365 Search results

For the term "whitten".

Emily S. Whitten: Simon Fraser and Seven Years of Act-i-vate!

Whitten Art 130312While I was in NYC a couple of weekends ago, I ended up at a Gowanus Studios party out in Brooklyn (as you do), chatting with my friend Reilly Brown and some other excellent comics folks. In the middle of all this (all this being pizza and wine, la-di-la, because I’m too fancy for beer), I learned about Act-i-vate, which some of you may have heard of, but I sure hadn’t.

That’s one of the things I love about comics – even if you’ve been a fan for years, or know quite a bit about it, there’s always so much going on that you’re never going to reach the end of learning new stuff about comics – the art and the industry. (And also, if you’re me at least, the genre being so large means you don’t have to feel like a bad fan for not knowing everything about it; it’s hard!) So despite having interviewed Dean Haspiel, who was one of the founding members of Act-i-vate, since he’s moved to other projects now we had not discussed it, and I’d never heard of it.

Simon Fraser remedied that for me at the party (it’s not a real party unless you stop someone in mid-sentence, drag them into an empty studio, and do an impromptu interview, dontchya know) . You might recognize Simon as the co-creator of Nikolai Dante, “a swashbuckling adventure story set amid dynastic intrigue in a future Russia,” or as an artist who’s drawn a number of Judge Dredd stories. He’s also the current “gatekeeper,” so-to-speak, for Act-i-vate, which just celebrated its seventh anniversary, and his enthusiasm for the webcomics collective is contagious. Read on to hear more about this cool group, what they do, and what they have to offer.

Tell me what Act-i-vate is about.

Act-i-vate is a webcomics collective of comic artists producing comics primarily for themselves and for each other. Most of the comic artists who are in Act-i-vate are professionals or semi-professional. We spend much of our time trying to make a living in the industry and working hard to keep ourselves professionally employed, but a lot of the time that means making compromises to publishers, to get the job done; to get work through the doors; to get the paycheck. Which is great. If you can do that, you’re doing well. And it implies you’ve got a great deal of professional ability.

However, Act-i-vate is all about doing your signature work – it’s about the thing you really want to do, that you’ve been suppressing for a long time [so that you can make a living]. As a working professional, you may be doing four pages a week if you’re lucky, or maybe five. If you work in the evening one night a week, you can maybe get an extra page in; and that’s basically the base of Act-i-vate, is that each week –  or sometimes people do a couple pages a month – you do a page, and put it up on Act-i-vate, which is a community of artists, and we look at the work and comment on each others’ work.

So you critique it?

We critique it to a certain extent. It’s a social environment, so it’s also an encouraging environment. And it’s also a big deal that even if you’re not getting a paycheck for the work, you know somebody’s waiting for it, someone’s expecting it – that means it actually gets done. Because I know for my own sake, a paycheck is tremendously motivating, but knowing that people I respect are waiting to see my next page is a big deal. So that’s the primary purpose of Act-i-vate, knowing that you’re a part of the community – because a lot of times comic artists, we work in a vacuum, we work in one room somewhere isolated.

And in the seven years since it’s started, Act-i-vate has expanded like crazy. There are over fifty members now. We’ve got members in Britain, we’ve got members in Australia, we’ve got members all over America. It’s getting to enormous size.

How did Act-i-vate start?

It started with Dean Haspiel and Dan Goldman. Dean has moved on to other projects now; he’s not directly involved with Act-i-vate anymore. He wants to do other things, like Trip City, now, which was his next thing after Act-i-vate. But Act-i-vate still exists, and is still growing. We’ve put on about ten members in the last year and a half, and there’s more and more new material going on all the time. Because there’s just such an amazing amount of talent out there, and creators who have something to say, and something they want to do. And they want to do it on their own terms, so they don’t really want to go to a publisher initially. What they can do with Act-i-vate is do the work, and make the work they want it to be, and then, afterwards when it’s completed they take it to the publisher and say, “This is it. Fait accompli!”

So when you say signature work, are you talking about a signature style of art, or more like a creator-owned signature story or piece of work, or both?

It can be anything. That’s the other thing as well, is that a lot of the time you don’t get the chance to experiment with your style. For me, Act-i-vate was all about me writing, because I haven’t really had a chance to write that much. It’s not something I get paid to do. So it was all about me writing a story, which I drew, and I was very happy with it, and by the time it came out (it took me two years to do a hundred page graphic novel), I thought it was a very good calling card for me. I thought, “That’s the kind of thing which is mine, separate.” Because I spent the last fifteen years working on something I created, but it’s owned by a company. It’s corporate. And that basically becomes my calling card, but it’s not owned by me.

So did your comic then come out to the public? Once you got your graphic novel done, did you publish it commercially?

Yes. What happened is that I have a publisher in Britain, 2000 AD, who published Judge Dredd in the 2000 AD anthology; and I’d been working for them for fifteen, twenty years. So they basically said, “We really like what you’ve done on Act-i-vate. We could publish this as well.” So they published it in one of their magazines.

Did it have some commercial success?

It did very well. The fanbase really liked it, and I got paid for it, which is excellent. And the letterer and the colorist got paid, so that’s really nice for me, because I want everybody to get something out of this, apart from just doing the work. And from there, they [2000 AD] said, “Okay, do you want to do more?” And I said, “Yes!” So right now I’m trying to find, in between my other jobs, time to get back on to the sequel of that story; because I’m doing a trilogy of stories based on these characters. The first is called Lilly MacKenzie and the Mines of Charybdis. And the one I’m working on now is called Lilly MacKenzie and the Treasure of Paros.

Sounds good! Now, when you say the letterist and the colorist got paid, are those people you picked up after you had developed it on your own?

Well, I have a very close working relationship with my colorist, Gary Caldwell, who’s wonderful. He’s tremendous; he does all my work in 2000 AD. We have a very close relationship; we fire stuff back and forth all the time. We kind of don’t have to speak to each other that much to know what we want. So Gary very generously agreed to color the thing for free, right from the start, when it was being done on Act-i-vate, and when money eventually came along, I said, “He’s got 25% of it, that’s what he owns.” Any money I get from this, he gets 25%, and that’s worked out very well for all of us.

The letterer came on when it was printed, because I lettered it originally and my lettering is kind of crap. A guy called Simon Bowland, who does lettering for 2000 AD, did a beautiful job re-lettering it. He then graciously let me use his lettering for my edition of it – I’ve done a little self-published edition of it and I’m looking for an American publisher for the collected trilogy when that eventually comes out. But I’m not going to rush that. I’m going to do my second part as I feel comfortable doing it, and then I’ll approach somebody and see if they’re interested in a third part.

As a professional versus a newer artist, are you welcomed if you’re not as known, or is it mostly when you have some professional credentials already? How does that work?

It’s all based on the quality of the work. If you come to me and I’ve never heard of your name and I see something that’s brilliant, that really knocks my socks off; then yes, absolutely [you are welcomed].

So is it a moderated community?

It’s entirely moderated. I mean, basically, you’ve got to get past me. I’m the gatekeeper. We used to have a more democratic process; we used to vote on things. But that became so conflicted and so complicated.

It is a professional community. We keep the standard very high, which means that we don’t accept very many people, but the standard of things that people have submitted is incredibly high, frankly. This is New York, and there’s so much talent around. And it’s people who really want to do something of their own, and they want to do it among people they respect. That’s a big deal, I mean, I feel tremendously enthused by the fact that the people who are working on Act-i-vate are so good, and they’re doing such different things. Some of it, if you go on the site, you can’t easily see as commercial; but it’s got its own thing going on there. They’re really trying something different and new and exciting.

I think the market will catch up with this. Right now the American comic market is in this tremendous period of expansion. It’s very low-level and there’s kind of not much money in it, but there’s tremendous amounts of material being generated the last couple of years. It’s very, very exciting. And I think the material on Act-i-vate is finding its audience online, and it will find its audience in print; it will find its audience in different media and other ways, and that’s great.

As someone who’s been around Act-i-vate for some time, have you seen others get something commercial through their work on Act-i-vate? Can you give examples?

Oh yes. Kevin Colden – his book Fishtown was done on Act-i-vate. He actually applied for a Xeric Grant to do the book as a small press thing, and he got offered it; but he said, “I would rather put it on Act-i-vate.” Which is a big measure of faith to us. And he put it on Act-i-vate and he got a lot of attention for it – it’s about a real event which happened in Philadelphia. And he then took it to IDW and IDW made a beautiful book of it. And he got nominated for an Eisner Award for that.

Roger Langridge has a comic on Act-i-vate, and that went to one of the publishers. There’s also Warren Pleece. He’s one of the Pleece brothers, who, when I was starting out in comics in Britain, were basically our Hernandez brothers; Warren and Gary Pleece. They just put out a compilation of their old work, The Great Unwashed, through Escape Books in America. It’s a fantastic book. It’s so…it’s like listening to that Kinks song. It’s got that kind of weird downbeat aesthetic, like The Smiths or something, and that’s very characteristic of them. And they do this beautiful story on Act-i-vate called Montague Terrace, which is also like that – and that’s coming out through Jonathan Cape in London this year.

We have Darryl Cunningham, who has become something of a celebrity recently. He’s done Psychiatric Tales, Books 1 & 2; he actually works in a psychiatric hospital, and Psychiatric Tales is really good, fascinating stuff. Darryl’s thing is basically that people don’t really understand what a lot of these mental illnesses are, and how they function or manifest themselves. He spends a lot of time with these people, so he basically took it upon himself to explain a lot of these common mental illnesses. And he did it in such an elegant way; because Darryl’s a beautiful cartoonist. It came out through Blank Slate in the UK and Bloomsbury in the US.

