It's funny because it's sad.
Два спорных утверждения по цене одного!
MarvelНомер раз, слегка старый - Циклоп был...
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Part 1)
He was right. At worst, he was possessed by another lifeform and not responsible for his actions under the argument of See Every Other Superhero Possession Ever. Much of the damage that happened only happened because the Avengers decided that the best way to deal with a man possessed by a destructive cosmic force was to keep attacking him until he snapped and was taken over completely, losing all control. Great strategy there, Captain America.
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Tim O'Neil Guest Post)
ВыдержкиSo even though we as readers know the Phoenix is probably coming to Earth to do something related to M-Day and Hope Summers and all that jazz, the people in the story don't know this with anything resembling certainty. And the problem is that this is a situation where being wrong doesn't just mean people get hurt, or a few people die - it means that everyone dies. With the Phoenix on the way to Earth, there was a not-zero chance that the Phoenix intended to destroy the Earth for whatever reason, or maybe even no reason at all. So whatever reason Cyclops had for thinking the Phoenix may have been headed to Earth for benevolent reasons are essentially moot. If there is a not-zero chance that the Earth might be destroyed, it isn't just irresponsible to stand in the way of a solution to the problem, it's downright villainous.
...
That's precisely that the team does in AvX: whatever Cyclops' rationalizations are, the fact is that in the context of the story his actions materially contribute to a not-zero chance of the planet Earth being destroyed.
...
I simply can't move past the fact that regardless of why Cyclops believed the Phoenix's arrival would be positive development, the fact that there was a not-zero chance of him being proven wrong is simply unacceptable. The stakes, in this instance, were too high for the Avengers to do anything but what they did.
...
Mutants aren't a separate species, anymore than black people, jewish people, GLBT people, or disabled people are separate species. That's the whole premise. Their mutations are completely random. That is also why some mutations are benign and some are not: some people get really awesome Omega-level reality-altering telepathic powers, some people get turned into hideous monsters who have to live in the sewer.
...
Mutants aren't a race, they aren't a species. That's Magneto's logic, that's Apocalypse's logic, not Professor X's logic, and certainly not the logic behind forty-odd years of X-Men stories. Mutants are part of humanity. Mutants don't get to choose how they're born. Mutants should be able to live however the want without fear of prosecution.
...
I must have missed something. I must have missed the part of AvX - or really, any of the years of X-Men stories leading up to the crossover - where Cyclops took the time to explain exactly why the mutant gene simply had to be restored, why having a handful of new and beautiful godlike mutants was worth the price that there would almost certainly be just as many, if not more mutants who weren't so lucky, and received the superhero equivalent of cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy for their troubles. It's one thing if they had randomly been born that way, but a number of people fought long and hard to ensure that they would have the "freedom" to have their lives irrevocably changed for the worse. Those people were led by Cyclops, and at no point during the course of AvX does he ever actually explain why cursing Mudbug, Eye Boy, and Shark Girl to live terrible lives was a necessary sacrifice for the good of the "mutant race."
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Part 2)
By declaring yourself a different race, it made all of the prejudice easier. Instead of being humans with different abilities or a medical anomoly, they become something other. It's easy to justify killing the other instead of victims of genetics. In one case, you're killing aliens; in the other, you're killing people with Down's syndrome. Why would any sane mutant encourage the former over the latter? And, yet, that's what Cyclops does.
...
f anything, Cyclops should have been working to eliminate mutations, because there's a difference between being proud of yourself when there are no options and purposefully choosing to be a man who has to wear a protective visor all of the time for fear that deadly eyebeams will shoot from his eyes and destroy everything he looks at. Choosing to remain that guy is disturbing. He more than most should want to get rid of that whole X gene thing and go work private security or something. I understand Wolverine not wanting to take the cure, because he'd... die. But, why would you choose persecution and, possibly, physical disabilities all because of some notion that you're special despite everything in the world telling you that you're not, including yourself?
