I am so close to done with all this bullshit.

[kingrockwell]

No icon ragey enough. This one feels cold and bitter, which is appropriate enough.

A little under two pages from Birds of Prey #2.





With all the fail going 'round at DC lately, the last thing I needed this week was Gail Simone killing gays (even if he pulled the trigger himself). I don't even know anymore.

This shit better be a fake-out because I'm out of patience for Brightest Day and DC in general. I'm gonna go drown my sorrows in Pet Avengers. :(

Comments

[gailsimone]

I don't think that's what they're saying, Kingrockwell.

[kingrockwell]

They're saying people don't have the right to complain about this. That is exactly what they're saying. Even if it wasn't the intention, it was still the effect.

[gailsimone]

I don't read it that way, but okay.

It seems to me they are saying that the story's only half-done.

[kingrockwell]

That is half of what they're saying. The other half is because the story's half-done, we should all stop complaining and wait before we rage. This carries the implication that we do not have the right to rage because the story isn't over. That is the part I am taking issue with.

Yes, comics are often a serialized medium, and yes, we aren't getting the entire story at once, but when each segment requires a new payment, reacting to the one you have is perfectly legitimate. The issues following this aren't entitled to our purchase.

It's like I told you on Twitter, if the second part alienates readers, they'll be a lot less inclined to give the third and fourth a chance. I'm trying to, I'm trying real hard, but this story and the company-wide context it fits in isn't making it easy.

[gailsimone]

Yeah, but truthfully? Sometimes I, personally, don't fit in the 'company-wide context.'

I'm never going to say I won't do harm to a character, even one I love dearly. That isn't being a writer. And I am definitely aware that gay characters and readers are treated for shit, and it upsets me just as much as it upsets you.

But I don't worry about 'alienating' readers if I tell a story honestly and know it isn't about
hatred, or cheap shock, or fear, or bigotry. And sometimes, yes, "you don't know the whole story yet!" is absolute bullshit.

But sometimes it's not.

[kingrockwell]

Sometimes you don't, and that's why your stuff made for a good read!
This, on the other hand, does. Brightest Day has turned out to be nothing but dark and bloody and suffocating and regressive. It's served as a stellar example of how unfair comics are to characters of color, women and now gays. What's happening here plays right into that.

And I'm sorry, but the "you don't know the whole story yet!" is always bullshit, not just when it's someone other than you saying it. We aren't just fans, we're customers. The industry depends on our money and the next issue is never entitled to that money unless we're inclined to give it. Therefore, if you don't want to worry about alienating readers, that's fine, but if that's the tack you're gonna take you'll have to accept that sometimes the readers will be alienated and they will stop reading.

And intent has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your intent is not a part of the work, it is something wholly outside and independent of it. It's called "death of the author" and it's played a key part in literary criticism for over forty years. Your take isn't going to be available or important when someone is reading your work, only their take. And there are wider cultural contexts that can inform their take. That it's different from yours doesn't make it less valid.

What's more, no one intends to offend, marginalize or disenchant readers from less-privileged groups or their allies, but that does not save them from doing horrible, offensive, marginalizing and disenchanting things. They aren't intentional, but that doesn't make them any less awful. This isn't the first time you've had this conversation with a member here, so I'm gonna go ahead and link you this page from our community resources. That section in particular is the most relevant to our discussion here, but the whole article is worth reading to help understand those wider cultural contexts I was talking about earlier.

[gailsimone]

Wow, I disagree with a ton of this post, and I thought we were getting closer to an understanding!

"And I'm sorry, but the "you don't know the whole story yet!" is always bullshit, not just when it's someone other than you saying it."

No, I'm sorry, that is incorrect. 100% incorrect. I can think of dozens of stories where the ending changed the meaning of prior events in a story. It's a common, and I would even say necessary, part of the dramatic toolbox.


"What's more, no one intends to offend, marginalize or disenchant readers from less-privileged groups or their allies, but that does not save them from doing horrible, offensive, marginalizing and disenchanting things."

No, I don't agree with that at all. Writers INTEND to offend all the time. ALL the TIME. And of course, if we did accept your premise, then the flipside is also true, that readers can often TAKE offense where it is completely inappropriate, right?

I completely denounce the notion that serial fiction must avoid upsetting people every chapter, that's just ridiculous. A story is a story and a second act is a second act. My belief about second acts in serial fiction is that they have to have a VALUE on their own, but I feel that about every issue of every title. The idea that we can't show something upsetting in part three and resolve it in part five is just anti-storytelling in every possible way.

[angelophile]

I don't want to jump on King's toes, but I just want to jump in and pick up on a couple of points.

