Wikipedia provides the following cheering example of plus ca change:

On March the 10th 1914 the militant suffragette Mary "Slasher" Richardson walked into the National Gallery and attacked the canvas with a meat cleaver, provoked by the arrest of Emmeline Pankhurst the previous day. In a statement that she gave to the Women's Social and Political Union shortly afterwards Richardson explained her actions thus: 'I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history', adding in a 1952 interview that she 'didn't like the way men visitors gaped at it all day long'.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG2057

See, that's my other thing. Diego Velasquez knew how to paint a great looking ass. The Vicki Vale thing, it's okay, but if Miller thinks that's a nice looking ass, he needs to watch "Sin City" again and take a look at Carla Gugino. Or "Red Dragon" and look at Ralph Fiennes, who just has a ridiculously great looking ass. I mean, does that guy do squats or something?

I didn't decry sexism (not that it's a bad position), or even cry sexism in my blog.
I said that while Miller's script was never meant for public consumption, the attitude displayed was endemic in comics. I also pointed out that it was an interesting attitude from Iller, who publically took the piss out of Wizard for pretty much what he did.

And Dear Rasselas: thanks for drawing a parallel between myself and a militant vandal.

But since we're talking about asses, I think there are plenty of stellar examples in comics. One needn't look hard or far to find them.

Oh yeah, the outrage: there have been plenty of thing that outraged me in comics. Ed Benes' no ass unexamined Birds of Prey art. Wilykat and Wilykit as grown up sex toys of Mumm-Ra in Thundercats. (Euuwww.) And so on and so on.

It was just that Vicki's ass was almost the first thing I saw this morning. It's not that I was looking for it, but it made a perfect illustration of one of the many reasons why I decided a month ago to longer seek employment in comics.
That's all. It's not especially egregious, as these things go. There are far worse examples, many of which could be found in late 90's Image comics.
And I gotta admit: coloring it so all the warm hues were smack dab on Vicki's ass is fucking hilarious. I wish that was the colorist taking the piss. That'd be beautiful.

What attitude was being displayed, then, if not sexism? I mean, what exactly is indicated by that image that prompted you, Lea Hernandez, to quit comics?

As I said, it wasn't that image in particular, it was a plethora of images like it, that were ONE of MANY reasons I quit comics (other than writing and drawing my own).

Previews and Wizard are comics' two biggest print faces, and they're -embarassing-. It's the "Hurr hurr hurr" a GURL" in four colors. And that image, and others like it, play straight to that, and how can anyone wonder why comics are seen as that weird uncle you doon't leave alone with the kids?

Most of what passes for comics (output, shops, conventions, and attitude) in the U.S. has a locker room stank that has not lessened in twenty years, not even with the influx of women creators, or manga.
And that is not for me. I gladly leave the making, selling and reading of this faux porn to the people who enjoy it. Everyone needs a place to be, after all.

It's a bit simple to say it's sexism, and to lay the blame on one image (which I didn't). Miller's para encapsulates a "HUrr, hurr hurrr a GURL" attitude that has been present in comics (U.S. comics) that I noticed the first time I walked into a speciality shop in 1982.
From that time to now, I've gone from offers of rooms, dates, dinner or breakfast har-de-har and gropings to being told I won't get a series because I was pregnant, I didn't need to be sent a check on time because I was breastfeeding so I didn't have to worry about needing the money to feed the baby, to being told (by a marketing manager) perhaps my husband could write my book in a way he could understand, to being laughed at for having an objection to having my books printed by slave labor, to seeing...you get the idea.
Enough was ehough. I don't like the comics business, I never have, and I realized it would feel so good to stop beating my head against the wall. And, frankly, guys can be sympathetic, but they'll never know what it's like to have a career that spans the spectrum from being fondled by someone in front of other people at a private party (San Diego, year 2) to being fondled in front of other people at a private party (San Diego, this year).

Part of the character of Vicki Vale at this point in this re-telling of the Batman story is that she's a famous newscaster or columnist who clearly takes advantage of her physical appeal. The drawings of her in this story portray that, telling us something about the character herself beyond the narrative. However much the artist might enjoy drawing pretty girls for their own sake, this seems a very legitimate use of otherwise gratuitous cheescake.