He’s done a new book called Science Tales, through Abrams, which is all about debunking science myths. So like the fake moon landing and all of that. There was a really horrible story a while back about a guy called Andrew Wakefield, who basically said that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine caused autism, which was quite shocking; and he was promoting this theory and scared a lot of parents from vaccinating their children. A lot of celebrities got involved, like Jenny McCarthy, and she started promoting this, and she’s still promoting it, even though Wakefield has been discredited entirely, and medical journals have basically come out and said, “this is absolute nonsense, it’s complete charlatanry.” But he was basically using it to promote himself. As a result now, some kids are not getting vaccinated for these things, which is very, very serious. If kids get these diseases when they’re children, it can affect the rest of their lives. Darryl did a story about that, which is brilliant. And he’s basically dealing with all the big mythologies.

He’s doing a story about Ayn Rand right now, on his website; he’s a great debunker. Ayn Rand is fascinating; I think he came down on the side that he felt sorry for her, because she had such a horrible life, and it was just depressing. She was obviously an uncompromising character; for the era, it’s remarkable that such a person as that existed.

What would your advice be for an artist who wants to be involved in Act-i-vate, and do you have some advice you’d like to share with the people who are still looking to become professionals, or more recognized as such?

At Act-i-vate we’re interested in seeing anything that’s unique and individual. We tend not to go for the more established genres like fantasy and science fiction; and not superheroes, because that’s well-represented. The other thing about Act-i-vate is that this is our thing, and we’re very happy with it, and we sometimes get new members, and that’s fine; but [running a webcomics collective is] relatively easy to do. I mean, we’ve survived for seven years. It doesn’t cost much to make a webcomics collective. All it really requires is a bit of effort, and a bit of going out there and finding people. And if you have an idea and you have something you want to do – we encourage people not just to apply to Act-i-vate, but set up their own collectives.

I think we all have our own points of view, and Act-i-vate has a very specific point of view of its own, and I think we’d like to see more people coming out with their own things, and different things. The more we have the better; the stronger the community of independent webcomics is. We haven’t really concentrated on making money out of Act-i-vate; because that’s not really what we do. We’re not a publisher; but we encourage; we’re trying to help our authors to get their work done. Because a lot of these things don’t make that much money. There’s money in digital comics to a certain degree, but it’s microscopic in comparison to what a good print book can get. I think what we’re trying to do is encourage good-quality work. When that happens, hopefully the audiences will come find it. Which I think is happening.

For example, we have a really good comic recently called Pregnant Butch, which is about a lesbian couple having a baby, which is hysterical; it’s so good. It’s by A.K. Summers, out in Rhode Island, and this is her first comic. She’s fabulous; she has such a great sense of humor, and such an innovative way of storytelling. And she’s not afraid of the darkness and the fear; because it can be terrifying, what’s happening. The fun thing, what I love, is the fact that she found an entirely new audience for her work and she had people commenting on her story who had never come to Act-i-vate before. She had established people who are interested in the subject, and also people who came in from outside who had never considered reading a comic about pregnant lesbians. And the fact is, it’s such a wonderful comic, it didn’t matter.

So to sum up, Act-i-vate is for people who want to, not just “get into the market and make money,” but who want to do their own thing, get encouragement on their work and comments, and have a community.

Yes. It’s about doing good comics. We’re all about good comics. I mean, there are lots of other aspects of comics and making a living and so forth, which we can help with, and we’re always available as colleagues to help with that.

Most of that tends to orbit around this studio complex here; there are a lot of Act-i-vate people in here. Act-i-vate is based in New York, and it tends to be Brooklyn-centric. But we reach out; we’re trying to get as wide a reach as possible. I’d like to get people from the West Coast, as well. We’ve got some people in D.C. Sam & Lilah is one of our strips on Act-i-vate, and the writer of that is in D.C. That’s Jim Dougan, who’s a big DC United fan and I think has had some press with them. So we’ve got people from all over, and we want to continue with that.

•     •     •     •     •

Thanks very much to Simon for this great interview! I have to confess that since learning about the site, I’ve spent more than a few minutes (eep!) reading some of the comics, and they really are excellent. So check out Act-i-vate for some new reading material, and if you’re a creator looking to get some support, encouragement, and comments from other pros as you work on your own project, consider getting in touch with Simon and submitting some work!

Oh, and until next week: Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

 

Emily S. Whitten: Chu’s Day with Neil Gaiman & Adam Rex

Whitten Art 130305Last weekend, I was in New York City with the ever-wonderful Neil Gaiman and the extremely personable Adam Rex. Bestselling author and illustrator were in town to do a marathon signing at the delightful children’s book store Books of Wonder for Chu’s Day, their new children’s book. Although it was planned as only a signing (seeing as a million-billion people showed up), they did, in fact, decide to stand up on stepladders and do an impromptu reading of Chu’s Day first. It was exceptionally fun, with Neil, writer of the story, narrating the story and some illustrations, and Adam, the book’s illustrator, expertly doing Chu’s sneezes. (He’s very good at dramatic sneezing.)

They also answered some questions from the crowd, which is how we learned that Neil’s favorite picture books as a child included The Cat in the Hat Comes Back: “I didn’t have the first one, just the sequel,” he said, “so I thought, “‘Comes back?’ This is the first time I’ve met him! This is weird.” He was also a fan of the English Ladybird books, including Robin Hood, Snow White, and What to Look For in Autumn. Adam’s favorites included The Monster at the End of This Book (a favorite of mine, as well), which he proclaimed “an excellent postmodernist story, years ahead of its time;” as well as The Bike Lesson, a Berenstain Bears book; and Where the Wild Things Are.

I spoke with both author and illustrator during their NYC visit, and happily, have the pleasure of sharing those conversations with you now.

Interview with Neil Gaiman, author of Chu’s Day

On Twitter, the excellent cartoonist John Kovalic was saying it would be interesting to hear about the process of working with Adam Rex on Chu’s Day, and I agree. Please tell us a little about that.

Chu’s Day began when I was in China. It began with the Chinese telling me that none of my children’s picture books were in print in China, because they showed disrespect for authority, and children doing bad things and not being punished for it, and children being wiser than their adults; so they couldn’t be published in China. And I thought, I want to do a story that has all of that – and that the Chinese will like.

One of the things I’d loved most about being in China was actually having a panda sit on my lap, and going to a panda facility. I’m a sucker for pandas. So I was sitting around chewing this over in the back of my head, and then I pulled out a piece of paper, and wrote a story about a baby panda, using pretty much the words that are in the book. Then I got it home, and thought, “I don’t know how to write a children’s book, because the only way that I know how to do one of these normally would be like a comic script. But if I do it as a comic script, then it’s long and it’s big and it’s complicated and…let me do this the easy way.” The easy way for me was, I got a pen brush and a little book, and I drew the story out. Beat by beat, with the words that I wanted. Because I thought, “If I’m pitching this to a publisher, I want them to be able to see what it is.” So I did my drawings and they said yes, and once they said yes, then we had to find an artist.

And how did you end up with Adam?

Adam had been sort of crossing my path vaguely for many years, so I was kind of aware of him. In fact, he even crossed my path before I was aware of him crossing my path, because when he was an art student he gave me a Morpheus meeting the Kirby Sandman painting. After we were working together, he sent me a jpeg of it and said, “Do you remember this?” and I said, “Yes! That was in my house for a long time, and then it was auctioned, for the Fiddler’s Green (Sandman) convention, for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.” So he’d crossed my path, and every now and then I’d get a book from Adam, for a blurb, so I knew who he was. And I liked him. I’d never actually met him, but I liked his style and what he was doing.

Then I was talking to my agent, Merilee, and I said, “I have to find somebody who can draw really good animals. I have this vision; I know I want to do the world populated by animals, and I know they have to look like real animals. They can’t be cartoon animals; but they also have to do very funny, sort of human things.” And she said, “Well why don’t you go and look at Writers House [which is my agency]. We’re also representing illustrators these days. See if there are any illustrators on the website that you like.” So I looked, and thought, you know, Adam’s stuff is brilliant, and that’s absolutely perfect, so I asked Harpers if they’d be okay with Adam, and they loved the idea and said they’d ask him, and he said yes. And when he finished the book, we all looked at it and went, “Ohmygosh, this is great!” and I said, “Can I do another one?” and they said, “Sure,” so I signed a contract and Adam signed a contract to do another two Chu books.

The next one, which is already written, is called Chu’s First Day at School. And for the third one, I have two different ones in mind. I might want to do Chu Goes to the Beach, and I might want to do Chu’s Very Bad Day. The beach has some really surreal stuff in it. They’d both be a little bit older than the first Chu book, because the first Chu book is for kids who can barely read. You know, kids who get stuff read to them.

Are they being published in China?

There is definitely interest in China. I’m very much hoping that Chu’s Day will be published there. And that nobody’s actually going to notice that Chu doesn’t get punished, and he actually does kind of know more than his parents.

Where does Adam live, and how does that work when you’re working with an illustrator at a distance?

Arizona. It works pretty well. For Sandman, over the years, I would talk to people on the phone, and talk in email, and that all kind of works. Adam and I have actually never met. We’re meeting tomorrow morning for the first time, and then we’ll go over and start signing books and posters and things.

Since we’re speaking of Sandman; tell us about the new one. I just saw that someone has been reading the script for it, so I guess the first part is written now?

Yes, the first episode has finally been finished…probably about eight months late! Because I kept getting scared.

Well, it’s been years since you wrote the original series. I don’t even know exactly what this new story is about; do you want to talk about that?

No! I’m not telling anybody what it’s about! Other than, well, it begins before Sandman #1. Sandman #1 opens with Morpheus being captured; he’s traveled unimaginable distances, he’s dressed for war, and he’s exhausted. And one of the things that is kind of strange about Sandman is, I always thought a lot of people would want to know: why? Why was he dressed for war; where was he coming from? I kept waiting for people to go “Why? Why, tell us, for God’s sake!!” But nobody ever did! So I will be telling that story.

Well I will be excited to hear it, because when I first read it, I didn’t know you, so I couldn’t ask, but I did always wonder, “How did he end up there? You know; he’s Sandman, he’s Dream!”