Firstly, the "read the whole story" point. That's fine, but creators in the comics industry also need to be aware that their work is judged on individual issues. It's not like a novel where you flow from one chapter to the next. Nor do a lot of readers here follow the "wait until the trade" model. I know that's the industry standard now, but the people in this thread will be judging on one individual issue.

And what happened in this issue is that one of DC's very few gay characters was apparently killed.

Saying "wait and see" does not in any way negate the justified feeling of hurt and offense that less-privileged groups are feeling now.

And telling people who are hurting because of a history of oppression and regressive storytelling to "calm down"? That's not cool and certainly we frown upon uses of the tone argument in this community.

[darkblade]

I'm not sure trade waiting is really an industry standard, look at the Great Ten mini. A lot of people were waiting for the trade and not buying the single issues which lead to the cancelation of the final issue.

This makes it more important for the creators to look at their works issue by issue. If for nothing else than at least because if you do something like this that looks really bad but may have some midigating factors in later issues, if it causes readers to drop the series and the book may be canceled due to low sales leaving you unable to write in those factors.

[kingrockwell]

DC in particular has all but declared war on trade-waiters. It's standard at some companies (Vertigo, for one), but the Big Two aren't very kind to that business model, though Marvel's at least smarter about making other options available (their collections are released rather quickly, and even if their digital comics aren't that great, that they're at least giving that model consideration makes DC look old and frumpy).

[gailsimone]

That isn't writing, that's a service industry.

The job is to write the best stories you can and sometimes, even nice people will dislike them. Nothing worth a shit has ever been written with the idea of never offending anyone.

[gailsimone]

Angel, first, thank you for your post. It is lucid and intelligent.

But you assume I'm TRYING to negate the 'justified hurt feelings' of 'less-privileged'
groups.

First, that assumes several things. It assumes that the scene in question is
to be taken purely at face value. It assumes that I have a responsibility not
to hurt feelings of readers. It assumes that responsibility is a good thing. It assumes
that I am not a member of a less-privileged group myself, while we're at it.

I don't agree with any of those assumptions. I'm trying to be as polite and
as honest about this as I can. But people simply aren't thinking this moment
through, and next issue makes almost this entire discussion completely moot.

And I NEVER told anyone to 'calm down.' I get where this anger is coming from.
It comes from self-identification and from affection for the characters, both
positive things.

But some other posters have been insulted and attacked for essentially saying, "What if there is more to this story than it appears?" and that ALSO seems unfair.
They are the same posters who post here all the time, no different from anyone else. Is their opinion or response invalid because they aren't as immediately outraged?

It seems quite a double standard.

[kingrockwell]

It assumes that I am not a member of a less-privileged group myself, while we're at it.

That isn't how privilege works. Being less-privileged in one area doesn't erase your privilege in others. You might not have male-privilege, but you still have straight-privilege.

[zemo]

Ah, see, as soon as anybody feels offended by anything you write, you are automatically wrong. It's not important what you meant, nor whether the story you are telling isn't over yet, the very second you say or write something that offends someone, you are supposed to say sorry and then shut up. Is the way it is on s_d nowadays.

I find especially funny that people are outraged that you (seemingly) killed off your own creation. Somehow it's some fans who feel like they own the character, just because they have paid for the books with them and read them. Not you, the creator, nor DC, who paid the creator, paid for the publishing, paid for every page of paper they appeared on. You can't kill off that character, because they are gay. It boggles the mind.

Let me add, though, that the way you held yourself up in this thread made me go and get Birds of Prey of this and last month. And I will get the whole arc. So, I dunno, at least you got something out of it? :)

[fifthie]

"They are the same posters who post here all the time, no different from anyone else. Is their opinion or response invalid because they aren't as immediately outraged?"

Except that they're the ones trying to call people's reactions invalid sooooooooooo

[mad]

And I NEVER told anyone to 'calm down.'

No, rdfox did at the start of this thread, and basically said that anyone upset over this should postpone their rage until they know everything. Which is essentially telling people what they should feel and how they should react to this issue, and that is policing people's reactions/emotions, which is not cool.

kingrockwell pointed that out, and you disagreed. Scroll down the thread and here we are.

I think the crux of this argument is that a number of people feel that even if there's more to this than we see now, even if we had been privy to what happens next, sometimes the hurt, offense and outrage that a reader may feel aren't going to be mitigated by the knowledge that it might turn out okay in the end.

Especially when the reader connects the event to other things that have been hurtful and offensive, either in comics or real life. It is of course well-beyond your control as a creator, and in isolation a story may not have anything offensive about it, but I think skalja did a good job making the point about how an isolated incident can still play into larger negative patterns.