DCНомер два - про текущую инкарнацию Чудо-Женщины
Wonder Woman's Violent, Man-Pandering Second Act
Marston claimed that comics were too blood-curdlingly masculine; Azzarello, in contrast, seems to be saying that comics—or at least Marston's comics—are not blood-curdling enough. The Amazon sisterhood in which Wonder Woman believed is a lie built on sexualized violence and death. The magic lasso, which settles conflict non-violently, is exchanged for those golden guns. The fact that the guns belong to the god Eros, and shoot bullets of violent infatuation just emphasizes that, for Azzarello, even love is a blood-curdling business best expressed through phallic firepower. Space kangaroos are not the truth; you, Wonder Woman fans, are not ready for the truth.
...
In the first volume of the series, Azzarello revealed that Wonder Woman was the daughter of Zeus—and in general throughout the series he seems less interested in his heroine per se than in her patriarchal heritage, and the divine family that goes along with it.
...
We are, though, constantly pointed away from this central storyline to other members of the pantheon. Thus, the most sympathetic and nuanced portrait in the book is not of Wonder Woman or Zola, but instead of Hades, the God of the Underworld whose abuse of women is supposed to highlight his tragic lack of self-love, setting up the inevitable resolution of banal self-actualization.
...
Azzarello's comics, then, are for older readers, and they fairly consciously embrace the blood-curdling masculinity that Marston decried. But that doesn't mean that blood-curdling masculinity is more adult than the alternative. It simply means that blood-curdling masculinity in this case—and not just in this case—justifies itself ideologically through appeals to maturity and realism.
MarvelНомер раз, слегка старый - Циклоп был...
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Part 1)
He was right. At worst, he was possessed by another lifeform and not responsible for his actions under the argument of See Every Other Superhero Possession Ever. Much of the damage that happened only happened because the Avengers decided that the best way to deal with a man possessed by a destructive cosmic force was to keep attacking him until he snapped and was taken over completely, losing all control. Great strategy there, Captain America.
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Tim O'Neil Guest Post)
ВыдержкиSo even though we as readers know the Phoenix is probably coming to Earth to do something related to M-Day and Hope Summers and all that jazz, the people in the story don't know this with anything resembling certainty. And the problem is that this is a situation where being wrong doesn't just mean people get hurt, or a few people die - it means that everyone dies. With the Phoenix on the way to Earth, there was a not-zero chance that the Phoenix intended to destroy the Earth for whatever reason, or maybe even no reason at all. So whatever reason Cyclops had for thinking the Phoenix may have been headed to Earth for benevolent reasons are essentially moot. If there is a not-zero chance that the Earth might be destroyed, it isn't just irresponsible to stand in the way of a solution to the problem, it's downright villainous.
...
That's precisely that the team does in AvX: whatever Cyclops' rationalizations are, the fact is that in the context of the story his actions materially contribute to a not-zero chance of the planet Earth being destroyed.
...
I simply can't move past the fact that regardless of why Cyclops believed the Phoenix's arrival would be positive development, the fact that there was a not-zero chance of him being proven wrong is simply unacceptable. The stakes, in this instance, were too high for the Avengers to do anything but what they did.
...
Mutants aren't a separate species, anymore than black people, jewish people, GLBT people, or disabled people are separate species. That's the whole premise. Their mutations are completely random. That is also why some mutations are benign and some are not: some people get really awesome Omega-level reality-altering telepathic powers, some people get turned into hideous monsters who have to live in the sewer.
...
Mutants aren't a race, they aren't a species. That's Magneto's logic, that's Apocalypse's logic, not Professor X's logic, and certainly not the logic behind forty-odd years of X-Men stories. Mutants are part of humanity. Mutants don't get to choose how they're born. Mutants should be able to live however the want without fear of prosecution.
...