The thing that is a little disturbing is Miller's script. This is Frank Miller, a legend in the industry, who's been drawing and writing for 25 plus years, not a 20 year old kid. Even if the script wasn't intended for general public consumption, its a document which will probably be seen by a lot of people including the editor, assistant editors, artist, letterer and so on. His description in the script might be appropriate in a locker room or a bar, but seems out of place for a part-business/part-creative document.

Side Comment 1: The image in the strip doesn't even match the speech balloons. In the speech balloons, Vicki talks about Bruce Wayne and hot he is -- while the image shows Vicki's derriere, which is incongruous.

Side Comment 2: Why bring Vicki back anyway ? I always thought she was a singularly boring character, even when played by Kim Bassinger.

"The drawings of her in this story portray that, telling us something about the character herself beyond the narrative."

No, it really doesn't. It's just an ass, in underwear, apparently in the privacy of her home.

Almost everybody has an ass. Many people have nice ones. Many of them have been known to wear sexy underwear. This tells us *nothing* about their inclination to use their sex appeal to get ahead.

If the artist and writer are trying to make your point, they'd be better off showing her, you know, using her sex appeal to get ahead. Like trying to get out of a ticket, or to get an interview. A full-panel ass-in-panties shot really won't help either of those scenarios, because it overstates the case and makes it look more like she's just a slut.

A shot showing her working it in an ankle-length skirt would be more effective, because a temptation is more effective than putting out. If she puts out, that's bound to get around, and then she's going to find that her sex appeal doesn't help her much anymore - why help her out when Gotham knows she's easy?

Mike,

You may have noticed the lack of masterworks which consist of an ass and little else. And Michelangelo didn't sculpt a 15 foot tall penis.

Context is important.

Not to put words in her mouth, but I don't think Lea's concerned about the mere fact that an ass was drawn in a comic. Lots of asses are drawn in comics, they're just colored in so they look clothed.

It's not that there's an ass in a comic. It's the context, which is "let's show a sexy ass, and just a sexy ass, for no particular reason other than to give the fanboys a treat."

I'm guessing that Michelangelo, et al, weren't going for cheap titillation. You don't waste a 15' block of marble on cheap titillation.

John: Well, actually....

Also, let me be clear about one thing: I've never met Lea. I don't know her except in the most cursory of online fashions, and to the best of my knowledge she doesn't even read this blog, so I was sort of hoping to make my banal point without her noticing. My point was simply this: artists have been drawing people in a sexualized fashion for a long time. The fact that this happens in comics is not a thing unique to comics but a thing about art. Artists have long had a problematic relationship to sexuality.

I mean, everyone knows Van Gogh cut off his ear. But they know it as a fact. They never consider it.

HOMEBOY CHOPPED OFF HIS EAR!!!!

You've heard say it with flowers? Vinnie said it with his ear...

Picasso? Had views on women which made Dave Sim look like Gloria Steinem.

So, short version, I respect Lea. It still seems to me she was decrying sexism in the comics industry, but she says that's not what she's doing, so fine, I'm an idiot.

But the sexual imagery thing is something I think art is stuck with. And at least Miller hasn't chopped his ear off.

But I GOTCHA, didn't I?

You said I was decrying sexism, you also said you didn't get the outrage.
The panel in question, I said, was emblematic of one of many reasons I quit. That addresses your outrage question.

And if you see my plaint about man stank all over the business (and I saw the panel and script as a perfect example) is decrying sexism, yes, I am. I've also mocked Catwoman's tits, Black Canary's crotch, and Wonder Woman's ass.

And at least Miller hasn't chopped his ear off.

True, but since's he has now admitted, "Ok, Jim, I'm shameless", perhaps now he would if the money was right?

I saw The Ass when the issue came out. At the time, I thought it was pure self-indulgence, as Jon said, "cheap titillation." It was a wasted attempt, imo, since I don't find Jim Lee's women sexy. (Adam Hughes, on the other hand, maybe...)

When I saw the script, I felt somewhat justified in my reaction to the book.

