RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I also love the dinner discussion between Jeanette, Floyd, Scandal and Lianna (said stripper) about morality early on.
Unrealized realities (spoiled for those who never got to read this wonderfully dark series).
It also gave me one of my favourite lines of the series, "Would one of you, the only men I have ever loved, hold me?"
Y'know, Secret Six is kind of like an evil X-Factor now that I think about it. C-list villians (well, and Bane) made the focus of the book. And Secret Six Bane is incredible.
Back on topic, did PRe-flushpoint Harley ever do anything of the 'blow up random children with Nintindo DS' kind of murder?
Oh yes, I LOVED Bane in Secret Six. Really brought out his potential. (In "Dark Knight Rises" I liked his relationship with Talia because it reminded me of him and Scandal.)
Back on topic, did PRe-flushpoint Harley ever do anything of the 'blow up random children with Nintindo DS' kind of murder?
I didn't deeply follow her storyline, so someone else might be able to answer with more info, but not that I know of. I can say that as far as I can recall, she never did nor seemed the kind of person who would in "Gotham City Sirens," another incredible book that got obliterated by the onset of New52.
|
Y'know, Secret Six is kind of like an evil X-Factor now that I think about it. C-list villians (well, and Bane) made the focus of the book. And Secret Six Bane is incredible.
I find that writers get more leeway with 'C-list characters' or sidekicks, like X-Factor or the Secret Six or the Thunderbolts or Young Justice or Power Company, than with 'name' characters like Batman or Wolverine, and the stories, as a result, feel stronger than those that editorial and marketing demands constrain.
Same with totally made-up groups, like the Runaways and Young Avengers.
While other writers are dealing with crap like 'Batman can't be shown sitting down!' or 'Spider Man can't be married!' Peter David is exploring stuff like Madrox getting drunk and he and / or his duplicates sleeping with half of his team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shatterstar always felt a little too much like... Liefeld to me. Though he does have an awesome power: Swords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem, as I have tried to repeat over and over and over, is that when DC posted its contest solicitation, . Which leads to concerns and wondering and outrage and all kinds of confusion about what they did, why they did it, and whether it was in a responsible or irresponsible manner. Especially when you look at issues like timing (the week before suicide prevention week).
I think the SP Week charge is pretty weak. Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I had no idea there even was a Suicide Prevention Week in the first place - and had I known it existed, I almost certainly would not have known when it was, any more than I know the date for International Women's Day or Earth Day. The causes may well be extremely valid, but they are not really on the radar for a great many people, so it seems rather unfair to expect everyone to be aware of them.
I think it is in fact important to have triggery material in pop culture, but that it is depicted respectfully, showing its full consequences, and provides a context which inspires good dialogue about the situation.
There's no real rubric for determining these things, though, is there? I mean, lots of people are having a good dialogue about suicide and its portrayal right now, inspired by a request for artwork (note, it's not actually even artwork itself) that most consider in bad taste.
I might also snark a bit and suggest that the easily trigger-able are probably best advised to avoid reading comic books featuring extreme violence and the criminally insane - one might, after all, cock a skeptical eyebrow at a nun ranting about how offended she was by the attire of the ladies when she walked into a local strip club.
The only way I do think suicide is might be different goes along the lines of/adds to what Snorter said -- there is an effect commonly known as copycat suicide -- when someone with deep mental health issues sees someone they know or admire or follow commit suicide, they are more likely to decide to commit suicide themselves. For example, suicide rates notably went up after the deaths of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Kurt Cobain. So there is a great responsibility that if you are going to depict a suicide, you do have to take extra care to depict it in a way that does not inspire copycats.
I disagree. No artist (with the possible exception of those receiving public money) should concern themselves with how people *might* react to any given work. This is just a little too close to suggesting that Danish cartoonists were irresponsible when they drew images of Mohammed, and were at least partly to blame for the ensuing violence. The problem with "copycat suicides" is not that famous people killed themselves, or that suicide was shown in popular culture - the problem is that those individuals are *already deeply damaged psychologically* and have not received the help they need. Comic artists are not responsible for their well-being - their family and friends are.
Harley is a disturbed young woman with an obsession with a man with whom she has a deeply unhealthy relationship with.
This description of her character is precisely why I was so surprised at all of the outrage over this. HQ is someone caught in a cycle of self-harm, while simultaneously projecting a carefree, "ditzy" attitude about her life of crime. The essence of her character is a stark, uncomfortable contrast between "peppiness" and abuse. The ad for the artwork seemed appropriate *for this character* for those reasons. For other characters, on the other hand (Poison Ivy, Catwoman, whoever) it would certainly have been mystifyingly off-target. But this is tailor-made for HQ and her unique role in the comics (though I should add the caveat that I haven't been following the most recent versions of the character, so I may be mistaken about her in her most current iterations).
I personally think this is largely inspired by people being generally unhappy for DC's editorial decisions of late, and jumping on this as another opportunity to crucify them. Consider: one of the main charges is the "lack of explanation of context" for this contest. Why should they have to provide any context beyond the fact that they were looking for talented artists? Why should they have to explain their intended aesthetic effect for art that *hasn't even been drawn yet*? TS Eliot famously refused to answer a student who requested that he explain one of his poems - on the grounds that there would be no point in even writing the poem in the first place if he had to sit down and spell everything out for everyone. It is the work of the reader(or viewer, etc.) to grapple with the meaning of art... preferably once it has been actually finished.
And again, let us note how bizarre the situation is: people are upset over comic art that has not actually been drawn, and for which no explicit purpose (other than wanting to recruit an artist) was provided. This whole contest has served as a blank screen (or strip?) on which people who have beef with DC can project (or draw) all of their anger and assumptions about DC's editorial intentions. And the assumption, of course, is that DC would choose art/artist with the intent to sexualize/make light of suicide. Of course, they were never given an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. They have been judged guilty before they could even make a decision for good or bad.