I must have missed something. I must have missed the part of AvX - or really, any of the years of X-Men stories leading up to the crossover - where Cyclops took the time to explain exactly why the mutant gene simply had to be restored, why having a handful of new and beautiful godlike mutants was worth the price that there would almost certainly be just as many, if not more mutants who weren't so lucky, and received the superhero equivalent of cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy for their troubles. It's one thing if they had randomly been born that way, but a number of people fought long and hard to ensure that they would have the "freedom" to have their lives irrevocably changed for the worse. Those people were led by Cyclops, and at no point during the course of AvX does he ever actually explain why cursing Mudbug, Eye Boy, and Shark Girl to live terrible lives was a necessary sacrifice for the good of the "mutant race."
Cyclops was Right! Cyclops was Wrong! (Part 2)
By declaring yourself a different race, it made all of the prejudice easier. Instead of being humans with different abilities or a medical anomoly, they become something other. It's easy to justify killing the other instead of victims of genetics. In one case, you're killing aliens; in the other, you're killing people with Down's syndrome. Why would any sane mutant encourage the former over the latter? And, yet, that's what Cyclops does.
...
f anything, Cyclops should have been working to eliminate mutations, because there's a difference between being proud of yourself when there are no options and purposefully choosing to be a man who has to wear a protective visor all of the time for fear that deadly eyebeams will shoot from his eyes and destroy everything he looks at. Choosing to remain that guy is disturbing. He more than most should want to get rid of that whole X gene thing and go work private security or something. I understand Wolverine not wanting to take the cure, because he'd... die. But, why would you choose persecution and, possibly, physical disabilities all because of some notion that you're special despite everything in the world telling you that you're not, including yourself?
DCНомер два - про текущую инкарнацию Чудо-Женщины
Wonder Woman's Violent, Man-Pandering Second Act
Marston claimed that comics were too blood-curdlingly masculine; Azzarello, in contrast, seems to be saying that comics—or at least Marston's comics—are not blood-curdling enough. The Amazon sisterhood in which Wonder Woman believed is a lie built on sexualized violence and death. The magic lasso, which settles conflict non-violently, is exchanged for those golden guns. The fact that the guns belong to the god Eros, and shoot bullets of violent infatuation just emphasizes that, for Azzarello, even love is a blood-curdling business best expressed through phallic firepower. Space kangaroos are not the truth; you, Wonder Woman fans, are not ready for the truth.
...
In the first volume of the series, Azzarello revealed that Wonder Woman was the daughter of Zeus—and in general throughout the series he seems less interested in his heroine per se than in her patriarchal heritage, and the divine family that goes along with it.
...
We are, though, constantly pointed away from this central storyline to other members of the pantheon. Thus, the most sympathetic and nuanced portrait in the book is not of Wonder Woman or Zola, but instead of Hades, the God of the Underworld whose abuse of women is supposed to highlight his tragic lack of self-love, setting up the inevitable resolution of banal self-actualization.
...
Azzarello's comics, then, are for older readers, and they fairly consciously embrace the blood-curdling masculinity that Marston decried. But that doesn't mean that blood-curdling masculinity is more adult than the alternative. It simply means that blood-curdling masculinity in this case—and not just in this case—justifies itself ideologically through appeals to maturity and realism.
-
-
10.02.2013 в 17:02И да: The fact that the guns belong to the god Eros, and shoot bullets of violent infatuation just emphasizes that, for Azzarello, even love is a blood-curdling business best expressed through phallic firepower
Ничего, что любовь с оружием изначально связали сами грёбаные греки? Две пушки в этом контексте едва ли намного страшнее лука со стрелами.
-
-
10.02.2013 в 17:21Берлатски предлагает простой ответ который мне кажется сильно похожим на правду: проблема Чудо-Женщины в том, что оригинал там был слишком хорош. Слишком weird, слишком quirky, слишком авторский и слишком с идеями, с идеями, не укладываемыми в два предложения фантазий для самых маленьких про "одним махом всех победю". Поэтому её, в отличие от Супера и Бэтса, в общем-то не удалось превратить в полноценный франчайз - после очистки от авторских идей, философии и прочих "сложностей" от неё осталась одна визуалка. Поиски символизма и метафор в данном разрезе - абсолютно правильный путь, это там видят, потому что это туда положено с самого начала. Мне всякий раз, когда начинают говорить о поисках смысла, хочется встать в позу яростного сноба и до хруста закатить глаза: complicated concepts are SCARY!