To attempt a film analogy, this isn't Dennis Franz' butt on NYPD, or in "City of Angels" (art over titillation), it's more like Brinke Stevens' breasts in any B-movie (titillation, pardon the pun, in the bid for more coin).

Or put it in simpler terms.

I'm a straight woman. I actually don't mind the portrayal of superheroes as sexy (as long as it fits with the tone of the book overall--no asses in OWLY, please, unless they're the long-eared kind). It's part of the fantasy. As an element of the fantasy, with the right tone, applied evenhandedly to both genders, it can work for me.

I pick up ASB #1 in the comics shop. I flip it open. There's Vicki Vale's ass. And more of Vicki Vale's ass. In a contrived situation that exists apparently *just to show us her ass and nothing more* (oh, and that she's a complete and total moron). DC is asking me, a comics reader, to pay for this comic. But what, exactly, am I getting out of this multipage cheesecake-o-rama? Why, exactly, should I drop even a nickel on this pointless softcore stuff? I don't buy Playboy, not because I find naked ladies inherently offensive (it depends)--but because *it doesn't do anything for me*.

They might as well have replaced those pages with a big panel that read "teenage male readers are the ONLY kind of readers we even think exist, thanks!" Well, in that case, guess you don't need my imaginary money, either, DC. Maybe this is the week I'll try manga after all...

And this in a line that was *supposed* to be more accessible to the general public. It's embarrassing to comics because it demonstrates that, down deep, DC can't conceive of its target audience as anything but sex-starved teenage boys or leering grown-up guys who don't actually give a crap about the content of the comic as long as it's satisfactory masturbation fodder--but masturbation fodder they don't have to get carded to buy.

Mebbee it's just me, but between stuff like this ass shot and the infamous "What are you, dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the goddamn Batman," Miller is joking.

Mebbee I'm giving him too much credit as an iconoclast, but with Dark Knight Strikes Again playing as a parody/ comedy, and All Star Bats playing as "What do fanboys want to see in a Batman book," I think Miller knows exactly what he's doing.

And I think it's great if he manages to offend anyone, because at heart I think he's making fun of stupid fanboy culture. The best jokes are the 1%ers. Sure, the majority don't get it, but the few of us who do get to laugh our ever-lovin' asses off.

--Ian

Which, if true, actually raises the question: why should I buy a comic that's premised on the idea that if I enjoy it, I'm a moron? I may be a bit of a high-falutin' intellectual, but I actually do buy my comics on the theory that I will like them.

Personally, though, I'm just folding my hands and waiting to see exactly how many execrable projects the man has to turn out before people can admit that if it's self-parody, it's of the involuntary kind.

I find it somewhat amusing that, in all the discussion of ASB&R, the outrage is focused on that one shot of Vicki's butt. Frankly, if one wants to be offended by this comic (which I reviewed for CBG as a sad piece of trash), why is no one focusing on the main character, Batman, a so-called "hero" that is seen callously murdering cops and emotionally and physically abusing a minor. Honestly, I find this to be far more heinous than a cheap butt-shot.

People keep claiming that Miller intended this as a joke - but he certainly shows no sign of that in any of the promotional interviews, nor in the script. I think people are just desperate to give the man any excuse for being involved in what may be the single worst comic ever produced...

Andrew: I take it you missed the comics of the 1990's, and I envy you...

Oh, sure, it's probably just crap. I've barely read it.

It's still fun to watch people get all offended. Over a comic book. Starring men in tights. (Ellis' famous 'pervert suits').

why should I buy a comic that's premised on the idea that if I enjoy it, I'm a moron?

Not that it necessarily applies to this project, but...
There're projects that are made to make fun of idiots, but idiots don't get it, so they don't get offended, so they keep watching. If done well, then there's also enough humor or whatever else to keep the smart ones hooked, e.g. The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family Guy.

I would love for this to be Miller's big prank. "Okay, you motherfuckers. You can't stop talking about me doing goddamn Batman, I'll do some goddamned Batman. Maybe this will finally shut you up." It's just as possible that he's gotten hit with the crazy stick that seems to strike some of those with a creative bent.

