For once, it's not solely because of the Greg Horn cover that's just horrible, horrible cheesecake (I'm sorry, do you even know how fabric stretches over curves?) and legally inaccurate (Jen Walter isn't a personal injury lawyer):
It's not even only because of the terribly awkward and out-of-place rape trial of Starfox storyline. Look...I'm just exasperated by this sort of reality intruding upon the general Marvel Universe. Maybe I'm jus' bein' naive, but imposing adult-themed storylines onto a universe created without them, in the name of modern "reality," and especially in a light-hearted book like She-Hulk, seems bitter and misguided. I don't object to superhero comics "growing up" and trying to handle themes that are not something that would have been considered or handled in the days of Stan, Jack, and Steve. Sure, superhero stories as a genre need to grow and evolve. But shoehorning such themes into the general Marvel Universe leaves a distaste in my mouth. My take on it is, the way to explore these themes is in a book and characters of your own creation. I'll even accept you wanting to explore this story in a "Max" or even "Ultimate" book. But imposing the theme on a mainstream Marvel Universe book? Maybe valid, but not what I want out of a mainstream MU book. Rape: horrible. Rape examined as a storyline? Not like this, not in a book like this, please. I'm not even saying this because I'm a big Starfox fan. Not at all. Hey, even in the days of his Avengers career I thought the way he used his power was a little spooky and creepy. (Even ditto for the Silver Age Professor X, mind-wiping civilians left and right). The always-eloquent Ragnall, as usual, says it this much better than I could.
So what bothers me about this comic besides all that stuff (which, to be honest, is quite enough to make it not fun for me)? But there's one more thing. So what makes up the dog poop topping on this garbage cake?
Jen, defending the accused Starfox of rape, looks to past and present Avengers to testify on his behalf:
She gets agreement from Hercules and the Wasp, surprise from Hank Pym, and downright no's from the rest.
Including
Captain
America.
Captain America. He's not saying no because he believes Starfox is a rapist. He's not saying no because he believes Starfox is guilty.
He's saying no because
(let's look at it again)
He's saying no because of what other people think.
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
I know it's wrong to get uppity about a comic book and tell the writer they don't know what they are doing and how wrong they are handling a character...but no, no, no, no, Dan Slott. No.
That is not Captain America.
Captain America does what is right. He does what is just. He makes wrong decisions sometimes...but Captain America does not let public perception make his decisions for him.
If there is one man in the Marvel Universe you want to have at your back in a fight, it's Steve Rogers. Because you can count on this: if Steve Rogers believes your fight is right and just, he will battle alongside you to the death, no matter what anyone else thinks. Captain America thinks for himself.
Not Dan Slott's Captain America, I guess.
"Do you think this 'A' on my head stands for 'France'?"
No, "Dan Slott's Captain America." I think it stands for apathy.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQenrY-T9_-EUVG2XBTW-ZiSnvw_V3JFU-8tiFlhrdgKCUBaE56ekbiILucymY9gA-xa4zdGy_z1Njojw78Z-YnlUiN4PIRRurK7GzqoEg3B-PmXl2RJaS1ZaVKVCEHP-m-WVr2xjqailLu1jlzylysiBGc3sVXLXNMFDzAURyrHhKBfcqyO4/s1600/button-libertybellmarch.jpg" "It's...")
7 comments:
Maybe the "A" stands for "appropriate".
Captain America is a character that is literally wrapped in a flag. And not just ANY flag, the flag of a country he deeply loves. We've actually seen comics where Captain America has, after saving all inside, has run bacl into a burning building to SAVE an American flag.
Cap is deeply respectful of that flag AS a symbol-- and his responsibility to live up to that symbol. In previous stories, when Cap has lost faith in himself (or in America) he has taken on other identities so that he wouldn't compromise that symbol.
Cap is also a man out of time. His views about and on sexuality are from a different and more sexually conservative generation. In a situation where She-Hulk is asking a LARGE pool of Avengers to stand up as symbols-- to cash in on their reputation as Avengers-- to endorse a potential sex offender, I can TOTALLY see Captain America taking a backseat BECAUSE of his respect for the symbol that he represents-- and knowing that She-Hulk can just as well ask Iron Man, the Falcon, or Hercules to take the stand.
During Roger Stern and John Byrne's amazing run on CAPTAIN AMERICA, they had a story where Cap wouldn't run for President because he realised the power he has AS a symbol. In previous issues of Marvel comics, we've seen Captain America say that he wouldn't endorse one political party for the same reason.