He should not have been captured, exactly. And why was he dressed like that, and what was going on? So now people will find out.

Excellent. I can’t wait! So one more Chu’s Day question. The story is filled with talking animals. If you were a talking animal, what animal would you be and what would you talk about?

I would almost definitely be a large black cat. But what I would do is never talk when anybody had a microphone or a camera, or there was more than one person around; so it would always be deniable. Because the last thing you want to do if you’re a talking animal is talk in public, because at that point suddenly you’re a celebrity, and they’re taking you apart and they’re examining your brains…

What you want to do is just drive people nuts, by sort of padding over to somebody as they’re sitting there, you know, looking at their computer, and getting really, really upset about something not working; and you just sort of walk over, and you just say: “Ctrl+Alt+Delete.” And then you walk away. And they go, “What? What!! The cat is saying Ctrl+Alt+Delete, oh my God!”

That is truly Machiavellian. And awesome. (And thank you for the interview, Neil!)

Interview with Adam Rex, illustrator of Chu’s Day

Adam, tell me…is your last name really Rex?

It really is, yeah; I think I kind of lucked out. Everybody asks me if it’s a pen name; because it sounds like a pen name. Growing up, I didn’t think it was anything special, because I don’t think anyone ever thinks their name is anything special at that point, but now I realize it sounds kind of like a superhero alter ego.

It does! So when did you first start getting into drawing in the professional sense; and when you were a kid, were you always drawing?

Yeah, but you know, all kids start drawing at about the same age. I think all little kids are illustrators. They all draw, and they all draw to tell stories; so when people ask me, “When did you start drawing?” I feel like the real question is actually, “When did you stop drawing?” – and I’m good at it because I didn’t stop at the age of ten or twelve or fourteen like everybody else does.

At a very early age I decided I was going to be an artist when I grew up, because when I was about five years old, I overheard my older brother, who was eight at the time, complaining to our mom that it wasn’t fair that “Adam draws better than me even though he’s younger;” and I wasn’t at better than him at anything, so I just decided right then and there that this was what I would do. I don’t know that everybody gets that moment of clarity when they’re five! So I always wanted to be an artist. I didn’t really understand what that meant until I worked at a Waldenbooks when I was a teenager and kind of fell in love with picture books all over again. In my teen years I wanted to either do comics or picture books; anything that would let me synthesize telling stories and doing art.

When you first got started, did you do some work for comics, or did you start in picture books and stay there?

I never really did a whole lot of comics work. Where I actually got my start was in role playing and trading card games. I did a ton of stuff for D&D, and for Magic: The Gathering, and that’s what paid all my bills while I was trying to get into the kids’ book industry. Those were great clients to have, but what I really wanted to do was the kids’ stuff.

How did you end up doing the kids’ books?

It was persistence; but it was also lowering my bar a little bit. When I realized that nobody was giving me a book to work on, I started looking for work from the kids’ magazines, like Cricket and Spider, and that got me refreshing my portfolio with new pieces. I always think it’s important to refresh your portfolio with assignments that other people are giving you, because otherwise, you just tend to play to your own strengths, and you can be lazy with yourself. But it was actually a piece that I did for Cricket magazine that led directly to my getting my first picture book assignment. That was a book called The Dirty Cowboy, published by Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, and written by Amy Timberlake.

And when was that?

That came out in 2003. I got that assignment in 2001.

So you’ve been doing picture books for about twelve years now; and the latest is Chu’s Day, and you’ve signed on for two more Chu books?

Yes; Neil is on the short list of people I would drop everything for.

When you first got the job with Neil and Chu’s Day, what was the first thing you did when you sat down to think about how you were going to approach it?

This was kind of an unusual case, because Neil had actually sort of made a book dummy himself, where he had given some indication of where he thought the page breaks would be, and I don’t think I really messed with that too much. I may have stretched it out a little bit; or condensed certain parts. But usually when I sit down with a manuscript, I’m going through and drawing brackets around the sections of text, and deciding, “Okay, that’s a page; that’s a page; that’s a page,” and then I review it the first time, count them all up, and see if I actually ended up with a viable page count. All kids’ books are pretty much either 32 or 40 pages, so if you can’t make it work in that format, then you have to go back and try again. So I do that, and then once I figure out what text is going to go on each page, that’s followed by a bunch of really messy thumbnails; planning the whole book out on maybe one sheet of my sketchbook. Those sketches are so messy that really only I can tell what I’ve laid out there. And then it’s just refining from there. Larger messy sketches, and then a good sketch that goes off to the editor, and then the comments back, or lack of comments; and only then do I actually start painting.

I think my favorite part of the process is figuring out what all the characters are going to look like. So there are a lot of totally self-indulgent days of just character sketches. I realize I can spend way too much time doing that; so at some point I have to cut myself off.

When you got to the destruction scenes in Chu’s Day, what was your favorite part to draw?

I think I really enjoyed, not so much the actual action scenes, but the aftermath. Just the shell-shocked employees of and audience at the circus, with their various expressions. There’s a lion-tamer in the crowd who just has this soul-searching, thousand-mile stare. It’s clear he’s just, like, re-evaluating everything he ever thought about life and the universe. I think it was actually the reaction shot of everybody afterwards, after the dust settled, that was my favorite thing to draw.

I liked the gumball machine that was in mid-explosion. I like little details like that.

It’s funny you mention that, because I think my wife said the same thing. “That’s the sort of thing,” she said, “that I would have obsessed over. I would have wanted those gumballs as a little girl. I would have spent a lot of time looking at that gumball machine.”

Do you prefer drawing people or intelligent animals?

A little of both, really. I don’t know why I dig drawing animals in waistcoats and hats so much, but I really seem to enjoy it. It’s a total pleasure, because if you take certain liberties with panda bear anatomy, people are very forgiving. If you take the same liberties with a human being, people say, “That’s not right.” So it’s all the fun of drawing characters and getting at what’s important about each character, without having to worry too much about whether or not you got that perfect anatomy down.

You said you had originally been interested in comics. Do you want to stay with picture books? Do you want to keep branching out and do other things? And what’s your newest project? Well; I know you have the next two Chu books…

Right, another Chu project is coming. My first novel that I wrote actually has about fifteen pages of comics in it, that I just sort of shoehorned in there, and so one of my upcoming novels, which is a sequel to that one, will probably be the same way. Whether or not I actually ever commit to doing something like a genuine graphic novel, I don’t know. It’s really daunting. Although because I happen to be friends with Scott Allie over at Dark Horse, I did end up doing a cover to the Free Comic Book Day issue of The Guild.

Last question: One line of advice for young illustrators.

Keep your receipts.

That’s excellent advice. (And thank you for the interview, Adam!)

Well! I hope you all enjoyed these interviews…

But wait! There’s more! I also interviewed Neil regarding his myriad of other exciting projects! So if you’d like to read the rest of the Neil Gaiman interview, head on over to the DC Books and Authors Blog, an affiliate of The National Press Club, and check it out!

And until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

 

Emily S. Whitten: Awesomely Terrible Movies I Love – Equilibrium

Whitten Art 130226After years of being vaguely aware that there exists a movie in which Christian Bale is the star and the most ridiculously-named martial art ever, “Gun Kata,” is also a thing, I finally sat down to watch Equilibrium last weekend. (Netflix is responsible for many of my viewing decisions these days, for which I am unashamed. The very minute I saw they’d added this, it went in my queue.) From beginning to end and even after the credits rolled, I found myself saying, “This movie is awesome.”

If by awesome, of course, you mean at times both grandiose and sublimely ridiculous. I may also have been laughing hysterically when I said it. I may have even slapped my knee. I may have then gone to Twitter and posted, “OMG you guys, Equilibrium is the craziest movie. The craziest.” Regardless of all of that probably not being the reaction writer and director Kurt Wimmer was going for, I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Equilibrium is about a post-WWIII future in which some doofus the citizens refer to as “Father” decided that the way to avoid a fourth World War (which it was postulated humanity could not survive) was to eliminate human emotion in the population, and apparently everybody else was just A-OK with that. The movie’s government “eliminates” emotion by a) administering a mind-numbing drug (Prozium) that citizens are required to take at regular intervals; and b) destroying anything remotely artsy or multicolored, and killing those who have tried to keep it because they are guilty of having feelings, which in this film is called a “sense offense.” (I love the way that sounds. “What’s his crime? Sense offense!!!” It’s so dramatic.) The government enforces its will with “Clerics,” who go wherever anyone is, as the Internet would say, “having feels” about something, and, you know, shoots them in the head, efficiently and martial-artsily. (This is where the Gun Kata comes in.)

John Preston (Christian Bale) is the Mary Sue Cleric who is super amazingly good at knowing (one might almost say sensing) when someone is having the feels, and at killing them in various efficient and emotionless ways, and burning art and stuff. There’s also a plot that includes Taye Diggs and is actually supposed to be a driving part of the main storyline, but it pales in comparison to watching Christian Bale a) kill people and burn things in various dramatic ways; and b) manage to somehow get his acting point across while being completely “emotionless.” He’s actually very good at it (and when he finally quirks a tiny smile it’s fantastic). I also suspect this role was superb practice for calm and methodical Batman.

Anyway, actual plot aside, the movie is mostly about what happens when Mr. Mary Sue goes off his meds. Hint: it involves a lot of gratuitous violence. The script has some interesting points it’s trying to make, but they never quite land, and I think it’s because the suspension of disbelief required is just too much. The audience is asked to believe that everyone just acquiesced to this silly “no feelings” rule as the best way to eliminate war; and then the few at the top of the government (who obviously must be having, as the internet says, “all the feels,” while the population gets none, because I doubt they could run the government while on Prozium) use ultraviolent war-like tactics anyway to wipe out anyone who’s still feeling; and so we know the government is corrupt and doesn’t believe its own message; but then we never see any benefit the few government folks who are running the Clerics and everyone else actually get except at one point when we see that the head dude, Dupont, has a nice office (with art!); and, and, and…what exactly is the point being made here? That it’s important to feel things? That art is good? That people will try to repress you using shoddily thin reasoning just for the hell of it? I think it’s trying to say something about free will, but I’m not 100% sure, because the movie never exactly gets wherever it’s trying to go in that regard.