То есть я понимаю, почему её сложнее продать, понимаю, что у неё, пожалуй, куда меньший потенциальный mass appeal. Хуже это её не делает.
Я правда не знаю каким должен быть комикс про WW, чтобы одновременно не вызывать совершенно никаких придирок с феминистской точки зрения и при этом быть хоть немного интересным.
Ты понимаешь, как это звучит?
Ничего, что любовь с оружием изначально связали сами грёбаные греки? Две пушки в этом контексте едва ли намного страшнее лука со стрелами.
Так у автора статьи одна из претензий в том, что вместо комикса "про Чудо-Женщину", супергероиню, нам выдают постмодернистские развелкаловки с греческими мифами. В рамках его аргумента отсылка на мифы (которые - а вот это уже от меня - не отличались не-мизогинией, что уж там) как раз часть проблемы.
-
-
10.02.2013 в 17:40Oops. Phrasing.
Просто большинство фанатов, не читавших самых-самых оригинальных комиксов, как правило сравнивает всегда не с ними, а с положением дел до последнего ребута, в котором изначально ничего интересного нет, именно потому, что комиксы пишутся не потому, что авторы знают, что делать с персонажем, а потому что необходимо держать при себе франчайз, которым можно тыкать всем в нос ("А у нас есть феминизм! А у вас?"). Да, всё скучно, НО НЕ СМЕЙТЕ НИЧЕГО МЕНЯТЬ, ОСОБЕННО КОСТЮМ!
Аззарелло пишет аззарелловский комикс, что в ДиСи с их редакторской политикой вообще неведомая роскошь, это лучше, чем если бы он пытался писать то, чего ни он, ни, судя по всему, вообще никто, не умеет.
-
-
10.02.2013 в 19:43Я, если что, не думаю, что ты имел в виду что-то плохое).
На самом деле, я думаю, что с полноценно феминистической Чудо-Женщиной можно было бы сделать интересный комикс, но... он бы не сьелся ЦА-как-её-себе-представляют, мягко говоря).
Да, всё скучно, НО НЕ СМЕЙТЕ НИЧЕГО МЕНЯТЬ, ОСОБЕННО КОСТЮМ!
Ну тут мне (увы?) спорить не с чем(.
Аззарелло пишет аззарелловский комикс, что в ДиСи с их редакторской политикой вообще неведомая роскошь, это лучше, чем если бы он пытался писать то, чего ни он, ни, судя по всему, вообще никто, не умеет.
Это хорошо только если считать, что "аззарелловский комикс" - есть по определению нечто лучшее, чем неумелые попытки сделать "что-то типа про феминизм и вообще про иконического женского персонажа". В свете особенно Роршаха я... не уверена, что это так. Но, правда, обратное однозначно утверждать тоже не возьмусь.
-
-
10.02.2013 в 20:42Когда я говорю вполне, я имею ввиду, что феминистки найдут к чему придраться, пока этот самый феминизм не восторжествует)
Сам вопрос, что считать за ЦА комиксов про Чудо-женщину очень интересен. Мне нравится персонаж, но в ЦА нынешнего рана я явно не попадаю.
Есть еще такое мнение фанатки WW под которым даже подписался Марк Уэйд:
"Wonder Woman is a superhero invented by a psychologist to help women and girls feel good about being women and girls. That is her prime directive. Anything that makes women and girls not feel good about being women and girls does not belong in a Wonder Woman comic." (обсуждение)
Но для того, чтобы писать с такой позиции нужно забить на то, что нравится основной ЦА комиксов по мнению Дэна Дидио, а она не менее придирчива чем феминистки.