We are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon, ladies and gentlemen. We have reached a point wherein the pop culture psyche is so sensitive to perceived slights that art can be condemned even before it has been started, before an artist has even been appointed to undertake it. Now THAT'S something to talk about.
What's the difference between nerd outrage and other forms of outrage?Its over something small
Its very, very angry
The nerd is usually physically incapable of doing anything about it
and the hilarious juxtaposition of words like blatherskite with #@*(#&$#$ing ##*$&!!**(*
More or less. It's the first couple of things that I think most clearly distinguish nerd rage from other types of rage. A heightened level of anger that is completely unjustified by the material in question. It's a fundamental lack of perspective - there are things worth being angry about, but this isn't it. Other types of rage are, on occasion, proportionate to the gravity of the source of that rage. Nerd rage never is.
I'm sure that impotence only exacerbates things; if you can't take action, you can always scream louder.
I think the SP Week charge is pretty weak. Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I had no idea there even was a Suicide Prevention Week in the first place - and had I known it existed, I almost certainly would not have known when it was, any more than I know the date for International Women's Day or Earth Day. The causes may well be extremely valid, but they are not really on the radar for a great many people, so it seems rather unfair to expect everyone to be aware of them.
No, it doesn't make you a terrible person. Ignorance doesn't make anyone a terrible person. Just ignorant.
I think it is in fact important to have triggery material in pop culture, but that it is depicted respectfully, showing its full consequences, and provides a context which inspires good dialogue about the situation.There's no real rubric for determining these things, though, is there? I mean, lots of people are having a good dialogue about suicide and its portrayal right now, inspired by a request for artwork (note, it's not actually even artwork itself) that most consider in bad taste.
I might also snark a bit and suggest that the easily trigger-able are probably best advised to avoid reading comic books featuring extreme violence and the criminally insane - one might, after all, cock a skeptical eyebrow at a nun ranting about how offended she was by the attire of the ladies when she walked into a local strip club.
So... comics are a vice, and should be treated as such? Should they, then, be generally kept in low-key areas with their covers, well, covered, so the easily offended or triggerable aren't? That doesn't seem like it would help comics' image too much.
I mean, there's the difference between creative freedom (which is certainly fine) and doing something that's groan-worthy (which is certainly groan-worthy).
I agree that part of the problem lies between differences of opinion and the spectrum of them.
This is less akin to a nun walking into a strip club and more akin to a nun walking past a really large sign going "HEY! WE WANT YOU TO COME HERE AND TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES! NEKKID!! YEAH!!!" and clucking her head in shame. This is publicly advertised.
I disagree. No artist (with the possible exception of those receiving public money) should concern themselves with how people *might* react to any given work. This is just a little too close to suggesting that Danish cartoonists were irresponsible when they drew images of Mohammed, and were at least partly to blame for the ensuing violence. The problem with "copycat suicides" is not that famous people killed themselves, or that suicide was shown in popular culture - the problem is that those individuals are *already deeply damaged psychologically* and have not received the help they need. Comic artists are not responsible for their well-being - their family and friends are.
This... is both true and false.
True because it's impossible for an artist to know you, and know what you've been through. True because they can't just avoid creating. True because they can't be held responsible for what they don't know.
But false because, as an artist, you are choosing what to show the world. Art is inspirational to people, for good or ill. It inspires emotions, thoughts, and ideas. Exposure to it causes discussion and increased awareness... often for the good, but not always. This is true of all creative media.
Smut and pornography have been shown to cause your brain activity to lower while watching them. Mozart's music has been shown to cause your brain activity to increase while listening to it.
These are genuine, valid, psychological phenomena that occur.
Even if it's not as a direct an impact as the above two, art does cause the mind to shift. Thus, what is presented by an artist to the world is well worth considering before being published, whatever that art or medium actually is.
This isn't saying that an artist should be censored. It is saying that an artist should consider the impact that they'll make before doing something. If they don't it's not assigning "blame" but it is assigning "fault". Is that a fine distinction? Certainly. But one worth making.
This description of her character is precisely why I was so surprised at all of the outrage over this. HQ is someone caught in a cycle of self-harm, while simultaneously projecting a carefree, "ditzy" attitude about her life of crime. The essence of her character is a stark, uncomfortable contrast between "peppiness" and abuse. The ad for the artwork seemed appropriate *for this character* for those reasons. For other characters, on the other hand (Poison Ivy, Catwoman, whoever) it would certainly have been mystifyingly off-target. But this is tailor-made for HQ and her unique role in the comics (though I should add the caveat that I haven't been following the most recent versions of the character, so I may be mistaken about her in her most current iterations).
You make a very good point here. I think part of this, at least for me, is that she's never been physically abusive toward herself (caveat: that I've seen). Seeing her purposefully attempt to physically harm herself is somewhat jarring and very different from my view of her character.
In fact, I don't recall her every purposefully trying to hurt herself. Certainly she puts herself in bad situations emotionally, but it just seems off.
That, combined with the lack of context for these scenes is what really sits off with me and Harley in this.
With Deadpool or Lobo this kind of thing isn't really a problem: they simply don't die. It's ugly and disturbing, sure. It still bears thinking about before publishing that kind of thing. Harley has no such regeneration factor. If she did... okay. It would be cartoonish and unpleasant for my tastes, but okay.
In this case, however, from the context I have, it's a woman who's emotionally hurt making a "comical" attempt at suicide, which would, in theory, really work.
And that's part of it: the lack of context. I think a lot of the rejection may well evaporate if the proper context was given.
I personally think this is largely inspired by people being generally unhappy for DC's editorial decisions of late, and jumping on this as another opportunity to crucify them. Consider: one of the main charges is the "lack of explanation of context" for this contest. Why should they have to provide any context beyond the fact that they were looking for talented artists? Why should they have to explain their intended aesthetic effect for art that *hasn't even been drawn yet*? TS Eliot famously refused to answer a student who requested that he explain one of his poems - on the grounds that there would be no point in even writing the poem in the first place if he had to sit down and spell everything out for everyone. It is the work of the reader(or viewer, etc.) to grapple with the meaning of art... preferably once it has been actually finished.