Wasn't Miller the guy who said he'd never go back to superhero crap for a long time before Dark Knight Strikes Again? I remember hearing a lot of people calling him a sellout for doing it. And he turned it on its ear. I didn't really like DKSA when it first appeared, but on re-reading it a year or so later, I loved it, and it was more obviously parody at that point. Second-guessing him before ASB&R is completed seems like a fool's game.

Also, I'm not a big fan of Jim Lee's art. Is Miller? I haven't been following his interviews or anything. Is he talking about what a great honor it is to work with Lee or anything like that? Because the assignment itself seems like something to make fun of. Miller just doesn't seem the type to really want to work with someone like Lee. The butt-shot instruction seems so much like a calculated joke. But I just don't know.

It's not like this could possibly be worse than Hush, anyway.

--Ian

Not as bad as a truckload of 90s comics.

Not as bad as Street Poet Ray.

I don't think there are many satires that work fully on both levels: as a fully-realized text of the kind being parodied that the natural audience would enjoy *and* as a mockery of that text for the other audience. It's too hard to code for both. Maybe the movie of Starship Troopers, but frankly, I'm not sure.

Insofar as The Simpsons makes dumb jokes, it's mostly with the theory that everybody likes a dumb joke. (The rake gag may be an exception, but look how many people hate that.) When it takes the characters seriously, it actually treats them as at best sympathetic and at worst identifiable--Homer Simpson is a lazy, careless slob but he loves his wife and kids and we all have a lazy, careless slob inside us. It's a show about idiots, but it's not a show for idiots, except in the way that everyone's a little bit idiot.

Honestly, if Frank Miller has succeeded in putting together a project that enough people will buy and promote, even though they don't like the material in itself and ordinarily wouldn't buy it, just because it allows them to feel like they're participating in the mockery of those who would enjoy it straight, then he is an evil freakin' genius worthy of Kirby. Exploiting geek insecurity in that way is both brilliant and cruel. I just don't think he's that smart or that self-aware (or that the DC editorial staff is, either).

I'd like to think that he was that smart & self-aware, but I'll leave that to a jury of the future... let's say no less than a year after his run on ASB&R is done.

I agree on DC's editorial staff, though. I mean, they asked for the book, they got it...

--Ian

Checklist for deflecting criticism of a comic:

_ Claim it's actually a parody.

_ Claim that it's all a big joke on the mundanes/fanboys/idiots who don't get the parody.

_ Claim the work can't be judged until it's finished, even if it's being released in serial installments. (Extra credit: claim it's so complex, so far above the heads of its mundane/fanboy/idiot critics, that it can't be judged for one year after it's finished.)

_ Attribute any flaws that you can't explain away to the collaborator you don't like, salvaging the reputation of the one you do (henceforth to be known as the All-Star Batman & Robin Special Dispensation). Assert that the collaborator you do like is somehow above the material, concluding that he therefore must be making a joke at his audience's and his partner's expense.

_ Compare it favorably to a much worse comic or comic artist that your audience can reliably be counted upon to dislike.

Clip and save for handy reference--don't read the blogosphere without it!

_ If you hate a book, no one else is allowed to like it.
_ If you like a book, no one else is allowed to hate it.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to deflect or deflate at all. I'm maybe a bit too excited about it possibly being a joke at the "mundane/fanboy/idiot critics" expense, but hell...

The biggest reason I don't like ASB&R? Because it's not surprising. Jim Lee T&A shots, Miller cussing. Yawn.

Wasn't All-Star supposed to be the non-continuity, anyone can pick it up line? I mean, I suppose this fits, but still... So far, not something I'd hand to my uncle the old Batman fan.

--Ian

The All-Star line never had a clear direction other than big name creators on high profile characters.

I am a little puzzled by what seems to be the underlying assumption here that only men like female cheesecake in their comics. After all, it's my wife that added Sizzle and some other outright comics pron to our pull list at our FLCS...

As to the incidents of sexual harassment and assault recently reported by Lea and others within the industry, that sort of behavior is inexcusable. I'm not sure, however, that the classes of A) men who take a prurient interest in the female form, even as drawn in comics and B) men who see nothing wrong with making unwanted advances or committing actual assault are as contiguous as seems implied.