Hypocrisy in comics

[Charles RB]

The current Occasional Superheroine post (http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/)(Fangirl Fridays) brings up this in relation to DC's Zuda:

A lot of this is perspective. Yeah, DC & Marvel are real evil corporate monsters until you get that deal to write for them. Then they are ok. "Blah-blah-blah sexist" until you get that deal to write "Cottoncandy Lady" for Marv-DC. Then they're ok.

It's not hypocrisy. It's just that this industry is too f**king small.

Er, no, it is hypocrisy. Decrying something as bad and then suddenly changing your mind about it when offered money to do it? That's sort of the definition of hypocrisy.

This has undermined Warren Ellis' views on comics for me. Remember back when he was doing Come In Alonge, did big posts about how it was a bad idea to do work-for-hire superhero comics and this wasn't doing much for the industry and creator-owned was a better long-term plan? Since then - yep, work-for-hire work. And I don't complain about the work itself, his Thunderbolts is pretty good, but I don't ever remember him saying "okay, I was wrong, this work is needed to pay bills in the short-term". It's just "You shouldn't do this!", then him doing it, and no reason given.

Same with John Bryne - "superhero comics should be wholesome and all-ages!", while never mentioning the Superman-Big Barda porn story.

Obviously this doesn't effect the actual work itself, but it certainly effects my willingness to listen to them on any matters related to the work. Yet, they keep talking about it anyway.

Anyone else thinking the same or am I being the stereotypical Angry Young Man?

(In response to Zuda itself - anyone can do a webcomic and have the potential for it to be widely read/make a varying amount of cash, so why give your rights up to DC to do one?)

[Pink Bat Max]

Same with John Bryne - "superhero comics should be wholesome and all-ages!", while never mentioning the Superman-Big Barda porn story.

Woah. Wait. back up. "Superman/Barda Porn Story?"

[TCJohnson]

Woah. Wait. back up. "Superman/Barda Porn Story?"

Sleez is an alien from the fictional planet of Apokolips. There he originally served as the companion of young Prince Uxas (Darkseid) the future ruler of Apokolips. Uxas banished Sleez to earth after he grew tired of his depravities, and the creature took up residence in the city of Metropolis. There he ekes out a living in the sewers of Suicide Slum. After running afoul of Superman on several occasions, including attempting to produce a pornographic film starring a psionically dominated Superman and Big Barda.[1] Sleez attempts to take over the Cadmus Project but later seemingly died in an explosion.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleez

[Corrina]

But what if you take the job because you're trying to change things from the inside, so you play ball as you get your kinds of stories told, hoping they will have an impact on the whole?

Is that hypocrisy or simply choosing another path to effect change?

And which, btw, outside criticism or inside work, would be more effective?

(Don't know the answer to this one but it's a question I wonder about myself.)

[Pink Bat Max]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleez

Yep. That would have been hypocritical of Byrne. Did he talk about all-ages comics during the same time he was doing Superman?

[Charles RB]

And which, btw, outside criticism or inside work, would be more effective?


Depends on the inside work. If you're a newly-hired freelance artist or writer, there's only so much impact your inside work can do because your boss can tell you "don't do that" and you have to obey. If you're an editor, you could have more of an impact as you're the one saying "don't do that" to a certain extent. If you think "there should be more black superheroes with their own title" and you're an editor, you can tell your freelancers to brainstorm one for you and then approve it; if you're the freelancer, you have to convince the editor to approve it.

The outside critic, however, can be the one influencing those on the inside if they're very good at it.

[Gail Simone]

Haven't read the whole post, but it is a common charge made against me that by not putting WW in a three piece suit, I'm somehow betraying my feminist ideals.

Which seems like such nonsense to me.

Gail

[heystacy]

Haven't read the whole post, but it is a common charge made against me that by not putting WW in a three piece suit, I'm somehow betraying my feminist ideals.

Which seems like such nonsense to me.