I... haven't read DC for years. Not because I was mad, but because I just don't have the time and money. As the OP, I certainly didn't jump on the "DC Hate Bandwagon" because I'm mad at their recent decisions. I only tangentially am aware of their decisions. And, thanks to the Nerdy Show, I'm not even mad at them in general.
If they're looking for talented artists, there are a very large number of other ways of going about it. Saying, "They're just looking for talented artists." makes me think, "Well why didn't they come up with almost any contest other than this?" To me, it's not that this is an art contest. It's that it's an art contest in (to my sensibilities) bad taste. It might not ultimately turn out that way. But it looks like it.
I'm not saying they don't have their reasons. I'm not saying their reasons are bad. I'm saying that not knowing their reasons makes them look bad.
It's also silly to compare this to T.S. Eliot. This isn't poetry. It's a contest. A public, open-called art context.
If I, as a random person, made an art contest where the goal was to create a self-destructive (but ostensibly pretty) female attempting suicide, I'd be justifiably called out on it. Why would I want that sort of thing? Who am I to request that?
With DC, the context we have is that it's Harley... who is noted as being self-destructive, but in a different way.
And again, let us note how bizarre the situation is: people are upset over comic art that has not actually been drawn, and for which no explicit purpose (other than wanting to recruit an artist) was provided. This whole contest has served as a blank screen (or strip?) on which people who have beef with DC can project (or draw) all of their anger and assumptions about DC's editorial intentions. And the assumption, of course, is that DC would choose art/artist with the intent to sexualize/make light of suicide. Of course, they were never given an opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. They have been judged guilty before they could even make a decision for good or bad.
We are witnessing a fascinating phenomenon, ladies and gentlemen. We have reached a point wherein the pop culture psyche is so sensitive to perceived slights that art can be condemned even before it has been started, before an artist has even been appointed to undertake it. Now THAT'S something to talk about.
I'm not upset over art. I'm disquieted and squicked out over the presentation of a contest's rules. It's not a "guilty until proven innocent" for me. It's a "that looks highly disturbing. Is it really?"
I have had no particular beef with DC. I didn't like their decisions, sure. Ignoring their previous decisions and how they've handled character, however, is just foolish. Doing so is the exact same mechanism at work in... well... self-destructive and abusive relationships. It's hardly the same scope or scale, but simply going "they've made bad choices in the past, but certainly this one isn't that; I can trust them" isn't a healthy attitude. It is Harley's however.
Although well-spoken and glib, you're conclusions about motivation are incorrect, at least for me. It wasn't a presumption that they will, but the appearance that they were. And thus I asked a question... a question from an emotional state, yes. But an honest one from a place of genuine concern and interest. Some of it has been allayed. Some of it has not.
Which address the issue that they are asking for several depictions of suicide attempts, without context, and that this could be 1) triggery,
I don't see, "This could be triggery," as a good reason to avoid touching on a subject in a creative work. If it had creative merit absent that consideration, its potential status as a trigger doesn't lessen that merit.
2) irresponsible, given, as I've noted a couple times in this thread, that comic books are usually seen as targeted toward teen readers amongst their desired demographics, and that teen suicide is a major concern, doing this--again, without context--is highly questionable.
I don't like the phrase "highly questionable." It makes the convenient "argument" that questions should be raised without needing to actually specify what those questions are or what the answers to them ought to be, which ends up placing your position in a muddled no-man's-land where you have leveled what sounds like superficially valid criticism at something (until they realize you haven't actually done any criticizing at all) without actually taking up a position that someone can argue against. It is the argumentation analogue of this phenomenon - a crutch for those who can't or don't want to develop a more coherent position.
Now, that aside, you mentioned that it was irresponsible. I'm not sure that's a supportable position, either. It presupposes that this sort of depiction of suicide is dangerous because it might encourage suicidal ideation in the teenage audience it targets. First, regardless of what audience people "usually see" comic books to target, the average comic book reader is in his or her (though, let's be honest, the average comic book reader is male) 30's. Teenagers stopped being the target audience a long time ago. Second, I haven't seen evidence that this sort of depiction (as someone else described it, a darkly humorous portrayal of suicide) encourages suicidal ideation. Have you?
Also, can't remember if this was mentioned, but it's worth noting the contest was held just before the start of National Suicide Week, which seems... tacky, to say the least.
No, but it does seem silly to bring this up as though it were either relevant or noteworthy.
Of course, you are entitled to the opinion that suicide in pop culture and possible violent, exploitive images should not be discussed or concerned about (especially when the popular, long lived pop culture company who brought up these images originally provided no context for the images they solicited)--or even beyond your mere notice in a discussion of such things--but IF that's the case for you, I'll have to disagree with you there, and leave it at that. If you do find these issues of concern, I hope you can at least understand why many folks have been upset, even if you yourself don't experience the same depth of emotion over the issue.
But I don't see a lot of actual discussion. I don't see anyone presenting evidence that these depictions are harmful. I don't see anyone expounding on accepted theories of suicidal ideation. All I see is pages of, much like your own post, argumentative treading water over how "concerning" or "questionable" this contest is. (Ironically, Feytharn started to finally buck this trend right after your post.)
One final point I'd like to make - a few people (yourself included) have claimed that part of the "concern" is over how the depictions in question are contextless. They are not. We are given context through the depiction of Harley, a character everyone is at least superficially familiar with and is well known for her madcap nature, which plays well with these over-the-top depictions of suicide/compromising situations. That is context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously its to celebrate Atrial Fibrillation Month, as Harley's heart is restarted by OSHA installed automatic defibrillator units.