There’s also the fact that none of the people who are supposed to be “not feeling” are that good at it. For instance, Taye Diggs’ character Brandt is a Cleric who keeps saying he’s going to “make his career” with Preston; so he’s ambitious. Which, one would assume, is one of the “feelings” the government would be most keen on eliminating, because ambition can sure cause a lot of war and stuff, eh? Nevertheless, one of the main “unfeeling” characters is practically blazing with ambition throughout the movie. He also shows a tiny bit of (sadistic) humor. Is he off his meds, too? Why would he be? It doesn’t seem to really advance the government’s plans for him to be feeling. It’s a total contradiction. And then there’s Sean Bean’s Cleric, Partridge, who has been on and off his meds and just pretending to be an unfeeling bastard for about two weeks when the movie starts. And William Fichtner’s underground fighter, who is not on meds but forcing himself not to feel so he can help the others who do. And then we find out there are even more characters who somehow suddenly decided to stop their mind-numbing meds and are just pretending. So clearly the Prozium doesn’t work that well, and the government should have fallen long before Superstar Cleric John Preston decided to rebel. It’s all just a little hard to swallow.

But putting all of that aside; oh the fun of this movie! There is a lot to love about it despite the contradictions and leaps in logic, including that it seems to actually be taking itself seriously. (Also that Kurt Wimmer apparently “invented” Gun Kata “in his back yard” Hah!) This is a movie that’s trying to be at least four movies at once – it’s got the serious “dystopian” message; the visual aspect that reminds me at times of an art film (like the scene with Preston at his bedroom window); the “emotional” journey of a lead character; and the amazingly gratuitous violence of a Bruce Willis/Vin Diesel/Jason Statham/insert-other-action-hero-here film, all snuggling up with each other to somehow produce a decently cohesive film.

The dystopian message, while hopelessly muddled, is at least somewhat interesting. Visually, the movie is pretty darned cool. The stark uniforms and buildings; the (hit-you-over-the-head metaphor) contrast of Bale’s black and white outfits; and the way they make the “feeling” underground area a mix of great art and graffiti that contrasts with the colorless overworld are all appealing. Amazingly, Christian Bale’s acting in a movie which for the most part is supposed to be showing people not feeling at all kept me interested, in that kind of “fascinated scientist/trainwreck-watcher way, in what was going to happen next. And the action, while insane, is fun to watch; from Bale taking out a roomful of guards in seconds in a pristine white suit, to the bit where he apparently pushes a button or something and nail-heads suddenly jut from the bottom of two gun barrels so that he can use the guns to more effectively smash guards in the face. (Seriously, who even thinks of that? Or is that an actual real-life thing for some reason?)

Look, I’m not even going to pretend that Equilibrium is a “great” movie, nor that I enjoyed it in the way Wimmer intended. It is ridiculous and violent, with pretensions of grandeur and thinkiness. It’s a little bit Boondock Saints-ish, but with less of a linear point being made, and even more gratuitousness to the violence. It takes itself so seriously that it comes out the other side and becomes slightly cheesy. But the combination of action and attempts at making a grand statement make for a movie that at least kept my attention, and it has the right amount of cheese to make it enjoyable to watch. Despite having only one outright humorous line in the whole film, I laughed a lot. Plus, of course, Christian Bale is smokin’, and we get Sean Bean and William Fichtner acquitting themselves well, too. (If only Oliver Platt had played the government leader Dupont instead of Angus Macfadyen, the casting would have been perfect.) I’m not saying Equilibrium is for everyone; but if you go into the movie for the words “Gun Kata” and “Christian Bale” you probably won’t be disappointed.

So if you’re looking for a movie to watch this week and have streaming Netflix…well, you know what I’d recommend.

Enjoy! And until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

 

 

Emily S. Whitten: The Dresden Files and The Dresden Files

Whitten Art 130219For Christmas this year one of the books I got was The Dresden Files graphic novel, Welcome to the Jungle. By that point, I’d read all of the novels; but what got me into them was actually the TV show.

When the show came out back in 2007, I remember hearing vaguely about it via a friend’s blog or two, but I never actually saw it. Thanks to the wonder of Netflix, though, a couple of years ago I discovered and watched it on streaming video, and enjoyed it enough to want to see more – but sadly, it only ran for one short season of 12 episodes. Thus I went back to acquire and read all of the books as well; and now, of course, I want more.

The TV show adaptation wasn’t perfect, but it had a lot of positives, the first three being Paul Blackthorne as Harry, Valerie Cruz as Murphy, and Terrence Mann as Bob. All three actors did very well with the material they were given, and just as important, had excellent character chemistry with each other. Their acting made the friendships (and possibly more, in the case of Harry and Murphy) feel natural, and anchored the crazy storylines happening all around them.

Another thing it had going for it was that Paul Blackthorne has the acting chops to carry a humorous narrative voice-over without it getting tedious (and I am behind on the current episodes, but for an example of When Voice-overs Get Tedious, the first several episodes of Arrow unfortunately come to mind). Blackthorne (who is also on Arrow, funnily enough) kept the energy of the show going with his engaging portrayal of Harry Dresden, much of which felt like it came straight from the books. The writing was also fast-paced and fun.

One area where the show went wrong, I think (or, more accurately, didn’t go right far enough) was in whatever concessions it made to watering down the lore of the books for primetime. Granted, it seems that genre shows and movies have gained more mainstream acceptance in recent years (comic book movies and shows like The Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, True Blood, etc.), and in 2007 maybe a genre show was a harder network sell and required some compromise (I don’t know), but I firmly believe that any time you tell a story well, and can draw the viewer in, the viewer will be able to handle and possibly embrace the complexity. And despite my dislike of some of Harry’s tiresome views on women, and the blatant male gaze readers are forced to sit through on occasion (particularly in the early books), The Dresden Files books are good, smart, complex stories, and should be adapted as such.

As I said, the TV show only lasted one season – and whether it was from creative choice or Firefly Syndrome (network meddling), it didn’t delve into or only briefly touched on a lot of the cool things that anchor and drive the direction of the books, like Harry’s past and progression in magic, or his place on the Council of wizards, or just how good he really is at magic and how that looks to outsiders.

I think one reason it just slightly missed sometimes was in this “not going far enough,” so to speak – because, for example, part of the charm of Harry is that he’s humble enough to know there are more powerful things than him out there and to be properly frightened of them 90% of the time; but whenever we see him through others’ eyes or whenever he really gets going with his magic…we the viewers get a glimpse of the discrepancy between Harry’s inner uncertainties and his bombastic power. And that can be a lot of fun, but was only shown rarely in the show.

For much the same reason that I enjoy, e.g. an episode of Supernatural where the FBI agent hunting the Winchesters because he thinks they’re nuts finally discovers that, in fact, demons and all manner of other creepy creatures are real, I enjoy stories that switch up characters’ points of view and give us different takes on the same situation, and particularly stories that shake up our, or a character’s, inaccurate assumptions. Reading about Harry dealing with Murph and trying to pay the bills and inner monologuing about how he’s not sure how he’ll make some spell work and all, and then e.g., going out and burning a house party full of vampires like it was no big thing, is that sort of story.

I say all of this to come back to the fact that last week I finally read Welcome to the Jungle, which is a visual adaptation that does well in this regard, and it reminded me of the times the show got it right, and of how much I’d really like to see more of The Dresden Files on television, or if not on TV, then in more graphic novels. Jim Butcher has said himself that he’s always imagined the series in graphic form. Despite the fact that I loved Blackthorne as Harry, I doubt a network would try to revive the old show. However, I could easily see a new adaptation being done; and I think if it, from the beginning, didn’t shy away from the more complex stuff, and embraced the big special effects as well as the small, it would be a truly awesome thing. I know that a new show is probably not likely to happen…but hey, a girl can dream, eh? So this is me, just dreaming a little dream at y’all. Anyone else think a new Dresden Files TV show would be cool?

Tell me if you do, and until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

 

Emily S. Whitten: Dress for Success, Superheroine Style

Whitten Art 130212Remember that time when Lois Lane dressed up as one of the most ridiculously named superheroines I’ve ever heard of on Smallville? And that superheroine was named “Stiletto” because at the time when she beat up a dude who was mugging Chloe, she happened to be wearing stilettos? And then she needed to find a way to draw out “the Blur,” (a.k.a. the non-Superman Superman of Smallville) so she used that incident to create a superheroine persona that wore a leather bustier and super-high stiletto boots, and then almost got her ass handed to her (despite being, really, pretty kick-ass for a normal gal). Yeah, that was a pretty silly episode. (And on a related note, I swear it’s just happenstance that I’ve started my last two columns by reminiscing about Superman shows. Next week, I promise I’ll reminisce about a different show. Or something.)

Anyway, despite being silly, I got to thinking about it recently, after some discussion about how female superheroines are dressed in comics. Let’s say I lived in a comic-book world, where I was, e.g., a lawyer by day and a superheroine by night. What would that be like? Well, first, I’d be really good friends with Matt Murdock and Jennifer Walters, because of course. (Man, we would have the most awesome happy hours ever.) Second, I’d have to pick a costume. And really, I feel like that wouldn’t be an easy task. I mean, in part it would depend on what kind of superheroine I was, e.g. what powers I had; but let’s say for the sake of general thought that at the very least my style of superheroine fighting would require athletic moves, as most do. What would I wear? And in comparison with what we see in comics, would it, or even could it, look “sexy,” as most supeheroines do, while still being practical? Let’s “give it a think,” as Winnie the Pooh would say.