Captain America DOES go out of his way not to take stands on certain issues BECAUSE of his respect for how much power he has as a symbol.
In that regard, I think that scene nailed it. Yes, Steve Rogers stands for what he believes in. But he also knows that as Captain America stands for America-- and that is a power he must wield responsibly.
Does Steve Rogers believe that there should be prayer in school? Does he believe gay marriage should be legal? Does he believe in the death penalty? What did Cap think about the Elian Gonzalez case? Or the Terri Schiavo case?
As Steve Rogers, it's okay for him to voice those views. As Captain America it's not. And he knows this. Why?
"Because a lot of people view (him) as a symbol... (and) it wouldn't be right for (him) to take part in (that)."
You make a good argument, Anonymous. I don't entirely agree with all your points but other I do--comparable cases and how Cap might think about them are a good counter-argument. You're well-reasoned and your thoughts are appropriate to the argument. Not saying I've changed my mind, and I may be a little too colored by what "my" Cap should do, but a subject like this is treading on a minefield and you're a help finding a path. Thanks for a thoughtful and intelligent response! (Don't be afraid to sign your name next time!--I'm jus' a li'l stuffed bull, I ain't gonna bite ya!)
Excellent post Bully. Normally I love She-Hulk (er..uh I mean reading She-Hulk, of course...) but I just don't understand comics fascination with rape these days. It's an awful, awful violation and I don't think it should be used as "dramatic effect" in a genre where costumed people beat each other up.
I think super-heroes can work well if their emotional responses are based in reality, but inserting unrealistic characters into "reality" itself just does not work.
Bully,
I don't think this specific issue of SHE-HULK is supposed to be fun. I think the question is: How well does this comic do what it sets out to do?
In the link you provided to Ragnall's blog, Ragnall says that this story handles the subject matter much better than Kevin Smith or Mark Millar have done in the past. In another part of that blog, Ragnall also says:
"I will give credit where it is due. The story is well-done. It was clever and respectfully handled. Jennifer was not turned into a victim during this, and the retcon wasn't used to manufacture an audience bond with her. Instead, Slott writes her like a human being."
"There's even a point where Dan Slott echoes some of the fan's thoughts about rape in superhero comics (From the voice of Stu of the record's department "I just don't think of superheroes that way. And I sure don't want to see it in my comics") and with the same character's voice let us know why he did this particular story. I can see his point and I can see why Starfox had to be officially villainized because of his past behavior."
Other bloggers and reviewers have also commented on how well the issue handled the subject matter:
http://www.thexaxis.com/capsules/14May06.htm
http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/reviews/114750054075186.htm
http://signalbleed.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-comics-510.html
And over at CBR, the writer addressed points brought up by posters:
"... And to be precise, the actual line from GLA #3 was:
'But recently, what's bothered me the most is how cavalierly comics have treated subjects like rape and violence towards women.'"
"Talking with friends, co-workers, and fans about these issues-- and watching all the discussions about them both here and on other boards-- got me wondering if it was possible to deal with this subject matter in comics-- and to treat the issue in a NON-cavalier way. Is this something that could (or, more importantly, should) be covered?"
"That's where the germ of this current story started. And (as people who've read the issue know) this story isn't quite over yet. There are specific threads that will be picked up again in the Fall."
And when one fan asked,
"What's funny about rape?"
Slott replied,
"Not a damn thing. Show me where we made fun of rape itself-- and I'll be the first to condemn what we've done."
When that fan went on to say,
"No one put a gun to Dan's head and forced him to write this story, after all."
Slott responded, saying,
"True. And I knew it would be difficult. And that's why I did it. I want this book to stretch and to grow. I want it to be limitless in what stories we can tell there-- what subject matter we can take on-- what characters we can explore. I NEVER want to work on a book that falls into a rut-- that fails to surprise. I want to take risks. They won't always work. I know that. But I'd rather reach for something and fail-- then rest safely in the comforts of what comes easy. Please tell me that you want the titles you read to do just that! Please!"
The link to this post can be found here:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3092835&postcount=19
whoa. I totally missed that. It's so small and yet totally adds to the many many many reasons that storyarc failed when all the other ones have knocked it ut of the park.
Thanks for the hi-light.
Thanks, Second Anonymous. Well-researched and I appreciate the links and quotes from Dan Slott.