Re Suicide prevention month.
I'm going to the special hell. I posted a video of the MASH theme in honour of it.
Yes, but these days how many people really know the name/lyrics to the MASH theme?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yes, but these days how many people really know the name/lyrics to the MASH theme?Re Suicide prevention month.
I'm going to the special hell. I posted a video of the MASH theme in honour of it.
The vid I linked has the sung lyrics, and actually has them in the video link. Subtle I am not.
I'd like to think they didn't want the wedding thing because Marvel basically already did it.
So... comics are a vice, and should be treated as such? Should they, then, be generally kept in low-key areas with their covers, well, covered, so the easily offended or triggerable aren't? That doesn't seem like it would help comics' image too much.
That's... actually kind of the opposite of what I was saying. I'm saying that if you are the sort of person for whom the mention of suicide is likely to provoke a strong negative psychological reaction, it would be wise to avoid reading material that seems likely to mention suicide. Basically, you know, take some responsibility for yourself.
This is less akin to a nun walking into a strip club and more akin to a nun walking past a really large sign going "HEY! WE WANT YOU TO COME HERE AND TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES! NEKKID!! YEAH!!!" and clucking her head in shame. This is publicly advertised.
Except we're talking about the internet - you don't have to navigate "through" the DC website to look up an article on Barbara Gordon or the Flash or whatever. It's completely avoidable. So your version of the analogy only holds true if the nun goes thirty miles out of her way to swing through the red light district on the way home for no discernible reason.
This... is both true and false.True because it's impossible for an artist to know you, and know what you've been through. True because they can't just avoid creating. True because they can't be held responsible for what they don't know.
But false because, as an artist, you are choosing what to show the world. Art is inspirational to people, for good or ill. It inspires emotions, thoughts, and ideas. Exposure to it causes discussion and increased awareness... often for the good, but not always. This is true of all creative media.
Smut and pornography have been shown to cause your brain activity to lower while watching them. Mozart's music has been shown to cause your brain activity to increase while listening to it.
These are genuine, valid, psychological phenomena that occur.
Even if it's not as a direct an impact as the above two, art does cause the mind to shift. Thus, what is presented by an artist to the world is well worth considering before being published, whatever that art or medium actually is.
This isn't saying that an artist should be censored. It is saying that an artist should consider the impact that they'll make before doing something. If they don't it's not assigning "blame" but it is assigning "fault". Is that a fine distinction? Certainly. But one worth making.
1) Please point me to the data regarding brain activity and Mozart.
2) So what? Are you saying that comics are pornography? If not, show me the data that says that viewing a comic character in a suicidal pose has some kind of negative effect on someone's psychology.3) You seem to be saying, "some art can have some kind of general, ambiguous effect on people's brains, therefore people should think before they create it." Is that accurate? If so, then:
a) This isn't art we're discussing. It's a request for art.
b) How do you know they didn't "consider" things before they posted? I mean, if all you are doing is asking that they think first - how does that actually matter as a call to action? "You should think before you post something offensive." "Okay, I thought about it, and I'm going to do it anyway." "Oh, well in that case, I'm satisfied." You need to make a substantive claim here. You seem to want to avoid calling for censorship, but you also want to impose some kind of penalty for people making public things that you find objectionable. You can't have it both ways.
You make a very good point here. I think part of this, at least for me, is that she's never been physically abusive toward herself (caveat: that I've seen). Seeing her purposefully attempt to physically harm herself is somewhat jarring and very different from my view of her character.In fact, I don't recall her every purposefully trying to hurt herself. Certainly she puts herself in bad situations emotionally, but it just seems off.
I disagree - it seems like an extremely reasonable direction to take the character, given her psychosis. And, after all, comics characters do not need to be ever-static and unchanging - Batman was killing people back in the old days, after all.
In this case, however, from the context I have, it's a woman who's emotionally hurt making a "comical" attempt at suicide, which would, in theory, really work.And that's part of it: the lack of context. I think a lot of the rejection may well evaporate if the proper context was given.
As others have pointed out, this really isn't much of a claim. We have plenty of context: the entire history of the character. What more do you need? What would be an example of what you're looking for? Do they need to spell out the entire plot for you? They're probably not going to do that... since, you know, they want to actually make the story and have people buy it to read for themselves. Perhaps you could wait until the actual comic is finished, buy it, and then read and judge for yourself?
If they're looking for talented artists, there are a very large number of other ways of going about it. Saying, "They're just looking for talented artists." makes me think, "Well why didn't they come up with almost any contest other than this?" To me, it's not that this is an art contest. It's that it's an art contest in (to my sensibilities) bad taste. It might not ultimately turn out that way. But it looks like it.I'm not saying they don't have their reasons. I'm not saying their reasons are bad. I'm saying that not knowing their reasons makes them look bad.
Are you similarly upset that Microsoft has not explained its business model to you? Do you happen to know how Marvel recruits its artists and why they haven chosen that approach? If not, why are you not equally mad at them for committing the same "sins" as DC?
I don't think you've really provided an adequate explanation of what you mean by "context" or why/what exactly about this thing really bugs you and/or what exactly you want done about it.
It's also silly to compare this to T.S. Eliot. This isn't poetry. It's a contest. A public, open-called art context.
You were comparing it to Mozart (and porn, I guess) earlier. Make up your mind - are we talking about art, or smut? High culture Ar" with a capital "A" or general creative expression? My point is relevant because the student in the anecdote was doing what you seemed to be doing - grappling with something you didn't understand, and asking for someone else to explain it to you. Though I assume the student had actually read the poem in question, first.
If I, as a random person, made an art contest where the goal was to create a self-destructive (but ostensibly pretty) female attempting suicide, I'd be justifiably called out on it.
Why and on what grounds? You're using circular reasoning here: the contest must be bad, because it's getting "called out." Things get "called out" because they are bad.
I'm not upset over art.