Undergarments: Yes, I’m going to start with this, and here’s why: 1) Well, obviously, we’re talking about all the practicalities of superheroine-ing, and that includes everything from the inside out; and 2) I’ve seen so many comics in which a superheroine is fighting and there’s a lot more wear-and-tear than you’d expect from just a physical fight, and then, voila! Clothes are ripped and we can see, omg! their unmentionables! (Or, you know, sometimes they just go out to fight crime with one boob hanging out. Sure, why not?)

Well; if I was going to be running around trying to karate-kick (or whatever kick) thugs and stuff, I’d definitely wear something comfortable underneath. And it is possible to wear comfortable underwear that’s still pretty or cute; but for any of those superheroines out there who I’ve seen drawn wearing even somewhat skimpy panties under their costumes – well, all I can say is, those ladies’ superpowers must include the power to fight wedgies. At the very least I’d be wearing underpants that cover and stay on my butt; and in all likelihood, as a superheroine my new favorite thing would end up being boyshorts. Also, for any artists out there who are drawing superheroines wearing thongs? AHAHAHAHA. *snort* Right.

Likewise, if I had plans to be backflipping all over, or hanging upside-down, or elbowing baddies, or pretty much anything involving gymnastics or a physical fight, the last thing you’d be seeing is my cleavage. I mean, who can spare the concentration to worry about flashing the world when you’re trying to save it? Also, low-cut shirts are an easy thing for someone to catch onto or snag during a fight – yikes! Despite her other hilarious costume choices, Ms. Marvel has it right when it comes to the practicalities of how much cleavage I’d want to worry about while I was fighting. (Power Girl! You were so close to having a practical top! What happened?? Oh yeah. Dudes.)

I’d also want to wear something very breathable, unless one of my superpowers was not sweating. So that means goodbye to all of the heavily padded “Wonderbra” type things that would boost cleavage to the level seen on most superheroines (and if that’s all natural, then whoo-boy, the back problems those ladies must have!). One of my friends who grew up in Florida once compared those bras to “wearing two warm wet sponges” when it’s hot outside, and she’s not wrong. Maybe I’d opt for a little padding so the world wouldn’t take notice every time it’s cold outside, but probably the very “sexiest” thing I’d try out as a fighting superheroine is a sports bra like this, which is what you get when you cross a “sexy” lingerie store with an attempt to be practical. And even that has underwire, which is not super-comfortable in athletic situations, so my likely favorite would be something like this. (P.S. Sports bras don’t usually have lace on them. Sorry, dudes.)

Pants and Top: I actually think in most fight situations, a tightly tailored costume would be beneficial. It means less clothing to get caught on stuff; easy movement; and comfort, particularly if you’re wearing a breathable material, e.g. cotton spandex instead of something like bathing-suit material (though that probably holds up better and shows perspiration less). Spandex isn’t super-durable, though. If I had something like Supergirl’s physical invincibility, which supposedly extends to at least form-fitting clothes, then sure, the protection of spandex might be all I’d need; but if I was less-than-invulnerable, I’d probably want at least a few layers, and/or some padding around the joints; or maybe some leather, like motorcycle riders wear, if I could make it flexible enough. If I was less of a gymnast and more of a heavy fighter, I might even go for some sort of flexible body armor, like Batman.

I’d say there would be a range of decent choices for design here, as long as it: 1) covered and provided some protection for all exposed skin, unless invulnerable; or 2) If invulnerable, was still comfortable to fight in, so no unitards (wedgie problems again, as well as the worry about flashing everyone, for reals). The closest I’d go is spandex shorts to, like, mid-thigh. Or, if I absolutely had to wear a unitard, I’d at least wear tights or hose underneath. Also, let’s be frank, us ladies don’t shave our legs every single day ever, and crime waits for no beauty regimen. So even as Supergirl I might prefer something that covers my legs.

Oh, and I might opt for a belt of some sort, both a) to stave off butt cleavage; and b) for pouches, because seriously, as much as we make fun of comic book characters with myriad pouches sometimes, where else would I keep my weapons, grappling hook (because of course I’d have a grappling hook), communication and/or time-telling devices, and other necessaries (deodorant might be welcome, if I’m constantly fighting)? I might even go for a leg sheath too, if I were a guns-and-knife-y sort of gal. (Ooh – or maybe boots with leg knife sheathes! Rad.) If no pouches, or maybe in addition to them, I’d probably have zip-pockets sewn in all over the place, pants and shirt.

In the tops department, I’d go for full coverage unless I was invulnerable; and if I was, again, Ms. Marvel had the right idea for necklines. Oh, and I’d never, ever, ever wear a corset or bustier of any sort, unless my super-powers were being able to not breathe while exerting myself, and winning fights without bending too much in the middle. I’d also never, ever wear a cape, no matter how cool it might look if I could fly, because hello – how seriously easy is it to get tangled up in something like that, not to mention baddies literally yanking you around? (The exception being, I guess, Batman-types, who actually use the capes to fly, and even then I’d want it to, like, retract into a pouch or something.) I’d probably also opt for some good short, tight leather fingerless gloves with velcro wrist-adjusters and grip on the palms, especially if I was a climber or gymnast-y type fighter.

Shoes: No heels, no way. Hell no. Or, to be more precise – up to maybe 3/4 to 1 inch of a sneaker-style heel could be acceptable, but there would be no stiletto or spike heels, no square heels, no narrow-heeled wedge heels, etc. A short wedge that was wide and actually designed for stuff like fighting and running could be acceptable, I guess (it’d have to be tested). A low platform also might work. (Although of course, both of those options would be solely for the vanity/fashion desires of the superheroine, since I can’t see either of them being a fighting advantage). But again, short and low means like, 0.75 to maybe 1.25 inches, which is a lot lower in appearance than most comics artists realize. Even flying superheroines wouldn’t really be exempt from this, because they don’t do all of their fighting in the air, and they’d still need to keep their balance and speed while kicking someone or running on the ground.

If I was a superheroine that ran a lot or fought like a martial artist, I might actually want something closer to racing flats, Puma Speed Cats, or the like (racing flats are so nice to run in). I’d also want rubber soles with excellent grip (and maybe hidden knives in the heels if I did have thick soles, because knives in the heels. So cool. As far as a question of boots or sneakers, I actually might prefer boots with a soft but flexible leg – for more ankle support, as well as more leg and ankle protection. And I’d definitely get some good breathable athletic socks that stayed up and had arch support.

Accessories: Along with the aforementioned pouches, I’d definitely have my hair either very short, just long enough to stay in a short ponytail (a cut at about shoulder-length, maybe?), or in a bun at all times. As someone who’s done sports with hair that’s not super-short but too short to really tie back, and hair that was long enough to sit on, I know how annoying hair in your face/mouth/eye can be; and that doesn’t even consider it being a really convenient thing for people to grab in fights. No no, my superheroine hair would not be flying everywhere. A neat bun, perfect short ponytail, or super short ‘do is the only way to go. Barring or on top of that, I might opt for a skullcap, or similar tight hat, or a bandana like Elektra wears (but with all of my hair actually inside, and no flowing ribbons to catch on things).

If I was the sort to need to hide my face and keep my secret identity, I actually like the style of Black Canary on Smallville, where she paints a mask of elaborate makeup on as opposed to wearing a mask. She also has short hair and wears a wig in regular life, which is quite practical. Well done there, Smallville. Makeup is super time-consuming, though, so I might also have a fitted demi-mask to throw on as needed. Or, seriously, a ski mask-style thing. keeps the hair and identity under wraps!

And with that, I’d be (hopefully, somewhat) practically fitted out to go fight crime! And now we are back to the question, how “sexy” would I be? Well, I’d have low-to-no heels, and no cleavage or skin flashing. I’d also be lacking the flowing hair worn by so many superheroines, and maybe be wearing a cap or even a ski mask (and those things are ugly). Pretty much, I’d be Batman. I would, however, probably be wearing tight clothes. So I guess that’s, like, one sexy point in favor of practical costuming? But more importantly than any of that, I’d be comfortable, incognito, and giving myself the best advantages for winning the day and staying alive; and I have to think for most superheroines, those would be the most important considerations.

Looking at how superheroines dress in comics today, I occasionally see evidence that character and costume designers have at least thought of some practicalities; but I also see many egregious examples of “this would never happen in real life, wow.” And I see an imbalance in the practicality of design for male vs. female heroes. I’m not an idiot, or an unreasonable person – I know comics are for looking at, and people want to look at nice things; and superheroines having at least some prettiness or sex appeal is (almost always) inevitable. And that can be okay; I like looking at nice things, too. I also understand that for some heroines, invulnerability or other powers change the costume metric. But I do think it’s great when I see at least some thought being put into what it would really be like to be a superheroine, rather than just “what I want to look at.” And since male professional creators in comics still greatly outweigh female creators and can’t know what it’s like to actually live in female bodies and wear women’s’ clothes…maybe my little foray into musing about practical superheroine-ing will actually be helpful to someone. And if not…well, if I create a superheroine, now at least I know what she’ll be wearing!

Until next time, dress for success and Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis Does The Sgt. Pepper Rag

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold and The Nerddom Intelligentsia

 

Emily S. Whitten: It’s a Cold! It’s a Kryptonian Virus! It’s The Winter Plague!

Whitten Art 130205Remember that time when Superman caught a Kryptonian virus on Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman? And he spent practically the whole episode laid out on the couch, barely conscious? And all he could manage to do was sort of thrash his head about and moan a bit? Having spent the entirety of this past week laid out at home with what I have not-so-fondly dubbed “The Winter Plague,” I suspect I know just how he felt.

I also suspect that when it comes to the Winter Plague, I have not been very heroic. Or at least that’s what it seems like when looking back at my pathetic tweets over the past week (tweeting being about all I’ve had the energy to do, since I can do it from my phone, while lying down in bed). But I guess I could look at the whole matter in another way. You see, because the Winter Plague might sneak up on people when they’re not paying attention, it could be argued that while I was suffering untold miseries I heroically catalogued for all of you, via Twitter, the most common Signs of the Winter Plague, which I can now share. This way, maybe you can recognize that you are coming down with the Winter Plague in time to get to a doctor before it brings you to your knees.

