…

I don’t think anyone in the discussion would disagree with the idea that not everything is for everyone. Heck, among the people critiquing that cover as inappropriate is a porn publisher, who is very conversant with the idea that not everything is for everyone. And Tamora Pierce’s critique is that the cover doesn’t remotely fit the material it’s covering, not merely that she doesn’t care for it.

The objections to the cover and statue have been something other than “I think this should be for everyone,” and more “This is not how to reach out to the kind of readers they seem to want to reach out to,” or “This is not how best to present characters that seem to be about something very much else than this.” If what you’ve been getting is “This isn’t for me and everything should be for me,” then I think that’s a communication problem — it hasn’t been what they’re saying.

>> I don’t spend my time editing clips of the O’ Reily show to make it more paletable to me.

If Comedy Central was promoting THE DAILY SHOW in a way that made it appear to be THE O’REILLY FACTOR, might you suggest that they were mispresenting it? The cover is the face of the project, not the totality of it.

>> I appreciate the discussion here and I have really enjoyed this. >>

Likewise, sir.

Plus, more FIREBREATHER! Wøø!

kdb

Indeed, the HFH cover is sexist. All men at one time or another will objectify women, in their own mind, at the very least. This does not mean that they disrespect women (in a small amount of the population, which I would like to count myself as one of) or think they are less then men are. We just have sex drives, and that’s why there are still babies being born. Sorry about that to any women who may find that offensive. Ultimately, what is offensive about it, is the forum in which it has been shown, which is comic shops. We should be doing everything in our power to make comic shops a welcoming place for women, children, parents, Negroes, Christians, Jews, and whatever other type of person you care to name. If we are not doing that, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. That and the cover is just juvenile, and stupid. I’ve always found that offensive, too. Oh, and Heidi… please don’t take this any other way then a simple complement. I’m happily married, and this is not some sort of sleazy on line pick up. I’ve always found you to be one of the most respectable and intelligent people in comic (man or woman) and very sexy, as well. Yes, I think you’re sexy.

I guess what I am trying to say and maybe we just don’t agree on this point is that everything is not for everyone. Some things are not for me, I can except that and not partake in them. Fox news is a prime example, it is something I seriously dislike so I don’t turn in. I don’t spend my time editing clips of the O’ Reily show to make it more paletable to me.

I guess that is the point I was trying to make only I did not make it well. I appreciate the discussion here and I have really enjoyed this (especially Kurt). I hope that none of my posts have come off as disrespectful.

Also, C.B. Cebulski has responded to the criticism of the cover, even though he didn’t contract it (Or did he? No one at Marvel seems to know whose decision the cover was. It’s like they left out a pan of milk and the wee folk brought them hentai!):

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=13

(Scroll down to “Blogs in Pieces” and scroll a bit more.)

Like Joe Q, he shifts blame, does not answer any of the substantial criticisms and questions about the cover image, and gives information that has nothing to do with with the Perfect Storm of Wrong that that cover is.
UNlike Joe, however, he does take credit/blame as the writer for the content of the erotic vampire book (Drain) he and Sana are doing for Image.
Apparently, Sana’s previous work on Marvel Fairytales and as a work-for-hire game designer in Japan paid/pays poorly, since C.B. says the cover was a result of him asking around for work for Sana “make a little extra cash.”

There. Substance.

Hey, Harlan and Gary, huh?

kdb

I guess we disagree there, since I think they’re allowed to give their opinion just as surely as you are, and I’m not surprised when they do.

I’ll note, though, that you’ve said you object to people editing movies even if they’re just doing it for their own use — which is objecting to something because it doesn’t suit your moral sensibilities, something you’re opposed to when others do it.

>> I think when those attitudes are taken too an extreme then the results are things like the Mike Diana conviction.

If anyone had even hinted at a suggestion that Marvel shouldn’t be allowed to publish this sort of thing, you might have something there. But there’s a conceptual difference between expressing an opinion and enforcing that opinion on others.

Plus, of course, your opinion that people shouldn’t say that sort of thing, when taken to an extreme that also crosses that conceptual line, would also be censorship. It doesn’t and shouldn’t stop you, though, because you’re aware that you’re using persuasion rather than force.

kdb

I guess we disagree there, since I think they’re allowed to give their opinion just as surely as you are, and I’m not surprised when they do.

I’ll note, though, that you’ve said you object to people editing movies even if they’re just doing it for their own use — which is objecting to something because it doesn’t suit your moral sensibilities, something you’re opposed to when others do it.

kdb

Uhhhhh, yes, and that’s why INFORMED, INTELLIGENT discussion is the best way to find out where the the common good lies.

People, you are not discussing the issues any more. You are just arguing about discussing the issues. Can we get back to intelligent, informed discussion please? Hey ya’ll, did you know that Gary Groth and Harlan Ellison are meeting with a mediator today?

Beat me to it. CURSE YOU, BUSIEK!

(And afore you start yellin at me, I’m sending you scans of the old Cathedral Child intro pages. I realized just today I didn’t have to type the text out for you to add on. Duuuuuuh.)

I’m quite sure that I haven’t “demonized” what she did; that seems like a rather strong term when my only comment specifically regarding her work was that I could find nothing legally questionable about it and it seems entirely within the boundaries of fair use and critique. I did make the comparison with video stores altering movies to taste, and while commercial profit is not a factor here, I still believe that the motivation is essentially the same. Whether or not you think that’s a bad thing depends on your point of view, I suppose.

“What people who object to video stores editing videos are objecting to is not that they edit the things, but that they then rent or sell the edited versions, profiting off a distortion of the moviemakers’ work.”

Actually, I object to both aspects of such an endeavor, as do many people I know. Selling the bowlderized work is certainly rephrehensible, but it’s the need they feel to “adjust” such works to fit within their moral conceptions that I find troubling, regardless of whether I share those same conceptions.

Look, I believe in the maximum amount of free speech possible. If the KKK want to publish a comic book, more power to them; and likewise, I should be able to publish a comic book that reflects my viewpoint that they’re all racist idiots. Or to just simply say so on my web page. So I’ve got no problem with either the original cover being printed, said cover being critiqued, or someone doing an illustrated critique to make a point.

What I do find surprising is that some artists — usually a group of people who bristle the fastest at any perceived outside interference in their work — seem so quick to declare what is appropriate or within the bounds of good taste. It is certainly their right to do so, but I think when those attitudes are taken too an extreme then the results are things like the Mike Diana conviction.