Obviously, because no art has been produced. Yet for some reason you keep referring to Mozart and other "artists."
I'm disquieted and squicked out over the presentation of a contest's rules. It's not a "guilty until proven innocent" for me. It's a "that looks highly disturbing. Is it really?"
You had an emotional reaction to it and that's fine. Many other people did, too. What you (and they) might have to consider is that your reaction is based in *your* experience and tastes, and not particularly in the subject of the conversation. I mean, I have an aversion to broccoli, but that doesn't mean it tastes bad. It means that I simply don't like it.
I have had no particular beef with DC. I didn't like their decisions, sure. Ignoring their previous decisions and how they've handled character, however, is just foolish. Doing so is the exact same mechanism at work in... well... self-destructive and abusive relationships. It's hardly the same scope or scale, but simply going "they've made bad choices in the past, but certainly this one isn't that; I can trust them" isn't a healthy attitude. It is Harley's however.
You don't have to "trust them," though. You have absolutely no stake in this, since, as you mentioned, *you don't read DC anymore.* You don't have to worry about being offended by the comic when it eventually comes out, because you're not going to buy it anyway.
Mu guess at the plot would be some discussion of "Joker immunity" and Harley seeing if she'd acquired it.
Not happy with my post; leaving it here to rethink and maybe make a different one later
looking through it to criticize
I left it there because, on an iPad, that took a hecka-lotta work to do. I didn't want to lost it all.
I recognize that some of my points came off wrongly. That's why I put it behind spoiler tags and said I wasn't happy with my post.
If your point was that comics aren't "bad" things, then you made it poorly by suggesting the easily offended stay away from it. If that was not your point, please restate it in a different way because it came off that way.
However, you seem adamant on fighting over this. If you like, I will respond to some of your points.
You seem to have a strange concept of the internet. Generally if something is interesting, it's taken and displayed all over the the place, not just at its origin location. If DC wanted people to know about their contest (which is the only reasonable thing to presume, since it is public and they want a good selection of artists) they would be exceedingly foolish to presume this wouldn't go beyond their website.
So I suppose this is more akin to: a nun opening up her newspaper and reading an article about a request, complete with sign descriptions and picture thereof.
1) Please point me to the data regarding brain activity and Mozart.
2) So what? Are you saying that comics are pornography? If not, show me the data that says that viewing a comic character in a suicidal pose has some kind of negative effect on someone's psychology.
3) You seem to be saying, "some art can have some kind of general, ambiguous effect on people's brains, therefore people should think before they create it." Is that accurate? If so, then:
a) This isn't art we're discussing. It's a request for art.
b) How do you know they didn't "consider" things before they posted? I mean, if all you are doing is asking that they think first - how does that actually matter as a call to action? "You should think before you post something offensive." "Okay, I thought about it, and I'm going to do it anyway." "Oh, well in that case, I'm satisfied." You need to make a substantive claim here. You seem to want to avoid calling for censorship, but you also want to impose some kind of penalty for people making public things that you find objectionable. You can't have it both ways.
1) Find it yourself. It's beyond the scope of this conversation.
2) No. I'm not claiming this. I am claiming it's tacky because, as you pointed out for part one, we don't have the information backing this stuff up one way or the other.3) It's a given that art can affect people's brains. If this wasn't true, people wouldn't imitate famous stars of music or television. People wouldn't dress up and go to conventions.
- a) a request for art is valid to discuss because, surprise, surprise, art will be developed, and thus it will be created.
- b) if they did consider it, they still pulled it off in a tacky fashion... to my tastes. They also didn't seem to think about it enough to give context.
Your assertion that, "it's her character" is false, as I've never seen her attempt suicide. Thus... yeah. The context does matter in this case. Don't attempt straw-man arguments about financial deals or other unrelated things. We have a request to show character acting out of character in a way that she's not been shown - TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE - that may be triggery material in an open, public manner. Comparing it to financial stuff is nonsense.
Thus, if our straw-nun had opened her newspaper, seen an article about, say, Walmart (where they certainly have some things she doesn't approve of, but, you know, this is about the hunting section) and then saw that instead of talking about rifles, deer equipment or whatever that it was about the new slutty outfits... she'd have a justifiable disquiet and frustration.
You were comparing it to Mozart (and porn, I guess) earlier. Make up your mind - are we talking about art, or smut? High culture Ar" with a capital "A" or general creative expression? My point is relevant because the student in the anecdote was doing what you seemed to be doing - grappling with something you didn't understand, and asking for someone else to explain it to you. Though I assume the student had actually read the poem in question, first.
False equivocation. I read the "poem" - it wasn't a poem, it was a request for potentially triggery material in what is not normally a triggery character. Further, I wasn't asking for someone to explain it to me, I was asking if I had the right emotional reaction or not.
It would be far closer to someone having read a poem, then gone to his study group and said, "Hey, this is what I got out of this. I don't like it, personally. What do you guys think?"
You, on the other hand, seem to have decided that not only did I not have the right emotional reaction, but that I was in the wrong for having an emotional reaction at all. That's kind of a jerk move.
I refer to art - the general creative expression - because this is, in fact, a request for art. If general creative expression is a general creative expression, than it bears into the conversation of "why should we think about it".
Your claim seems to be that an artist should never be held responsible for their work. That's just silly. Of course they should. Similarly, a company should be held responsible for its policies, how it presents those policies, and what it does with them.
I've repeatedly said that the finished product might be great. Please stop ignoring that part of my posts and get off of your high horse.
EDIT: for clarity of word choice.
ya know, you can argue that DC didn't know about Suicide Prevention month, like a lot of people here. But the difference between DC and us is that I don't have an entire advertizing or legal department to check on stuff like that. They should have known better.
ya know, you can argue that DC didn't know about Suicide Prevention month, like a lot of people here. But the difference between DC and us is that I don't have an entire advertizing or legal department to check on stuff like that. They should have known better.
suicide prevention month isn't a legal thing, so the legal department has nothing to do with it.