So here are the signs. Read them carefully, ensuring that none apply to you, for if you find yourself identifying with any of the following, you may just have become a victim of… (cue dramatic music here) …The Winter Plague.

Signs of the #WinterPlague:

  1. Too sick to want to watch TV and/or read comics.
  2. “So, self, what have you done all week?” “Uh, slept? Coughed? Sneezed? Slept more?”
  3. It’s 3 pm! I am up! …Because I have to take my meds. Now, where’s my bed again?
  4. Dry toast? Unappetizing. Toast with Nutella? …Still unappetizing. :(
  5. *blows nose* I can breathe! I can…! :( Never mind. *blows nose again* I can b…! …*sigh* *blows nose again*
  6. Not sure if head hurts from illness or blowing nose so much. Possibly both?
  7. Plague not immediately vanquished by @neilhimself magic. Dear Neil pls send more? 1st round scared Plague but it came back!
  8. Drinking orange juice. Don’t like orange juice.
  9. Can’t get through three bites without coughing. :(
  10. My oxen have died.
  11. Slept for five days, still tired. D:
  12. Considered turning on laptop in bed to watch show. Didn’t have energy to press button. Crawled back under covers.
  13. “Productive” things done in last week: 1) Read Dresden Files graphic novel. 2) ……..
  14. “Hey self! It’s 5 pm. Know what that means?” “…Naptime?” “Yep! How did you know?” “The answer’s always naptime.”
  15. “So, body, we just took a three-hour nap. What should we do now?” “…Take a nap?”
  16. Clearly my body needed More Napping. Just woke up from another coma-like sleep.
  17. Did NOT go to @PressClubDC to see Dave Barry today, despite really, really wanting to. Could not leave bed. :(
  18. “What day is today, self?” “……..?”
  19. I have never, ever had the heat on this high before.
  20. “Body! You’re finally a bit hungry! What would you like to eat?” “Toast.” “Just…toast?” “All the toast.”
  21. Oh, hello, cough. You wanted to get up now? I guess we will get up for a few then.

So there you have it! If any of the above seems eerily familiar to you, get thee hence to a doctor immediately (seriously. I’m not kidding about that part. Get some antibiotics, at the very least, so you don’t continue to spread the Plague to unsuspecting people like me).

And please note that other signs of the Winter Plague can include temporary insanity, so if the above column seems a bit loopy to you…well, I’m gonna blame it on the Winter Plague.

Until next time, stay healthy, and Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

 

Emily S. Whitten: Mr. Antisocial Advisor

Whitten Art 130129In the bleak midwinter (or whatever you call this part of January; there’s snow on the ground and it’s super-cold here and the heat’s not working, is all I know) we could all use a little cheering up, and a reminder that there’s more to the world than ice and the howling wind.

In fact, there are people! Friendly, cheerful, sociable (and warm!) people, just waiting to be our friends or date us or possibly some combination of the two. But it can be easy to forget there are other people out there when it’s so cold all you want to do is stay inside huddled under a fleece blanket and a barskin cloak (what? That’s just me? Oh.). And when you do eventually venture out from under your space heater that you’ve hung directly above your bed (to accompany the ones on either side of it, of course), you may have forgotten a step or two in the dance of social niceties, which requires practice to maintain. That’s why I invited everyone’s favorite sunshine-y relationship advisor to stop by and do a guest appearance on my column!

…Okay, that’s not exactly what happened. Maybe I had to go out of town this past weekend, and I didn’t have a ton of time just lying around in which to share my usual deep insights into the human and geek psyche with you, and maybe Rorschach just happened to stop by right after receiving some letters from honest citizens in desperate need of some social advice, and maybe he had nothing better to do, all his cans of beans and sugar cubes being neatly stacked already and the weather keeping most people from committing any obvious crimes on the streets…and so maybe I suggested he take over my column this week for my own selfish reasons, e.g. so I could pack for my trip.

And maybe this is all actually my friend Viv’s fault, because she is the one who originally suggested the previous advice column which first brought us the never-ending gift of Rorschach sharing his valuable social insights.

Regardless! Here he is, ready to share his wisdom with the masses! Lucky masses.

Rorschach’s Advice Column: January 29, 2013

Arrived in Washington, D.C. for meeting of dedicated crime fighters, to find “dedicated” crime fighters cowering and shivering behind closed doors. Pathetic scum, lacking moral conviction to protect city in face of wind and moderate-to-light snowfall. Reduced to helpless, shut-in imbeciles by thin layer of white on roadways. This city would weep for its weak protectors, but knows they also whimper at sight of icy rain.

Only reason crime not rampant in streets tonight is that people of this city are weaker than mewling “crime fighters,” who patrol alleyways only on warmer days. Crime fighters afraid to fight crime with runny noses. Can’t brave slight discomfort for greater justice. Can’t see that all that is needed to defeat crime and cold is trench coat, scarf, fedora, and fists. All I had as I walked streets tonight.

Tonight, a man dated in D.C. Then wrote letter asking my advice. Have tried to stop misguided weak-willed inhabitants of city from sending letters begging my perspective on their lives as they wallow in frozen slurry of self-loathing and despair. Can’t. Not even by breaking thumbs. Tried this last week. Man with broken thumbs cried. Then asked if he should send flowers to angry girlfriend. Left in disgust.

A man dated tonight, and nobody cares. Not even me. Will answer letters anyway, though, as answering letters passes time until miscreant am lying in wait for leaves bar.

Letter #1

Dear Rorschach,

How do I know if this woman I’ve met is The Right One?

Thanks,

@Vitt311

Vitt,

Will answer question but then you must answer mine: were parents hippies? Who names child Vitt? Is that even name? Why does it contain numbers and symbols? Suspect an alias. Perhaps spy?

So. You went out. Probably to seedy bar. Bought drink. Talked to woman. Suddenly you discover Ms. Right. Convenient.

But she is not Ms. Right. Here is how I know: there is no Ms. Right. Relationships are farce. Also unimportant. All that matters is justice. And beans.

~RR~

P.S. Do not try to trace this response, spy; you will fail.

P.P.S. Do not turn around. I am standing behind you but do not wish you to see me yet. Not until I am ready.

Letter #2

Mr. Rorschach,

How does a hamster find Mr./Ms. Right?

Sincerely,

@bicyclefish

Fish on Bicycle:

Are you also spy? Do you know @Vitt311? Your name also gibberish and symbols. Possibly occult. Clearly is conspiracy. Will need to get to bottom of this. Hrm.

As for question: Rodents do not discriminate with mates. Can’t be discussing rodents. Must be code. Are “Hamsters” new street gang? Why have I not heard of them? Must investigate.

Well. If you are spy or miscreant gang member, there will never be a Mr./Ms. Right for you. You will always be alone. And probably in jail.

~RR~

P.S. If you are not miscreant (unlikely) see previous question for answer.

P.P.S. Also send me full name, and address of your dwelling, as all you have given in letter is gibberish name and P.O. Box. This is not sufficient. Will need to question you further about these “Hamsters.”

Letter #3

Dear Mr. Rorschach;

If you are a spy, is it okay to date another spy at a rival agency, under the assumption that hilarity will ensue? Same question, but for Glee coaches.

@BenjaminPFisher

Fishy Benjamin,

You claim to be a spy, yet use real name. Must be trap. Hrm.

Spies are not hilarious. Do not joke about spies. Or spy conspiracy. Which you are clearly part of.

Beginning to suspect advice column being used as spy trap to lure me in and pick off another costumed hero. Is obvious now, really. And Dreiberg called me paranoid.

Am done answering letters until have uncovered whole of spy ring out to get me. Will hunt you down, all of you, and exact justice for this persecution. Don’t bother to beg for mercy. There will be no compromise.

~RR~

P.S. If did use real name, you are very bad spy.

P.P.S. What is Glee coach? Is this spy code? Sounds leftist.

•     •     •     •     •

Hey guys, it’s Emily! So…I just got back and Mike showed me the results of my latest experiment with guest writers. Uh…yeah, maybe inviting Rorschach over to play wasn’t such a good idea. But I don’t have time to write something new at this late date, so…sorry? And he didn’t really mean it, about the spy thing. And hunting people down. Not really. I don’t think. Um.

…Until next time, Servo Lectio?

P.S. I really am sorry.

P.P.S. I hope he’s not standing behind anyone right now.

WEDNESDAY: Mike Gold And Alfred Pennyworth’s Guns

Emily S. Whitten: Geeklitism, Part II

Whitten Art 130122A couple of weeks ago, I talked about geeklitism in fandom, with geeklitism being defined as “claiming you’re a ‘real geek’ and other people aren’t; claiming you’re the superior geek.” I gave a few illustrations of common types of geeklitists I have come across (and find generally obnoxious). I was, yes, a little sarcastic about the way they behave, because I think it’s both ridiculous and harmful. But even though I don’t agree with their attitude, I still understand that they are, as we say, “One of us! One of ussss!” – in the sense that if we weren’t all fans of geeky things, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. We are, by dint of being interested in genre fandoms, all part of the same group; even if geeklitists would argue that point.

I also believe that people with these attitudes, no matter how they might alienate people or make others feel bad by what they say, aren’t purposely trying to be mean or hurtful. They don’t realize what their words say about them, or how they’re perceived by those they try to negate. Why not? Well, let’s go back to the four types of geeklitists I identified last week, with those Geek Badges they wave so proud and high; and see if we can look beyond the attitude to understand what they’re really saying; something they may not have tried to do themselves. Let’s also look at why these attitudes are unhelpful or hurtful to others.

Type 1: The Bullied Geek Badge of Experience

The attitude:

“As a child (and possibly into adulthood), I was bullied, belittled, or ostracized by others in my peer group because of my genre interests. If you didn’t have my exact experiences, you can’t understand or be part of my group.”