Gail

What? Amazing. It would be a slippery slope of having to always write on feminist issues or so called "hot topics" I would guess.

I was reading on photographer Cindy Sherman, and how she does not title her photos, and that has some people criticizing her for not making more of a feminist stance. WOW

[Pink Bat Max]

Haven't read the whole post, but it is a common charge made against me that by not putting WW in a three piece suit, I'm somehow betraying my feminist ideals.

Which seems like such nonsense to me.

Gail

As much as I LOOOOOVE Wonder Woman, and women in three piece suits.... no.

However, Agent Diana Prince could surely wear one. DO IT!!!!

[Pink Bat Max]

What? Amazing. It would be a slippery slope of having to always write on feminist issues or so called "hot topics" I would guess.

I was reading on photographer Cindy Sherman, and how she does not title her photos, and that has some people criticizing her for not making more of a feminist stance. WOW

Uh... have these people actually SEEN Cindy Sherman's work?

[heystacy]

Uh... have these people actually SEEN Cindy Sherman's work?

Ha! I think her images speak for themselves. "Untitled" works for me. I think some critics want her to speak more and name her pieces. It's a personal issue being projected onto her.

[Pink Bat Max]

Ha! I think her images speak for themselves. "Untitled" works for me. I think some critics want her to speak more and name her pieces. It's a personal issue being projected onto her.

Seriously. When I think of feminist photographers, Cindy Sherman comes first to mind. I appriciate her crediting her viewers with the intelligence to 'get' her work on our own.

[heystacy]

Seriously. When I think of feminist photographers, Cindy Sherman comes first to mind. I appriciate her crediting her views with the intelligence to 'get' her work on out own.

The contemporary art class I'm taking is an eye opener for better or worse.

Unfortunately, some people want more of her. Which is why I mentioned slippery slope. All the work one can do, someone is out there demanding more.

[Reverend Smooth]

Given what I've read of her previous posts, I would take her 'tone' to be one of heavy irony.

[heystacy]

Given what I've read of her previous posts, I would take her 'tone' to be one of heavy irony.

Sherman has done a variety of images. I seen her take images of herself as a working and domestic woman. her clown images are creepy to me, and the grotesque stuff is as it is. I suppose ironic could describe some of Sherman's photographs.

[Reverend Smooth]

Sherman has done a variety of images. I seen her take images of herself as a working and domestic woman. her clown images are creepy to me, and the grotesque stuff is as it is. I suppose ironic could describe some of Sherman's photographs.No, I mean the author of the occasional superheroine blog. ^^;;;

[heystacy]

No, I mean the author of the occasional superheroine blog. ^^;;;

D'oh!!! LOL :o

[Night Swordsman]

Woah. Wait. back up. "Superman/Barda Porn Story?"

Ditto! WtH?? :eek:

[Night Swordsman]

Haven't read the whole post, but it is a common charge made against me that by not putting WW in a three piece suit, I'm somehow betraying my feminist ideals.

Which seems like such nonsense to me.

Gail

But you have only written Wonder Woman twice,right? A cameo appearance and a story arc on JLA classified. Why not ask Batman to wear a three piece suit as well?

I am in full agreement. I am just saddened that you used the word common,which would imply that you have gotten several of this paticular request. You deserve better than this.

[Lester C.]

People have to feed themselves and their families. If that means circumventing your values a little bit so be it. I think all of us have taken jobs we don't like working for people we can't stand because we had bills to pay. Why should we hold comic book creators to a higher standard then we hold ourselves?

[Paul McEnery]

The current Occasional Superheroine post (http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/)(Fangirl Fridays) brings up this in relation to DC's Zuda:



Er, no, it is hypocrisy. Decrying something as bad and then suddenly changing your mind about it when offered money to do it? That's sort of the definition of hypocrisy.