I don't see why an advertising department would know about it either. The month itself is a really obscure scauze.
It's certainly not a legal thing, but it is something that DC should be aware of, as a corporation.
Being a corporation that acquires money from consumers (not a bad thing) means you need to be image-conscious in the eyes of the consumers you get money from. Otherwise, they will stop giving you money, and likely tell others to stop giving you money (or at least tell others that they've stopped giving you their money), which may cost you more customers.
Curiously, that's what we're seeing happen in this thread.
DC is a corporation. Thus it needs to be image conscious.
Has DC committed a sin? None that I can see. Have they made a bit of a blunder? Yeah, probably. Will the weather it and go on? Likely.
While many wouldn't accept it, I'd be totally fine if they either went, "Hey, guys, we know about the week, and that's why we did this: we wanted to <insert reason here>." OR went, "Look, we're sorry that we were unaware of the week. Our apology to those who were offended." (depending on which was true; if they are simply lying... ugh, bad DC, bad). Heck, I'd even kind of rather DC (if it's true) say, "Eh, we don't care."
They are unlikely to do any of those. I'm just saying that either would be better than ignoring the situation, at least, as I've oft repeated here, to me.
Also, relevant to my point before about things on the internet being spread all over: I originally came across the information on another forum, not on DC's site. Given the nature of the forum and it's tendency to react, I went to DCs site itself.
Given that I kind of like DC sometimes, and kind of expected the furor of the other site to be nothing (but like to educate myself), I felt comfortable going to their website.
Que the emotional reaction. Que me coming here, to a hopefully more reasonable forum to talk through things. Que people getting on high horses on all sides (me included). Welp. Not necessarily more reasonable, just more varied, I guess.
I left it there because, on an iPad, that took a hecka-lotta work to do. I didn't want to lost it all.
And I waited a day before responding, assuming you would have revised by then. You didn't, so I responded to the parts that I felt needed responding to (others beat me to some points).
And, more importantly: why did you feel that deleting it later would somehow justify calling someone ignorant? "Hey, I insulted you earlier on the internet, but now I've deleted the post/posted a follow-up, so we're good, right?"
Perhaps, if you think the quality of your post might be suspect, you could save it in the body of an email or a word document and revise it *before* putting it on the web.
If your point was that comics aren't "bad" things, then you made it poorly by suggesting the easily offended stay away from it. If that was not your point, please restate it in a different way because it came off that way.
Nope, my point was that if I belong to group A, and topic B upsets me, and I am an adult with a sense of personal responsibility, I will avoid reading material that routinely includes topic B instead of expecting the writers of said reading material to avoid offending me.
However, you seem adamant on fighting over this. If you like, I will respond to some of your points.
Maybe I got a little peeved because you called me ignorant? And I see you've moved on to calling me self-righteous too (the "high-horse" comment) and a jerk, to boot. Yes, you're clearly taking the moral high ground here with all of that name-calling.
You seem to have a strange concept of the internet. Generally if something is interesting, it's taken and displayed all over the the place, not just at its origin location. If DC wanted people to know about their contest (which is the only reasonable thing to presume, since it is public and they want a good selection of artists) they would be exceedingly foolish to presume this wouldn't go beyond their website.So I suppose this is more akin to: a nun opening up her newspaper and reading an article about a request, complete with sign descriptions and picture thereof.
So where did DC post this other than their website?
1) Find it yourself. It's beyond the scope of this conversation.
2) No. I'm not claiming this. I am claiming it's tacky because, as you pointed out for part one, we don't have the information backing this stuff up one way or the other.
3) It's a given that art can affect people's brains. If this wasn't true, people wouldn't imitate famous stars of music or television. People wouldn't dress up and go to conventions.
- a) a request for art is valid to discuss because, surprise, surprise, art will be developed, and thus it will be created.
- b) if they did consider it, they still pulled it off in a tacky fashion... to my tastes. They also didn't seem to think about it enough to give context.
1) The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If you say to me, "scientists have discovered that the moon is made of green cheese," I'm not required to go and find the evidence to prove *your* point. Also, *you* brought it up in the first place. Back when you thought you were being clever, I bet you thought it was germane. Now that I'm calling you on it, you're declaring it out of bounds. Funny how that works.
2) Okay, so just to be clear, you're saying it's tacky? Because in the original post you made, you called it "sexist, cruel, and inane." Which is it? Because there's a big difference between calling something tacky, and calling it sexist, cruel, and inane. "Tacky" just means in poor taste. The other terms have much stronger meanings, and include moral condemnation. Then again, maybe you're just changing your claims when people point out how weak your argument is.3) No, it's *not* a given that art can affect people's brains. You're making a scientific claim about biology/chemistry here. I want you to back that up with some actual evidence, not merely your "we just know it" excuses. That's how a rational debate proceeds. Otherwise I can just do this:
"We just know that art DOES NOT affect people's brains." See? In the absence of a credible source, both of our claims hold the same weight! If you don't cite sources, debates turn into "Is too!" "Is not!"
Your assertion that, "it's her character" is false, as I've never seen her attempt suicide.
But you said you haven't read DC comics in years. Perhaps she has attempted some form of physical self-harm since then. Have you done the research to back up your assumption that this is out of character for her?
Or wait, I'll just use your trick: "We just know that Harley Quinn would harm herself physically." Dang, that is handy - saves me from having to do any research or know what I'm talking about!
False equivocation. I read the "poem" - it wasn't a poem, it was a request for potentially triggery material in what is not normally a triggery character. Further, I wasn't asking for someone to explain it to me, I was asking if I had the right emotional reaction or not.
Wait - a character in an emotionally and physically abusive and self-destructive relationship ISN'T "normally a triggery character?" Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
Regarding the second point there: Are you saying that you were asking if you had the right emotional reaction, but not for an explanation *why?* In that case, you can stop reading after this next word: "No."