What they are really saying:

“I went through these negative experiences and survived. These experiences made me a stronger person and helped me build my identity, and if you haven’t experienced that, you can’t understand what I went through or what my interests mean to me. I perceive that I suffered unfairly because of the things I loved, but I didn’t give up on them. Claiming your place in this fandom falsely indicates to me and others in this group that you are also someone with that level of commitment, when you were not. This takes away the sense of identity I retain from my experiences, and the value of my integrity or bravery in sticking up for what I loved in the face of adversity. Also, because I feel that my treatment was unfair, I may not trust you, as someone who didn’t share my experiences, to be someone who won’t persecute me in the future. I am afraid to let you in to the group in case you are like the people who were mean to me in the past.”

Why this attitude is not helpful/is hurtful:

For one, it assumes things about the other people that the geeklitist couldn’t possibly know. It assumes they didn’t have similar experiences, or other experiences that were just as important and valuable to their identities. It negates those experiences by assuming their nonexistence, and/or makes people have to defend themselves by opening up and sharing possibly painful parts of their own history that they wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing if their identities had not been challenged. For another, even if other people didn’t have the experiences of the geeklitist, it assumes they are not intelligent or emotionally advanced enough to empathize anyway, and also that their lack of that experience makes them people of lesser quality. It also may assume they are untrustworthy or bullies when they are not. It invalidates their importance as whole people in their own right by claiming the past experience of the geeklitist to be a necessary part of true character development.

Type 2: The Encyclopedia Geek Badge of Intelligence

The attitude:

“I know more about this geek topic and fandom than you do. If you don’t know the things I know, you can’t be part of my group.”

What they are really saying:

“I have invested a lot of time in absorbing and learning about my genre loves and fandoms and feel that I now know a lot about it, which proves that I am a true fan. If you know less than I do and claim to be in the same group, that means that you are saying you can achieve the same thing I did with less knowledge and time spent on this passion/hobby/lifestyle. You are also saying that anybody can be a part of a group that I worked hard to belong in. This threatens or negates my achievements, knowledge, or devotion.”

Why this attitude is not helpful/is hurtful:

For one, the geeklitist is calling other people less knowledgeable, which is always insulting and frequently inaccurate. The geeklitist is challenging the achievements and determination or devotion of other people, while also indicating that their interests and achievements (whatever they may be) are less objectively important than those of the geeklitist. The geeklitist is belittling others’ dedication, intelligence, and sense of self based on the tastes and choices that the geeklitist values, rather than the idea that other interests can be just as valuable to others, and just as objectively important.

Type 3: The Discovery Geek Badge of Priority

The attitude: I have known about this fandom since the day it came to be. You just got here. You didn’t recognize the value of this when it first appeared, and haven’t put in the time and effort I have to appreciate or preserve it. You aren’t a true fan like me.

What they are really saying:

“I feel a deep kinship to this fandom because I’ve been in it since day one, which gives me a sense of belonging and being special. (And possibly: I am so special here that sometimes even other fans recognize how important I am to this fandom.) I appreciated it when others didn’t, which means I have a finer ability to recognize quality than the masses. I put effort into helping to keep this going, and (possibly) sometimes even the famous people involved have expressed their thanks at my actions. This makes me feel like a contributor and person of value. If you come to my group and overshadow my sense of value, all of the positive personal qualities I associate with my involvement in this fandom are threatened. You are threatening my identity.”

Why this attitude is not helpful/is hurtful:

The geeklitist is using a false assumption that the amount of time or energy spent focused on something is equal to the devotion someone might feel to it, and that the priority of those who “came first” somehow increases the value of their contributions. By doing so, he or she is negating the value of others’ experiences, actions, and feelings in something that they may care just as much about. The geeklitist is attacking others’ identities by defending his or her own.

Type 4: The Misogyny Geek Badge of Exclusion

The attitude:

“Girls/Women can’t be geeks like boys/men are. They do not truly understand the value or lore of these fandoms/this lifestyle. They can’t be a part of it. It’s our territory.”

What they are really saying: “I built my masculine identity in part (or whole) on geekdom; possibly to the exclusion of more typical “masculine” pursuits that I didn’t have interest in or wasn’t good at. Since I broke out of the stereotypical male mold to do this, I have to feel that I am still part of a masculine group to retain that masculine identity. If females try to enter this group, my masculinity is threatened.”

What they also may be saying in some cases, when this is combined with Type 1:

“Some females gave me a hard time about my interests at some point in time, because they didn’t fit with what was expected of males. I resent this, because it hurt my sense of my own masculinity.(Or) females have it easier than I do. If they want to be geeks (read genre books, engage in less physical forms of activity, etc.) no one cares, because the expectations put on females are not the same as those put on males. I resent this. Because females couldn’t possibly have had the experience I did, they will never understand what it is to be a geek. When they claim they do, it threatens my masculinity.”

Why this attitude is not helpful/is hurtful:

This attitude devalues an entire half (or more than half) of humanity by indicating that due to different assumed experiences and pressures, no matter what qualities or experiences females may have or have had, they will never “measure up” to what males experienced or can understand. It is, essentially, saying that females are lesser people – in intelligence, knowledge, empathy, identity, and much more. It also assumes that the pressures or stereotypes put on females were not just as difficult to deal with as those put on males. It is again based on false assumptions, and challenges and negates a lifetime of experiences and a person’s identity. It also puts females on the defensive in fandom, and perpetuates an exclusionary dynamic by making them constantly feel unwelcome and challenged in their own areas of interest. This can result in less future effort by females to be accepted as part of the group – which doesn’t benefit anyone in the end.

When examining geeklitism in light of the deconstruction above, maybe it’s easier to see why these attitudes are so toxic to our beloved fandoms, and identify ways to weed them out of our own behavior (because let’s be honest, we’ve probably all been guilty of at least a shade of geeklitism at some point, even if it was fleeting). Maybe we can recognize that we all got picked on at some point for our interests; and that everyone has their own special areas of knowledge that they are proud of; and that everyone was part of the “discovery” group for at least one fandom or interest (or if they weren’t, it doesn’t make them less devoted to it); and that women are equals and people too (this one should not be hard to do, but shockingly, it still is for a surprising number of men).

And most of all, maybe we can all try to consciously remember that someone else being good at something, or a fan of something, or part of something, does not have to threaten our own sense of identity and belonging; and that by including rather than excluding others with shared interests, we can actually continue to build and grow the identities we are so protective of into something to really be proud of: the identities of people who know the value of sharing what they love, who can continue to learn and become more well-rounded people, and who can rejoice in the uniqueness of others as much as we do in our own.

So instead of giving in to the impulse to be elitist jerks when our geek identities are threatened, let’s try instead to, in the words of the great Bill S. Preston, Esq., “Be excellent to each other.”

And until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

Emily S. Whitten: 1600 Penn Putting the Personal Before Politics

Whitten Art 130115There’s a lot to love about Washington, D.C., but let’s be honest: living in such a political town it can be easy to get tired of politics. Rather like the way I wasn’t big into watching legal shows while in law school, my first inclination, having lived in the D.C. area for going on ten years now, surrounded by politicians and government buildings and workers, wouldn’t necessarily be to watch a show about the President.

But when I saw the description for 1600 Penn in a media event alert in The National Press Club newsletter a couple of weeks ago, and then saw that Bill Pullman would be playing the President in this NBC show about the First Family in the White House, I knew I’d have to give it a try. I mean, come on – Pullman was a win last time he was President (not to mention his roles in two favorite movies of mine, Spaceballs and While You Were Sleeping), even before he made that speech on the airstrip. The scene where he’s looking after his young daughter in the White House in Independence Day has always been a favorite, as one of the moments that adds heart to an all-out alien invasion movie full of explosions.

As I’ve discovered after watching the pilot for 1600 Penn and after a Q&A with the cast and producers of the show, 1600 Penn may have a slightly different kind of President, but its goal is also to be full of heart. The show is premised around “an average American family living under one big roof as the nation’s First Family and dealing with everyday struggles inside the Oval Office,” and thus far, I think it delivers reasonably well.

I’m always wary of reviewing any show based on just the pilot (my preference being to give a show two or three episodes to make an impression), but after a half-hour of President Gilchrist and co., I can at least say that I would definitely watch again. From the first episode, the show has a warmth and humor to it that catches my interest, even if it occasionally struggles to find a balance between the seriousness of politics and wackiness of comedy. Though there are some moments of fun situational comedy, where it does best is when it finds humor in the deeper dilemmas (and frequent awkwardness) of raising a family in such an unusual situation as this.

It also finds humor in the skill of its cast members, notably co-creator Josh Gad, who plays blundering oldest son Skip. From the publicity photos and description, I had misgivings about Josh’s character at first. Such a character could easily go too far and either steal or ruin the show; but as written and played here, thus far there’s a balance of good-hearted sweetness and warmth to the ineptness (which is apparently one of Josh’s hallmarks) that actually plays well. It seems it will work to “build the show” around Josh, as the creators have intended, as long as his character doesn’t lose that balance.

Jenna Elfman, who plays the somehow believably competent but also zany stepmom and First Lady Emily Gilchrist, also acquits herself well in the pilot, managing to humorously juggle several pieces of a problem in a way that just barely keeps it together so it all works out in the end. Bill Pullman also delivers, but the onus of trying to play a believable President in a situational comedy doesn’t yet seem to give him many of the humorous moments we know he can do so well; although the heart is there, and he does have one quiet little comedic line with press secretary Marshall Malloy that is perfectly done.