This has undermined Warren Ellis' views on comics for me. Remember back when he was doing Come In Alonge, did big posts about how it was a bad idea to do work-for-hire superhero comics and this wasn't doing much for the industry and creator-owned was a better long-term plan? Since then - yep, work-for-hire work. And I don't complain about the work itself, his Thunderbolts is pretty good, but I don't ever remember him saying "okay, I was wrong, this work is needed to pay bills in the short-term". It's just "You shouldn't do this!", then him doing it, and no reason given.

Actually, he did address this on, I think, Warrenellis.com. But it was kind of ages ago. And he said: yes, i know what I said, but I thought of something I could do with them.

[Jeff F]

Wait, do people actually take the Bryne Super/Barda porno thing as something that a teen, or even a moderatly intelligent kid couldn't read?

I've read the issues, it was a two-parter if I remember right, and it was really quite tame. Clearly showed porn as being a bad thing, and didn't specifically mention what Supes and Barda would be doing.

It was funny, since I read it as an 18 year old. But, it wasn't offensive in the slightest.

[Reverend Smooth]

People have to feed themselves and their families. If that means circumventing your values a little bit so be it. I think all of us have taken jobs we don't like working for people we can't stand because we had bills to pay. Why should we hold comic book creators to a higher standard then we hold ourselves?It's not just that, but nothing will change if you don't try doing it from the inside out.

[Buzz Dixon]

Hypocrisy is when Joe says Action A is always bad and criticizes Sam for doing it, but says it is okay for Joe to do it.

Let's say Action A is smoking. Joe is a hypocrite if he criticizes Sam while excusing his own smoking. He is not a hypocrite if he says smoking is bad even though he himself smokes.

If Action A is working for the Big Two in any capacity, one is a hypocrite to decry others for working while excusing oneself for taking a job.

But publishing is a big world, and it's possible to say "the Big Two do some bad things" while at the same time being able to work for them on something that isn't bad. For instance, saying that drawing women in a degrading manner is bad is not hypocrisy provided the person saying it isn't drawing women in a degrading manner.

[oh superheroine]

Just in case there is any confusion:

I meant in my post that I have noticed a trend where critics of comic companies tend to have to be a bit more silent when they are actually working for said companies. And that it was not hypocrisy, but a fact of life when you are trying to make a living in such a small industry as mainstream comics.

It's not directed at any one person. The person who criticizes Zuda today might work there tomorrow; when they are working for Zuda, they are likely not to be such a public critic. The woman who criticizes Minx today might work there tomorrow; while working for Minx she might acquire a whole new appreciation for the imprint. And so it goes.

This is a business fact of life.

As for the question whether more good is done for the cause of feminism from within or as a critic on the outside, that is a question I ask myself a lot.

[Linkara]

I think it's interesting that people are deriding Zuda for taking rights away from the creator...

...when we haven't seen the damn contracts yet.

As such, while one should be aware of such a possibility ocurring, it hasn't happened yet. As far as I know, the creator retains all rights except the right to publish it in other mediums (i.e. Zuda would have exclusive rights to publish a book with the comics and to put them up), as far as I know.

[PatrickG]

I think it's interesting that people are deriding Zuda for taking rights away from the creator...

...when we haven't seen the damn contracts yet.

As such, while one should be aware of such a possibility ocurring, it hasn't happened yet. As far as I know, the creator retains all rights except the right to publish it in other mediums (i.e. Zuda would have exclusive rights to publish a book with the comics and to put them up), as far as I know.

As I RECALL, one of the few things we've gotten is that it IS work for hire IF you win the contest and Zuda buys your IP for them to do print books, toys, etc. with. So you do surrender ownership.

But I don't get the uproar. You get money for it. It isn't theft. It's a business arrangement where somebody offers to pay X dollars for something you make under the premise that they can make more than X dollars back.

Nobody puts a gun to your head and makes you go with Zuda.