Just kidding. Your personal emotional reaction is simply that: a feeling that you got that is based entirely on your own subjective take on what you saw. I don't see how anyone else could tell you that your personal feelings were "right" or "wrong" any more than someone could say you were "right" or "wrong" for liking vanilla ice cream more than chocolate.
Nor was my original post directed at your "emotional reaction" at all. It was a response to Deathquaker's post, which resulted in you calling me ignorant and making some fairly weak arguments regarding my post. I have since responded to that post, and that appears to have deeply wounded your sense of pride.
Your claim seems to be that an artist should never be held responsible for their work. That's just silly.
Straw man arguments tend to be. What I specifically said was:
"No artist (with the possible exception of those receiving public money) should concern themselves with how people *might* react to any given work. This is just a little too close to suggesting that Danish cartoonists were irresponsible when they drew images of Mohammed, and were at least partly to blame for the ensuing violence."
My point here (since you seem to have missed it) is that it's silly to expect artists to be held responsible for the actions of any/everyone who ever views their work, because doing so would mean that Danish cartoonists are responsible for religious zealots killing people, and most of us would consider that a poor line of reasoning.
Similarly, a company should be held responsible for its policies, how it presents those policies, and what it does with them.
You've said that you're not asking for censorship. What then, do you mean by "holding a company responsible?" Should DC be subject to a fine because you (or some other person or group of people) found some of its art/policies offensive? Please be specific and clarify what exactly you are calling for here.
It's certainly not a legal thing, but it is something that DC should be aware of, as a corporation.Being a corporation that acquires money from consumers (not a bad thing) means you need to be image-conscious in the eyes of the consumers you get money from. Otherwise, they will stop giving you money, and likely tell others to stop giving you money (or at least tell others that they've stopped giving you their money), which may cost you more customers.
Curiously, that's what we're seeing happen in this thread.
DC is a corporation. Thus it needs to be image conscious.
Has DC committed a sin? None that I can see. Have they made a bit of a blunder? Yeah, probably. Will the weather it and go on? Likely.
While many wouldn't accept it, I'd be totally fine if they either went, "Hey, guys, we know about the week, and that's why we did this: we wanted to <insert reason here>." OR went, "Look, we're sorry that we were unaware of the week. Our apology to those who were offended." (depending on which was true; if they are simply lying... ugh, bad DC, bad). Heck, I'd even kind of rather DC (if it's true) say, "Eh, we don't care."
They are unlikely to do any of those. I'm just saying that either would be better than ignoring the situation, at least, as I've oft repeated here, to me.
Let's be honest here: you started this thread with some strong claims about the moral quality of what DC had done ("sexist" and "cruel"). Now you seem to be backtracking and saying that, "No, of course it wasn't wrong, it was just bad business." In which case one is compelled to ask: why do you care so much about DC's bottom line? You haven't read any of their comics in years.
Que the emotional reaction. Que me coming here, to a hopefully more reasonable forum to talk through things. Que people getting on high horses on all sides (me included). Welp. Not necessarily more reasonable, just more varied, I guess.
If you avoid calling people ignorant, they might be a little less snarky when they reply. Just a tip.
WARNING: Post probably contains triggery things.
Sure. I'll admit: I was too snarky.
However, dude, you were too.
Anyway, music affects your brain, and art affects your brain. Happy reading. There's a lot. (Note, I make no claim on long-term anything.)
If you really think are doesn't affect people in their brains, than you really don't get art or how the brain functions. At all. Are people emotionally affected by it? Yes. They are. If they are emotionally affected by it, it affects their brain. I'm not talking about IQ changes, if you're trying to argue that line. I'm talking about localized, but real effects.
If you're offended by being called "ignorant" (which is what you noted yourself: you didn't know something, and thus were ignorant, which is what that means) allow me to alleviate that. I, myself, am ignorant of a great many things. Thus, I ask. I asked in this thread. I opened the thread with a question because I was ignorant. You got offended by something that wasn't an insult. I apologize that it came off that way. Heck, I even told you it didn't make you a bad person for not knowing!
You're also ignoring points made: DC didn't have to post it anywhere else. Others did. That's the nature of the internet. If I post this here in this thread, publicly, I'm not going to be surprised that someone else saw it. It will be seen, and if people think it's noteworthy, for whatever reason, they're going to share it.
If Walmart posts a public thing dealing with something some would consider outrageous, they shouldn't be surprised it winds up in the newspaper. If you put something publicly, it'll be seen.
On a related note, I'm not surprised you actually read the post I was unhappy with. I'm just sorry you took umbrage from it. I put it behind a wall with the words that I did because I specifically didn't like how it came out. It was kind of my way of apologizing because I lacked time.
Wait - a character in an emotionally and physically abusive and self-destructive relationship ISN'T "normally a triggery character?" Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
Easily. What triggers one thing doesn't trigger others. Someone who has trouble with suicide doesn't (automatically) have trouble with emotional abuse. A person who's addicted to alcohol might have absolutely no trouble with rape. Triggers on different topics aren't the same. And some topics trigger far more powerful responses than others.
My point here (since you seem to have missed it) is that it's silly to expect artists to be held responsible for the actions of any/everyone who ever views their work, because doing so would mean that Danish cartoonists are responsible for religious zealots killing people, and most of us would consider that a poor line of reasoning.
I take this point. I was not attempting a straw argument.
1) I agree that you cannot be held responsible for how all people react.
2) That doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for how some people react to normal things on that topic.
3) Being held responsible for your own part in a thing isn't the same as being held responsible for everyone else's actions.
4) I'm glad you clarified. Like I asked you to.
You've said that you're not asking for censorship. What then, do you mean by "holding a company responsible?" Should DC be subject to a fine because you (or some other person or group of people) found some of its art/policies offensive? Please be specific and clarify what exactly you are calling for here.
