![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, on the up side ... Publisher's Weekly has a weekly dispatch devoted to comics. And it is genuinely interesting and tells me things I didn't know about comics (although they're generally focused on graphic novels from more traditional book and manga publishers.
On the other hand, every once in a while, they come out with clunkers like this paragraph in an otherwise pretty good piece on the Luna Brothers:
Superwomen and the Luna Bros. - 4/4/2006 - Publishers Weekly:
Because apparently, gays and lesbians are neither men nor women and we don't generally like comics. Or something. Seriously, that clause beginning "and, surprisingly" either should have just been an "including..." or beter yet, a good editor should have just chopped that sucker right off.
Also, since when did "Sex and the City" and maenads become equivalent archetypes? Since when did either of them become archetypes? What exactly are they all archetypes of? Because, really, if someone is an archetype, shouldn't there be a lot of people like that around? And so far as I can tell, there's a serious lack of either superpowered women sitting around talking about their lack of sex lives and beating up bad guys, and also a (thankfully) equally notable lack of alien women running around tearing up women and boinking any stray man in their path. (According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, an "archetype" is "a typical example of something"; according to the OED, a maenad is "n. A Bacchante; gen. a frenzied woman." The girls in Girls are not really what you would call frenzied, although I suppose you could call some of what they do a bacchanal -- although there's clearly a serious lack of wine and song involved, if easily enough women.)
It is a decent, if overbrief, article about the Luna Brothers. It just needed another pass by an editor or two.
(And hey! Girls 12 is due out today! More maenad mayhem! Huzzah!)
On the other hand, every once in a while, they come out with clunkers like this paragraph in an otherwise pretty good piece on the Luna Brothers:
Superwomen and the Luna Bros. - 4/4/2006 - Publishers Weekly:
...Though both Ultra and Girls have a certain cheesecake factor —form-fitting spandex costumes in one, stylish nudity in the other—it's intelligent cheesecake. Unlike most superhero comics, Ultra and Girls appeal not only to men but to women and, surprisingly, lesbian, gay and bisexual readers. "We call it 'Sex in the City with Superpowers,'" says Image executive director Eric Stephenson.
Because apparently, gays and lesbians are neither men nor women and we don't generally like comics. Or something. Seriously, that clause beginning "and, surprisingly" either should have just been an "including..." or beter yet, a good editor should have just chopped that sucker right off.
Also, since when did "Sex and the City" and maenads become equivalent archetypes? Since when did either of them become archetypes? What exactly are they all archetypes of? Because, really, if someone is an archetype, shouldn't there be a lot of people like that around? And so far as I can tell, there's a serious lack of either superpowered women sitting around talking about their lack of sex lives and beating up bad guys, and also a (thankfully) equally notable lack of alien women running around tearing up women and boinking any stray man in their path. (According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, an "archetype" is "a typical example of something"; according to the OED, a maenad is "n. A Bacchante; gen. a frenzied woman." The girls in Girls are not really what you would call frenzied, although I suppose you could call some of what they do a bacchanal -- although there's clearly a serious lack of wine and song involved, if easily enough women.)
It is a decent, if overbrief, article about the Luna Brothers. It just needed another pass by an editor or two.
(And hey! Girls 12 is due out today! More maenad mayhem! Huzzah!)
Tags: