I Don't Usually Do This... : A Public Response To Some Reader Mail

... but this one was just so... so... silly, I just had to reprint it here.

I stumbled across this in my personal journal, which I was cleaning up and retagging. It's a bit of angry mail from someone who was notable in two respects. First, he didn't use any profanity in his letter. Second, he wrote something that was longer than a paragraph. Third, he signed his e-mail with the name of his D&D character.

The short version is that I wrote a column about "Shanna: The She-Devil". Shanna was created in 1972 as part of Marvel Comics' efforts to create more positive female role-models. At least, more positive than the stay-at-home super mom, the aspiring model who lifted things with her mind and the fashion designer who could shrink whom filled all the token girl posts on Marvel's three biggest superhero teams.

Dr. Shanna O'Hara was an animal doctor who fought against terrorists, poachers and criminals in her native Africa. Though her book didn't last very long, she proved popular enough to show up as a guest star in other comics over the next three decades.

A pin-up artist by the name of Frank Cho "revived the character". His definition of reviving the character involves "cutting out all the boring feminism and environmental messages" and centering the book on a totally nude Shanna, who doesn't talk and wrestles with dinosaurs.

Thankfully, Marvel realized that putting out a book devoted to nothing but female nudity just weeks after they got lots of positive press for publishing the first comic devoted to a Hispanic female superhero was kind of stupid. So the artwork was redone, various "details" removed, clothes sketched on... and the only real thing anyone was going to buy the book for was removed... and yet, it was still published.

The basic upshot of my article was to discuss the history of Shanna, talk about how bad the new book is and say that it was a horrible, exploitative and just plain DUMB move on the part of Marvel to do this with a character who was, historically, one of the first modern feminist heroes.

To put this in perspective for all you non-comic readers, It's like Wonder Woman becoming a nudist pole-dancer because some yutz writer thought the "Amazon warrior/Greek Mythology" thing was dull and he wanted to draw her spread out on a runway in a strip club.

I was expecting to get some irrate e-mail from one or two Frank Cho fanboys. But I wasn't expecting this... a letter from a guy whose given name in his e-mail, signature and the end of his letter were the name and class of a Dungeons and Dragons character!



Wowsers, that is the most blatant example of biased, judgemental, irrational"reviewing" I have ever seen. And I read Scott Keith. Would it kill you to say anything good about the book? Anything at all? Like "The lettering was good quality." Or something. While it seems obvious you have an pre-existing attachment to the Shanna character, this invective against a remake of a tired old marketing ploy merely portrays you badly. It reflects not at all against the new book or its characters as your opinions seem to have no grounding in logic, only your unsupported stance that the new book is junk.

OK, the new book is simple, and the first issue not particularly complex. And it would seem they stole part of Hellboys origin. (I will add the caveat that I don't read the Hellboy comic, I have only seen the movie. So maybe that's a whole other bag of worms.) But you don't point out any of that, only display your encyclopedic knowledge of another version of the book/character. I want to know why you didn't like this book, not how much better a 30 year old comic was. As far as I can tell, your review would have been exactly the same had you not actually read the book, excepting the direct references to the plot.

I have read your work before, and have enjoyed it. But this time your writing comes off as a childish rant against the corruption of a boyhood crush. Honestly, if you ignore the identical names, and dismiss your preconception of what the character should be, is the book all that terrible? I thought it was pretty blase myself, but the "thumbs up" panel got such a laugh from me that the book gets a second look when the second issue comes out. I will refrain from going into length about what I think of the original Shanna character, but I refer you to your own history. Which states that Shanna was created, not out of inspiration, but out of a need to capitalize on a political movement. How can that work out well? I'm just saying. And to request your readers track down what are undoubtedly many hundreds of dollars worth of long out-of-print comics to support your statements seems a little bit elitist. I may be way off on the prices there, but still, who has that kind of time? This had to have crossed your mind at some point while you were writing it, so why use that kind of non-support for your opinions?

Finally, is it really necessary to hound once again on the "adolescents" that you seem to think will be drawn to this type of artwork? That sort of thing is the kind of notion one expects to see outside of the comic-buying fandom, not in it. The hatred does not become you. Furthermore, I don't know a single person who fits that discription and also reads Liberty Meadows (which uses exactly the same type of artwork.) Is it possible that cheesecake artwork does not coincide with a adolescent mentality? I would also like to point out that you seem to have contradicted your stance on cheesecake. You implied that if there had been actual nudity, the book would have had at least one redeeming characteristic. This in opposition to your (also) implied hatred of cheesecake comics. How does one reconcile these conflicting views?

I hope to hear back from you, but I won't hold my breath.

Later...........

Berimon Aghar Truesilver
Paladin Extraordinaire



Well, I'll be damned if I'm going to take this abuse from someone who signs his e-mail with the name of his D&D character, so I wrote him back...



Greetings.

You may stop holding your breath! I have replied to you, as I do reply to everyone who sends me something about my writing. I apologize for taking until Tuesday to respond to your letter. Yesterday, I was out most of the day and spent the evening with my girlfriend, it being Valentines' Day and all.

First of all, I would like to thank you for managing, unlike many of those who have complaints about my writing, for managing to keep a civil tounge in your head. Many is the letter I have received that was filled with profanities, misspellings and misspelled profanities. At least, I assume "comie fagot" was meant to be something other than what was spelled.

Let's take this line by line, shall we?


Wowsers, that is the most blatant example of biased, judgemental, irrational
"reviewing" I have ever seen. And I read Scott Keith. Would it kill you to
say anything good about the book? Anything at all? Like "The lettering was
good quality." Or something.

If you want to see me say something good about a book, I have a review of Batman: The Man Who Laughs up that I already had three people tell me today was well worth reading. My review that is, not the book I already knew the book was worth reading.

Regarding lettering; no critic I know spends much time praising the letterer on a comic much, unless they are doing something extraordinarily ornate, such as Todd Klein's work in 1602. The simple fact of the matter is that we are very bitter that for all our skills in putting words together, there are some smucks out there who are pulling down six-digit salaries for having paid attention in Handwriting-class in the 2nd grade rather than pulling on little Rachel Irons' pigtails.

In all seriousness, I will say that Frank Cho draws a very nice woman. Would that he were capable of drawing more than the one.


While it seems obvious you have an pre-existing
attachment to the Shanna character, this invective against a remake of a
tired old marketing ploy merely portrays you badly. It reflects not at all
against the new book or its characters as your opinions seem to have no
grounding in logic, only your unsupported stance that the new book is junk.

Ah, I see the problem. You want me to use logical dictums to judge an entirely subjective medium that is based upon differing artistic principals.

Everything I write IS illogical by nature. Critics deal with emotional mediums and write about how they feel about things. The thing of it is, and I seem to repeat something like this every few months: my opinions are no better or worse than anyone elses. The reason I have a column is because I am an ordinary comic-reading guy who is very outspoken about what he likes and what he doesn't like who is able to write about that in an ammusing (to most people) manner.. This doesn't mean that I expect everyone to agree with me. If I had that kind of amazing power to influence people, Judd Winick would have been fired years ago.


And it would seem they stole part of Hellboys origin. (I will add the caveat
that I don't read the Hellboy comic, I have only seen the movie. So maybe
that's a whole other bag of worms.) But you don't point out any of that,
only display your encyclopedic knowledge of another version of the
book/character.

Just for your knowledge, the Hellboy origin in the movies was true to the comics. You should go read the BPRD and Hellboy comics. They are VERY good.

And thank you for calling my knowledge of the original Shana encyclopedic. Actually, I did do quite a bit of research for the article ahead of time so I didn't know EVERYTHING off the top of my head.


I want to know why you didn't like this book, not how much
better a 30 year old comic was. As far as I can tell, your review would have
been exactly the same had you not actually read the book, excepting the
direct references to the plot.

Funny. I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't like the NEW Shanna because it is style over substance, art over story and the objectification of women over the empowerment of women that was the original impetus for the character. That was the main reason for my spending the opening part of the column talking about the reasons why the character was created in the first place.

Incidentally, it puzzles me how many people will accuse me and my colleagues of not having read a book we talk about whenever we give it a bad review. Like we have nothing better to do with our time than sit around, cackle like flying monkeys and plot about which comic creator's career we are going to destroy with bad publicity.


I have read your work before, and have enjoyed it. But this time your
writing comes off as a childish rant against the corruption of a boyhood
crush.

Actually, I didn't start reading comics until I was 19 and that was six years ago. So "boyhood crush" may be stretching the term a bit. Crush, as well, is a bit of simplification. Suffice to say, having been raised by a mother who was every bit the superhero in her own way, I have a great fondness for strong female characters in comics and am sickened to see one of the better ones reduced to a non-speaking flesh golem.


Honestly, if you ignore the identical names, and dismiss your
preconception of what the character should be, is the book all that
terrible?

Assuming you like an original plot in a book and characters that aren't cardboard cutouts, yes. Yes, it is that terrible.


I thought it was pretty blase myself, but the "thumbs up" panel
got such a laugh from me that the book gets a second look when the second
issue comes out. I will refrain from going into length about what I think of
the original Shanna character, but I refer you to your own history. Which
states that Shanna was created, not out of inspiration, but out of a need to
capitalize on a political movement. How can that work out well?

Well, Denny O'Neil and Stan Lee did okay when they started writing about minority issues in their comics. Milestone Comics, which spun out of a movement to create more minority superheroes, also did quite well. And Wonder Woman, which was by its' author with the intention of showing that women could be just as capable of men has done alright for itself as a title.


I'm just saying. And to request your readers track down what are undoubtedly many
hundreds of dollars worth of long out-of-print comics to support your
statements seems a little bit elitist. I may be way off on the prices there,
but still, who has that kind of time? This had to have crossed your mind at
some point while you were writing it, so why use that kind of non-support
for your opinions?

Actually, in these days of the Internet you can get most of those titles at fairly reasonable prices from various dealer. Lone Star Comics and Mile High Comics are two of the best, though I noticed that they have raised their prices on the original Shanna series in the wake of the new title when I was looking for a cover-scan of the first issue of the original Shanna #1.

But I was not trying to get everyone to go out and track down back issues.. I was just saying that if people DID want to read the old Shanna stories for themselves to see what the original character was like, here's what to look for. My intent was to help those who wanted to see for themselves; not to kick the horse in the head from the other side of the fence and dare it to get at me, so to speak.


Finally, is it really necessary to hound once again on the "adolescents"
that you seem to think will be drawn to this type of artwork? That sort of
thing is the kind of notion one expects to see outside of the comic-buying
fandom, not in it. The hatred does not become you.

Hatred is a strong word. Loathing is more accurate.

I work in a comic store. I am, despite being 20 pounds overweight, pretty much the antithesis of the stereotypical CMG (Comic Book Guy). I have a girlfriend. I have lived on my own for five years now. I have an active social life outside of my work and my collections.

I work very hard in my workplace and out of it to ensure perspective customers that there is nothing wrong with the hobby. I work with a lot of charities and other organiziations, talking to parents and showing them that comic books are a wonderous and glorious thing that gets kids interested in reading and the arts.

All of which is rather difficult to do when you have the CMBs drooling over books like "Shanna" just down the aisle and loudly exclaiming "Wouldya look at the ass on this bitch!"

Don't laugh. I've actually had this happen at work. He's now banned from the store and I haven't seen the young mother and her 7-year old son since.

So yeah: I have little paitence for the loud minority who use comics like "Shanna" and "Liberty Meadows" as a substitute for pornography... especially the ones who stop to browse through it in the store after we seal it up. And it really irks me that Marvel is catering to these people with books like "Shanna". Of course, they'll probably start doing the same with with Supergirl #1 once it comes out and then I'll just have a nervous breakdown and be taken away to a nice rubber room somewhere.


Furthermore, I don't know
a single person who fits that discription and also reads Liberty Meadows
(which uses exactly the same type of artwork.) Is it possible that
cheesecake artwork does not coincide with a adolescent mentality?

Perhaps. I will admit that my experience on this is limited to my own reading of one Liberty Meadows book (didn't do anything for me) and the customers at my comic shop who DO read (and I use that term loosely) Liberty Meadows. All of who, it might be noted, have always spoken more about the artwork and "doing that woman proper" rather than Frank Cho's writing.

Maybe its just my store? Maybe there are many fine gentlemen who pick up a copy of Liberty Meadows on the way home before putting on their dressing gown, pouring themselves a glass of brandy, settling by the fire, reading their comics and then settling down to continue reading the untranslated works of Samuel Becket in the original French.

I would
also like to point out that you seem to have contradicted your stance on
cheesecake. You implied that if there had been actual nudity, the book would
have had at least one redeeming characteristic. This in opposition to your
(also) implied hatred of cheesecake comics. How does one reconcile these
conflicting views?

The whole original intent of the book was to have a whole lot of pages of a naked, jiggling babe to ammuse those who would be ammused by such things. I find it rather funny that this one factor: the major selling point for the book that has been discussed over the last two years leading up to its arrival (i.e. nudity) has been totally removed by a fearful Marvel and that the one thing that created interest in the book (outside of Frank Cho's fans) is no longer there.

Simply put, I was speaking ironically when I said that nudity would have been a redeeming characteristic. I suppose one could make an argument that it would have been better for Marvel to keep the nudity in rather than to produce a half-assed pornographic comic (you'll forgive the pun, I hope) but I would argue against this book wether it had no nudity, partial nudity, full nudity or nude pictures of Joe Quesada. Especially if it had nude pictures of Joe Quesada!


Best Wishes,

Melmac Silvertongue
Half-Elf Bard Unparalled
Keeper of the Seven Rings of Vindiesel




And I was was writing this, he replied back, politely having conceded most of my points and asking me to read a review he wrote on his journal and let him know what I think of it.