Easy. We choose what we like and what we don't. If we don't, we don't buy it. The "fine" is in telling people that it's offensive, and encouraging others not to purchase products.
Suggesting that I was saying otherwise is, itself, a straw argument, although that might be what you honestly thought I was saying. If so, you simply misunderstood. Possibly because I communicated poorly, possibly because you just want an argument. To me, it sounds like the latter. If it's not, then I apologize.
Let's be honest here: you started this thread with some strong claims about the moral quality of what DC had done ("sexist" and "cruel"). Now you seem to be backtracking and saying that, "No, of course it wasn't wrong, it was just bad business." In which case one is compelled to ask: why do you care so much about DC's bottom line? You haven't read any of their comics in years.
Yes. I am backing off - at least to a point. I still say it was a bad idea, and I use my immediate reaction as one reason. But changing my opinion is, well, what I wanted to know if it was right to do. It's part of accepting input from others and coming to new conclusions. I just don't like being told that the idea of asking if others had different opinions than me in the first place (and asking for them) is bad.
It's almost like people learn and grow from conversation instead of just hold strongly to a singular opinion. Weird, I know.
And holy crap, dude. If I admit ignorance and explain, from my point of view with the limited information I have, that's not wrong. If, on the other hand, someone shows me evidence that it's different than I thought due to X (which is what I was asking for), and I still hold my opposing view, then I'm definitely in the wrong. So far, no one has stepped forward with evidence that Harley is into physically harming herself.
In any event, my immediate response was that it appeared you were snarky on some otherwise decent point. I wrote some stuff I wasn't happy with. You responded by being insulted and thus acting snarky. I replied, being frustrated with your snark and you did the same to me. That brings us to here.
If you weren't intending to be snarky at the first, then I'm sorry, it just came off that way to me. If you took insult where none was intended (which is clearly the case) than I'm sorry it came off that way. I wasn't happy with the tone of that post, but I was in a hurry and didn't want to lose it. Swap tags were the only thing I could think of doing mostly one-handed while holding a crying toddler (took forever to do, too).
So, let's start over:
While I still disagree with their decision, after the discussion, my immediate reaction is being ameliorated, but only to a point. It has been pointed out as tacky and lacking on their part for a number of reasons, but not my initial ones (though I'd be far more personally satisfied on the sexism side if they held contests for male "nudes" as well - not that this is going to happen).
Setting everything else aside...
Do you agree that it's in poor taste? If not why? If so, why?
People rarely learn and grow from conversations on the internet. It instead usually forces them into more angled corners or helps them build defensive walls around their arguments. Whether those walls are made out of ignorance or swine repellent mother of pearl is a matter of perspective.
People rarely learn and grow from conversations on the internet. It instead usually forces them into more angled corners or helps them build defensive walls around their arguments. Whether those walls are made out of ignorance or swine repellent mother of pearl is a matter of perspective.
This is true. I also find that the tone of conversation helps cause this to happen. I try to step out of it when it occurs, but I don't always succeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shatterstar always felt a little too much like... Liefeld to me. Though he does have an awesome power: Swords.
Nope. Liefeld had his own feet surgically amputated back in 2009. Basically he now looks like an extra-pouchy M.O.D.O.K., only with a normal-sized head.
No warranty granted or assumed for Truthiness in this comment.
Shatterstar always felt a little too much like... Liefeld to me. Though he does have an awesome power: Swords.Nope. Liefeld had his own feet surgically amputated back in 2009. Basically he now looks like an extra-pouchy M.O.D.O.K., only with a normal-sized head.
No warranty granted or assumed for Truthiness in this comment.
... is it Photoshop Friday yet?
Lion Blade
It's certainly not a legal thing, but it is something that DC should be aware of, as a corporation.
No its not.
As a comic book they exist to tell a story.
As a corporation it exists to make money.
Its such an obscure thing that the conflict between whatever Harley is doing and the scauze of the week will cost them less readers than kowtowing to absurd forms of political correctness. There's not a lot of overlap between people upset at the temerity of DC to broach the subject during suicide prevention month and people who want to read about the insane girl in a harlequin costume in a dysfunctional relationship with a psychopathic killer clown. If that sort of thing bothers you, you're probably not a reader anyway.
Nerd rage about nerd rage, is, in fact, nerd rage.
Don't run away from the tautology. Embrace it!
*Breaks an amiga over Set's head* Grarrrrrrrrrg!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lion Blade
It's certainly not a legal thing, but it is something that DC should be aware of, as a corporation.
No its not.
As a comic book they exist to tell a story.
As a corporation it exists to make money.
Its such an obscure thing that the conflict between whatever Harley is doing and the scauze of the week will cost them less readers than kowtowing to absurd forms of political correctness. There's not a lot of overlap between people upset at the temerity of DC to broach the subject during suicide prevention month and people who want to read about the insane girl in a harlequin costume in a dysfunctional relationship with a psychopathic killer clown. If that sort of thing bothers you, you're probably not a reader anyway.
Negative publicity is negative publicity. I doubt this is going to increase purchase of their goods, and DC hasn't been rolling in great press coverage or reviews lately. At Best it doesn't severely impact their sales. At worst, it encourages people who might be on the fence or disappointed with recent issues not to continue.
And honestly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to think "Hey, maybe using suicide as a joke in a comic art contest is a bad idea". Because there are countless other options they could have run with that would have been less likely to attract jeers.
Negative publicity is negative publicity.
No such thing as negative publicity.
Negative publicity is negative publicity.No such thing as negative publicity.
Incorrect, there is no such thing as bad publicity, negative publicity is still good publicity, even if it is negative.
Negative publicity is negative publicity.No such thing as negative publicity.
Common saying but often not true. Otherwise boycotts would never work or celebrities wouldn't get blacklisted.
Ask Michael Richards his views on that saying, and see what he says.
DC Comics is pretty well known...