You say writers intend to offend all the time. If I'm understanding your meaning, it's that they intend to evoke emotion from readers, to make them upset when someone they like gets hurt, angry when they see injustice, cheer when the hero triumphs, cry when there's a tragedy, laugh and smile when there's levity, etc.

What I think is usually unintentional, is when a story and a writer or artist's choices offends in such a way that the reader is no longer connected to the story. Instead of responding emotionally to the characters and what's happening to them, the reader is pulled out of the story, wondering why the writer/artist/editor made a choice that is offensive and may play into offensive/hurtful tropes and stereotypes, and feeling hurt and offended by it. (And I recognize that you know what that feels like to experience as a reader.)

That is the kind of offense and upset that I think kingrockwell's post is expressing.

Again, I have yet to read the issue myself, but my own general experience when someone says to "wait and see" and give a comic that upsets/offends me in a way that pulls me out of the story a chance, I'm usually disappointed and end up feeling gullible and cheated. So despite your credibility, there may be some people who are too burnt out and tired of similar things happening elsewhere, that even a single issue in larger story arc, even one by a writer with a good reputation for respecting and promoting diversity, can still be the last straw.

But you assume I'm TRYING to negate the 'justified hurt feelings' of 'less-privileged' groups.

Regardless of your intention, that's kind of how it's coming across in a lot of these comments when you repeatedly say that the story is only half over, that there's more to it, that we should just wait for the next issue, etc. I'm not sure what your intention is with such comments other than to reassure readers or pique their interest for #3, and in this case I think that can justifiably be interpreted as a silencing tactic toward those who may find this issue offensive or hurtful.

But some other posters have been insulted and attacked for essentially saying, "What if there is more to this story than it appears?" and that ALSO seems unfair.

Where have such posters been attacked or insulted here? I would genuinely like to know if I've overlooked something.

[icon_uk]

I don't think you're being asked not to be upset, but if the basis of your rage is incomplete information because the author doesn't want you to know certain facts to spoil a reveal in a later issue, then your rage may be misplaced.

Arguing that because things are in a serialised format, they shouldn't make use of the concept of a cliffhanger to build tension is rather an odd POV.

[kingrockwell]

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the way writers tend to use the second act these days is tiresome. Especially second act deaths. If the second act gets too egregious, you won't want to stick around for the third. Remember Devin Grayson's Nightwing?

[icon_uk]

All things can be tiresome, and alienating a proportion of the readership is a risk that's run whenever a character is killed off (cf my own reaction to New Mutants 60, back in the day), however, if it's known that the story is not over, I try to hold back on the rage until I have all the data (and in the case of NM60, that WAS all the data regarding Doug's survival state, for the next 25 years or so)

[borderland]

I see what you're saying, but it's very hard to grit teeth and hope that *this* time Lucy really won't move the football when you've been through it so many times.

I love Gail's story telling, and I'll keep reading in the hope of being surprised, but unless it's a fake-out death, it's sort of hard to imagine where it can go that will be worth it. Creote's dead. And for all I ship the hell out of Babs and Dinah, the fact remains that every other character playing a part in this story so far is straight (or at very best, straight with bi-wiggle room for subtexters).

They'll be left alive at the end, and Creote's dead. Emotional fallout and development is for the living. And frankly, I just can't give a crap about how his death will affect the straights.

[icon_uk]

Meh, I have to be optimistic, fake deaths are a distinct possibility.

[tanetris]

we should all stop complaining and wait before we rage. This carries the implication that we do not have the right to rage

All else aside, I disagree with this premise. There are many things you have the right to do that you shouldn't do (or have the right not to do that you should). You shouldn't eat sugar in excess. You should get your loved one a present on their birthday. You shouldn't try Mythbusters experiments at home. You have the right to do the exact opposite of any of these (aside from some Mythbusters experiments that may involve activities it would not be legal to replicate in a residential setting, particularly the ones involving explosions). I've done each opposite myself at times, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for no reason in particular.

[kingrockwell]

I'm sorry, I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying here. Are you disagreeing that it makes that implication or with the implication itself?
If it's the latter, I agree. This is supposed to be a place where it's safe to rage, and telling others they can't do that is incredibly not cool.

[tanetris]

I'm disagreeing that it makes the implication (though I do also clearly disagree with the (alleged) implication, but that should go without saying)

While I cannot speak for the intentions of the OP, I think it's unfair to blanketly characterize all advice that rage may be misplaced as a denial of your right to both feel and express your rage, in this particular case or in general.

This may or may not make any more sense than my rambling first post.

[q99]

Honestly I am kinda sick of second-act deaths. I think I might be tradewaiting as a result- I can wait for it to all wrap up before deciding on it rather than buy each issue as I otherwise would've.

I like birds but this does turn me off on the story.