The stated plan we've gotten so far from interviews is that somebody at DC thought: "Hey! We do business and publishing! A lot of webcomics creators are doing well handling their own site development/merch/etc. But maybe there are some who suck at business and would sell their property to us. We give them a paycheck, which they wouldn't be getting if they suck at business, and we get a new audience."

The web is a big, open place. Money isn't everything. If you can make a go of the web traffic/hosting/ads/merch, you're free to do so now.

And with Zuda, you can sell your characters/ideas/stories to someone who will manage it for you and get you a steady paycheck.

But the thing is, if you don't realize that you can do it on your own, you wouldn't anyway. And if you don't WANT to, then Zuda is an alternative. But if you're letting somebody else do something for you, there's a price and with Zuda, that price is your ideas.

I'd personally take the cash now so I have money to properly develop promote my own ideas elsewhere down the line.

And hey! Zuda only has one winner a month. And everyone who submits gets exposure on the site.

Similar to American Idol, coming in second may actually be to your advantage. 'Cause if Zuda does well, you have exposure and you still have your idea.

But if you win, you get a paycheck. You lose ownership of the idea but if you know that going in then you have yourself to blame in this case.

Seriously, it's like selling your grandmother's wedding ring and then decrying the injustice of anyone else having it but you.

[Reverend Smooth]

Just in case there is any confusion:

I meant in my post that I have noticed a trend where critics of comic companies tend to have to be a bit more silent when they are actually working for said companies. And that it was not hypocrisy, but a fact of life when you are trying to make a living in such a small industry as mainstream comics.

It's not directed at any one person. The person who criticizes Zuda today might work there tomorrow; when they are working for Zuda, they are likely not to be such a public critic. The woman who criticizes Minx today might work there tomorrow; while working for Minx she might acquire a whole new appreciation for the imprint. And so it goes.

This is a business fact of life.

As for the question whether more good is done for the cause of feminism from within or as a critic on the outside, that is a question I ask myself a lot.You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, essentially.

[Charles RB]

It's not directed at any one person. The person who criticizes Zuda today might work there tomorrow; when they are working for Zuda, they are likely not to be such a public critic. The woman who criticizes Minx today might work there tomorrow; while working for Minx she might acquire a whole new appreciation for the imprint. And so it goes.

This is a business fact of life.

Which makes me wonder why someone would bother (publically) criticising a company/imprint's working conditions* at all if they know they might end up working there and would then shut up. Seems a bit pointless, since it admits the problem's not bad enough to discourage anyone from working there.

* I say "working conditions" because to seperate criticisms of things like Zuda taking property rights from criticisms of Marvel/DC focusing on crossovers, as that's a criticism of the end product.

[Leslie Lee III]

And that it was not hypocrisy, but a fact of life when you are trying to make a living in such a small industry as mainstream comics.

Solution: Get a real job like the rest of us.

Sure it's a small industry, but people have sacrificed a lot more than this for their beliefs. If your principles are less important than money, then you don't have principles, you have preferences and beliefs that you can be persuaded out of if the money is right. That doesn't necessarily make you a horrible person, that depends on how much grandstanding you did against these companies before you jumped at a chance to sign on with them.

[Charles RB]

Actually, he did address this on, I think, Warrenellis.com. But it was kind of ages ago. And he said: yes, i know what I said, but I thought of something I could do with them.

So basically he's said that he changed his mind? Fair enough.

[stealthwise]

I like Dark Horse, Oni Press, Image, Drawn and Quarterly, Fantagraphics...

[Pink Bat Max]

I haven't ever read Warren Ellis. Ever. Pretty much because everything I've peeked at has come across as a rude adolescent's sophomoric scribblings. Am I seriously missing out?

[Michael P]

So basically he's said that he changed his mind? Fair enough.

Yeah. He's not a hypocrite, he's a flip-flopper!

[Magneto_X]

So basically he's said that he changed his mind? Fair enough.

This is the first I've heard about it.

Would it have been that much of a bother to say something in an Newsarama interview about his "changed mind"?