You say: I don't think this specific issue of SHE-HULK is supposed to be fun. I think the question is: How well does this comic do what it sets out to do?
My definition of a "fun comic" does not mean it must have no serious topics. I'm not eliminating real-world concerns from the definition of "fun comics." I also agree I can see the point of the other reviews. I'm merely arguing that (in addition to what I believe was a small but significant mis-characterizion of Captain America, although First Anonymous above made some good points that made me reconsider my thought a bit, and you do have to admit the panel is only one moment in time and the subject I brought up may have been addressed in a more full conversation between Jen and Steve...end long digression)...that the intrusion of a real world concern like sexual abuse upon four-color heroes, especially the accusation of sexual abuse against a four-color hero, is an (to me) uncomfortable mix of characters created for escapism and imparting a "real world" mindset upon them that lessens my personal interest in what I want from a Marvel superhero comic book. It's a subjective opinion, and you can easily enough argue against it by saying "Do you not want superhero comics to grow with their audience? Don't you want them to be able to treat adult themes and concerns?"
Yes. That's a good thing. For example, I would count the original Green Lantern #85 as a fun comic, although an intense one.
My point is...and I do have one, and maybe I didn't express this clearly in the original review...is that this story is a jarring and drastic change from what She-Hulk has been set up to be: a lighter, more fun corner of the Marvel Universe. This storyline just seems out of place in She-Hulk. It's a brave and different theme for this book. It's not especially one I expected to see in She-Hulk, a book I normally consider fun, and the drastic change causes my opinion of this to be "not fun." It's the dichotomy (and boy oh boy, isn't that a word and a half for a little stuffed bull) of the "fun" feel of the series and the serious theme that is startling and controversial to many. It would be less so in, say, Daredevil, The Pulse, Detective, or Green Arrow.
I'm not saying Dan Slott didn't write an effective story. I'm not saying I didn't like the characterizarion of She-Hulk and others in this book. I'm not saying that I won't pick up the next issue, 'cos I surely will. I'm saying that...in the universe that has been set up in She-Hulk the comic, this seemed a jarring and out-of-place storyline.
Second, I believe it can be dangerous and risky for a writer to retcon behavior onto a character, especially a hero, that was not intended originally. Again, just my opinion. You can argue that Roger Stern and John Byrne have both given us darker looks at Starfox's powers in the 1980s Avengers and Fantastic Four (in panels that are linked to, I believe, in the "Comics Should Be Good" thread). I don't know: maybe that's what Roger Stern intended in all those Avengers issues but the Code wouldn't let him. But the perception and the portrayal of Eros has been much more innocent. (And yes, I completely know this story isn't over, and it's unfair to judge Starfox's motives without the story being over).
Finally, consider the source and the voice of my blog. It's a little stuffed bull writing about things in comics he finds fun. Bully, er, I have a certain tone, voice, and POV that invites celebration of the joy and high adventure of comics, and not necessarily trying to make comics more realistic or infuse "what if real life situations applied to the Marvel Universe" onto comics. (Though Bully did, to his surprise, enjoy and find Civil War #1 kinda fun!)
Anyway, there ya go. She-Hulk #7 has a storyline and a twist to it that, while well-written and carefully, non-exploitatively handled a serious subject, just wasn't what this little stuffed bull was looking for in his monthly She-Hulk entertainment. But your points, Second Anonymous, like First Anonymous above, are passionate and well-argued, and I respect that entirely. And you know a heckuva lot about Dan Slott and this issue! (Say, are you sure you're not Dan Slott?...Jus' kiddin', big guy!)
In the end, you've got a good opinion. I think I have a good opinion. We both expressed 'em. In the words of one of the great philosophers of our time: Well, ain't that America!
Excelsior, Second Anonymous!
Actually, I think I'll take back the "dramatic effect" comment from my earlier post.
Re-reading the issue and looking at Slott's comments make me realize he was attempting something much more ambitious than, say, Identity Crisis.
But that said, it still doesn't work for me. Frankly, super-heroes aren't a good forum for realism. Realistic human emotions, sure. But when it comes to date rape or purported civics lessons, it just doesn't fly.
For instance, despite Slott's admirable attempt to address the topic in a non-exploitative manner, the issue was still wrapped in a big-time cheesecake image.
That wasn't Slott's choice, but it did help add to the queasy feeling I got reading the comic.
And to be honest, that's not a sensation I really want to experience from a super-hero comic book.
Post a Comment