows people can talk themselves into things. And he KNOWS motivations are messy combinations of self-interest and self-destruction. And he knows we often -or always- don’t know our own motivations.
Gaiman’s got other things to attend to at the moment, so I don’t expect comment. But as a writer I’m fascinated by the humanness (humanity too, but really humanness) of this moment in the story. A small ‘truth and reconciliation.’ Do the lacrosse players who spent a year as (brutal, by her account) rapists forgive her? Their lives are good. Hers is bad. But she traumatized them in a way that no one reading this newsletter can begin to understand. So… forgiveness? It’s such an individual (that’s why it’s interesting) decision, informed by every experience but also our natural born dispositions.
I don’t think looking at this from a writer’s point of view is all that bad an idea. I’m invested in every person involved.
WHY READ AT ALL?
I’m going to talk about creators, one of whom is still early in his career. I want it understood that I wish success for everyone I mention here and am not tryna cut anyone down. I’m merely addressing something I saw online that, to me, speaks to a larger media literacy issue.
The tweet above is, yes, just one person’s opinion. And it is certainly true that the majority of the 12k Likes it has received are coming from casuals who declined to think about it critically and merely enjoy the buzzwords. But, enough people feel this way that I’ll devote 10min of newsletter writing to the confusion.
It’s in vogue to shit on Millar in certain spaces. But all the criticism I see sent his way has nothing to do with the things that define him. Really, they have nothing to do with the quality of the work at all.
The idea that ‘awful person’ is a disqualifying character trait in literature is deranged. That idea is for people whose pipeline started at Harry Potter and ends at corporate cartoons. Characters are characters. Their ‘awfulness’ is immaterial to the enjoyment of the work they appear in. Trying to ‘catch’ fictional creations in moralist traps of the type found on Twitter is… immature. I don’t know how else to put it. The characters don’t exist to be ‘good.’ They didn’t fail at being what they are, and the writer likely succeeded at what he set out to do.
Now, onto the ‘neoliberal’ allegations.
Yeah. I think that’s a fair, if dull, assessment. Millar is a product of his generation and would likely identify -if at all- as a centrist. THE ULTIMATES also debuted in 2002. I don’t see an option to underline words on Substack, so I’ll ask that you mentally underline ‘2002.’
After some bad faith tweets in support of their argument, the original poster arrives at this:
And now we understand their position fully.
This individual, and we can assume some portion of the 12k people who Liked their tweet, doesn’t actually care about writing. They are invested in the message of the work, rather than the quality of the work itself.
There is not a literate adult who believes Camp is the equal of Millar. Full stop. It can’t be asserted with a straight face. It doesn’t mean Camp can’t be Millar’s peer someday. He may be bound for great things. But even people who hate Millar can’t hold ideas like this in their heads. There is, in fact, a consensus reality. You can be excited about Camp. You can prefer his style over Millar (though… on THE ULTIMATES, Camp is doing a Millar impression), but you can’t equate these two bodies of work.
The twitter person likes what Camp says. Not his writing. Those are different things.
And they like it because it aligns with their worldview. Not because it challenges them. It’s a topic worth exploring that this individual took such umbrage to the majority viewpoint of Americans. There’s a conversation about silos and the drifting realities of spaces like Bluesky, TruthSocial, our feeds on Twitter, etc, etc. And at some point we should dig in on the idea that labeling average apolitical people as ‘counter-revolutionaries’ is self-defeating. But let’s not get that deep today.
Instead, let’s talk about what writing actually is.
It’s not the message of the piece. That’s something you can get from a low-skill or no-skill writer. In fact, that’s often all they have. Writing as a craft is about the aesthetic choices and style. If you even bring up the message of a work, you fail the class. That’s politics. Which can appear in good writing and can be central to it on occasion. But it can’t be the only thing on offer.
A worthy tangent: how will we look at Camp’s THE ULTIMATES in 20 years?
If the argument is that Millar’s THE ULTIMATES reveals an outmoded worldview (again, majority worldview, but I’m willing to allow for the idea that these are not mutually exclusive) then how will the current THE ULTIMATES age?
Well, ‘Leftist Man’ is a meme in 2024. And it’s not an indictment of leftist politics to recognize that. Camp’s messaging in THE ULTIMATES is already dated. It reads like 2018. Marvel is famous at this point for being the friend who sends memes months late. Again, consensus reality, even if it’s your comfort food.
Here’s a simple test: In 2002 no one read Millar’s THE ULTIMATES for his politics. Can we say the same for Camp in 2024? Clearly not.
Regarding the idea that there can, in fact, be understood facts about the quality of a piece of art or an artist, I present to you:
“Bendis isn’t good. Because Bendis isn’t good.” This person is utterly convinced of this and says it as if it’s a fact of some kind. Salute to AirRaidJones for the exchange, but he’s very wrong.
I don’t like Bendis’ work. He spawned the worst trend in modern comics, I fully admit. And for that matter I’m indifferent to a great deal of Millar’s work. But, c’mon. Just, c’mon. “Bad?”
Of course every individual can have their tastes. I can argue the merits of Predator 2 all day. Styles can alienate or ingratiate. Have an opinion. But we can’t stray so far from reality that we discredit ourselves.
I will say that I have a better handle on corporate comics in 2024 after reading that 12k Likes tweet. If this is the feedback you’re relying on, yeah, as an editor you’re gonna be confused about what readers want.
MEDIA CONSUMPTION
It’s a cheap joke to accuse every ill-conceived, dumb film of being the product of executives on cocaine. And in this case I don’t know what role executives would even have. But, yeah, ok, I’m willing to admit this one had the “born over one really long night of nose drugs” energy.
Which might be true, but certainly it’s champion and star, Sybil Danning put some thought into it. And ultimately, that doesn’t speak well for her. She REALLY believed this thing was gonna be a hit.
I liked this bit from the Wikipedia. How I woulda loved to watch this movie instead.
In the spring of 1984, the press relayed Danning and manager S.C. Dacy's intention to make a film featuring a heroine in the mold of Dirty Harry that would serve as a role model for young women.[3] At the time, that vehicle was Nemesis: Goddess of Revenge, and was supposed to be produced by Danning's agent Kenneth B. Johnston, with photography starting in September 1984.[4] Amidst the controversy surrounding the publication of Miss America Vanessa Williams' nude pictures in Penthouse, an invitation was extended for Williams to become Danning's sidekick in Nemesis, which was now pitched as "Dirty Harry meets 48 Hrs." Nothing came of that version.[5]
Actually, just read the whole Wikipedia. She tried this as a comic book, a video game, etc. And there is REALLY nothing there. And I say this as a fan of the girl with gun genre and bad action films. It clearly wanted to be female Cobra, but is really several levels below Cobra’s already discouraging valley. Whatever. Go watch it.
Moving on, we’ve got a Running Hot. A film I had to go to Youtube to watch, because it streams nowhere and I couldn’t even pirate it. It’s pre-lost media, perhaps.
It’s unexpectedly gritty, with lots of pimps and johns hitting the lead. And the concept of the protagonist is edgy in itself. A prostitute with a fixation on a man who killed his father. Is the movie good? Well, if you’ve watched everything that inspired it already, I would say it’s not so bad. I liked Monica Carrico a lot.
RUNNING OUTTA SPACE
Take care of yourself! Year is almost done! Do for self!