Yet one thing I like about the show so far is that it is somewhat believable – and that may be due to the fact that co-creator and executive producer Jon Lovett served as an Obama speech-writer (and joke-writer) for three years prior to leaving the White House for full-time comedy writing. Joined by Gad, Jason Winer, and Mike Royce, he’s created a show that’s an amalgam of that reality and the wacky-but-well-meaning world that Josh Gad’s characters generally inhabit. According to Lovett, he always wanted to write a comedy, but when he left the White House, he wanted that comedy to be about “anything but the White House.” As if on cue, Gad and Winer approached him about…a comedy set in the White House. But after all, they do say to write what you know, and after Winer explained the concept to him, Lovett says “we got so excited about the ideas and stories and twists we could come up with for a show centered around the Oval Office, the world’s most famous home office. After all,” Lovett says, “President Obama says all the time that one of his favorite things about the White House is that he gets to ‘live above the store,’” and the setting offers a lot of potential for unique approaches.

While Lovett has some prior experience with what life at the White House is like, to make the show more authentic he spent time researching what family drama would look like “under the prism of a twenty-four hour news cycle,” studying how this has played out in previous administrations. Other show members also prepared in various ways. Jenna Elfman, to get ready for her role as First Lady, read about former First Ladies, looking for a common denominator or standard for embodying the role – and discovered that there really isn’t one, as each First Lady makes her own mark on the office. Elfman expressed admiration during the Q&A for current First Lady Michelle Obama, and her “energy and participation and warmth, and her contributions to health…and her role as a mother.” She also cited the feisty and determined Eleanor Roosevelt as a past First Lady she admires.

Bill Pullman, in getting into his role, apparently had some difficulties leaving it behind on the set, occasionally citing his (fictitious) military history at home and saying, “nobody get up yet!” while he was sitting down. (There’s a scene in the pilot in which the President is meeting with his military advisors and, properly, they only stand after he has stood up to leave.) Martha MacIsaac, who plays 22-year-old daughter Becca, and is discovered to be (unmarried but) pregnant in the pilot, had a sister who was also unmarried and pregnant at around the same age, so drew from that in her acting.

The creators of the show discussed other instances in which they drew from their own experiences, taking “a kernel of truth from our lives and seeing how that takes on new life in the dynamic of this family.” One example given is of an upcoming episode in which Emily, as a former political consultant who was instrumental in the President’s rise to the White House, gets carried away with “helping” her youngest stepson Xander as he runs in a middle school election. (And in answer to my question at the press event, upcoming episodes will feature a further look into what led to the President and family getting to the White House, which is definitely a storyline I’d find interesting.)

What’s sort of fascinating about listening to the cast and producers talk about this show is how much they are aiming to root this in what it would “really” be like for these characters to be the First Family; while the other goal of the show is, of course, to entertain and amuse. It would be so easy for a premise like this to lose its integrity for a quick laugh or just-slightly-too-unbelievable premise, or to be just a tad too serious for the audience to really get behind as a fun show to keep watching. However, as it stands from the pilot and plot examples from upcoming episodes (including one in which Josh’s character Skip engages in discussions with protestors outside of the White House, with predictably humorous and unexpected results), it looks like this show might just succeed in hitting its mark. I’m planning to tune in to find out if it does.

1600 Penn airs Thursdays from 9:30 – 10:00 on NBC. Give it a watch!

And until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold

Emily S. Whitten: Geeklitism – Part I

Whitten Art 130108I think tomorrow I’ll call up Merriam-Webster and suggest a new word for their dictionary. That word? Geeklitism. (Not to be confused with Geekleetist, which posts fun stuff).

It should be in the dictionary, because it certainly is a thing that exists. But how would I suggest they define it? Damned if I know, although I guess the short version could be: “claiming you’re a ‘real geek’ and other people aren’t; claiming you’re the superior geek.” But really, the various aspects of both this attitude and of being a “geek” generally are so broad that I’m not sure they can be encompassed in a dictionary definition.

The reason for this, and the funny thing about “being a geek,” is that it’s a different experience for everyone. For instance, I’ve been a geek probably all of my life; but I don’t know that I ever really knew it until adulthood, when, thanks to the increased ease of finding like-minded people via the internet, it suddenly turned out it wasn’t such a bad thing to be. As far as I recall, no one called me a geek growing up. I had no idea I was part of this mysterious group of people called “geeks.”

“What??” I can hear a geeklitist out there crying out in triumph. “No one called you a geek? That must mean that you didn’t get bullied by the “cool kids” in school! Haha! You can’t understand the suffering and hardships that I went through in my formative years because of my love of stories about hobbits! You are not a real geek like me!” (This is the kind of thing geeklitists say, don’t you know. Sometimes they also add, “And all the girls made fun of me!! I’ve never gotten over that! My life was so hard!”)

But that’s not really what I said, is it? Of course I got picked on. Most kids do. For instance, when I was in first grade and all the cool kids in my new school had moved on to jeans or whatever was in fashion, my mom, bless her, still dressed me in cutesy pastel sweatsuits with big decorative (but pointless) buttons and bows on them. It follows that one of my first memories of my new school is three girls in my class making fun of my clothes on the playground – at which point I probably said something mean.

I was a well-read little child, who could creatively insult other children with words that none of us really knew the meaning of; but they sounded like insults, so it all worked out. For example, at some point in my primary school years, one of the biggest insults I remember using was, “You’re corroded!” (Which makes no sense under the real definition but sounds like maybe you have a gross skin condition?) My favorite of the weird words I personally transmogrified into an insult when young was “You’re a transubstantiationalist!” No one else had any idea what it meant, but I managed to convince the kids I was using it on that it was a really horrible thing to be. Mwahaha. But I digress. Anyway, at that point, we all got in a fight. Like a physical fight, of the kicking and punching and hair and decorative bow-pulling variety. Yowch.

“Whatever!” the geeklitist is saying. “That’s not what I meant. That’s just fashion. You were only a geek if you were ostracized because of your offbeat hobbies and/or love of genre fiction as a child! That’s what makes you a real geek like me.” Well, yes. I was that, too. I used to sit by myself at lunch and read giant books that were too “old” for me, like Clan of the Cave Bear and The Mists of Avalon, propped up in front of me as I ate with painful slowness (something else for which I was occasionally teased, but which turns out to be the healthy way to eat. Take that!). I’d walk down the school halls reading A Swiftly Tilting Planet or maybe The Deed of Paksenarrion without looking up (during which I developed a great sixth sense for not running into people while looking down, which is very handy these days when texting while walking to work).

I was definitely called weird, and often, annoying (because I used big words and talked a lot) more times than I can count. I engaged in some geek activities that probably would have been thought cool by at least the little boys in my class, like watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and X-Men cartoons, but I never realized that, because at that point in my life, boys had cooties. (Of course.) I’m not saying I didn’t have friends; I did, and they were a lot of fun. But I also got made fun of; and as far as I knew, most of my friends were not actually interested in The Lord of the Rings or Batman: The Animated Series. I don’t even know that I ever thought to ask most of them.(Or if I did, and received blank stares, I probably never brought it up again. This is why I’d never make a good Whedonvangelist, another word I’ve decided should be in the dictionary.)

Those were the sorts of things I often enjoyed alone, and didn’t really talk about that much, and that was fine. I knew (from others telling me, repeatedly) that I was a weird child, and I guess I just kind of assumed that was how life was and would continue to be for me – having some interests that nobody around me shared. Of course, that feeling of being alone in one’s interests is often cited as part of the experience of geekdom; and of course, in truth, lots of other people also had those interests; I just hadn’t discovered them yet. But I guess that’s all part of being a geek.

“Ahaha!” an entirely different brand of geeklitist is chortling. “But none of that matters! That’s just kid stuff! You’re not a real geek like me unless you can list, right this minute, in reverse alphabetical order, every superhero who turned out to be a Skrull during Secret Invasion! And until you can name at least three obscure continuity errors in [my favorite comics character’s] ongoing storyline! And unless you can tell me your three favorite fighting tactics for the video game character whose costume you are now wearing!” But, second brand of geeklitist…the water is wide, and the world is large, and I might like a different character than you do, or I might focus on something for different reasons than you do. Are you saying your viewpoint and favorite genre things and factoids are inherently better and geekier than mine, and are the only things that can bestow upon all of us admission into the uber-exclusive society of geekdom, just because they are yours? …Well, yes, yes you are, and that’s pretty self-centered. We can all be geeks in our own ways, with our own specific areas of interest and knowledge. Right?

“No no,” chides another, lone geeklitist, standing apart with one brow raised and pointing a finger at each of us in turn. “You will never, ever be a real geek, because you didn’t watch Firefly until it came out on DVD! You only like the newest Doctor Who! You never participated in the drive to keep Chuck on the air via purchasing mounds of Subway sandwiches. You’ll never be a real geek, not any of you, because (cue dramatic music and Iwo Jima flag-raising reenactment) I was here first, and I claim this geekdom in the name of Geekmoria! It’s mine, all miiiiine!!!!!”

…What? No, really, what? That’s just asinine.

“…”

“…”

“Well…maybe,” says the lone geeklitist doubtfully. “But I was here first.”

How do you know, lone geeklitist? Did you turn on your TV to a new show before anyone else in the entire world? Acquire an ARC of the first book in a now-beloved series? Hold in your excited hands the very first copy of the very first appearance of a comic book character? And even if you did…why does that give you any more claim to an appreciation of it than anyone else? Why does timing somehow make you more passionate about your geekdom than all the other geeks?

“…?”

Exactly.

So, any other geeklitists out there want to make a stand about how they’re the real geeks? I just ask because I don’t like to exclude people, although I realize the irony of saying that to you, geeklitists.

…

…

I’m hearing a lot of silence out there. Guess I’ll just wrap this u–what? I’m sorry? What did you say?

A chorus of low, angry, guttural voices rises from the deep to repeat itself, as one last group of geeklitists has its say:

You can’t be a real geek! You’re a girrrrrrrl!!

Oh, seriously. Shut up already.

And until next time, Servo Lectio!

TUESDAY AFTERNOON: Michael Davis Rises!

WEDNESDAY MORNING: Mike Gold Laughs!

 

Categories

Archives

Everything you need to make great comics!

comicmix-pro-300x69-2

Nucleus X

Bookshop Zaks