Sin City Bashed
Submitted by jim on Tue, 06/07/2005 - 11:36
Tags:
Oh I just have to throw this out there, choosing the same excerpt as insanely great GreenCine editor dwhudson:
The comic-book geek, long regarded with paternalistic tolerance by mainstream culture, has been cruelly undone by his latest big-screen crush, Sin City. For despite pretences of sophistication—a Cannes premiere, a media charm offensive, and even suggestions of High Art—this computer-generated comic-book adaptation is so steeped in fetishistic adolescent imagery and casual misogyny that it overexposes the sinister appetites of its hardcore fanbase. In fact, such is the sublime level of sexual sadism on display here (paedophilia and slut-killing are big in Sin City), and so relentless is the leering softcore depiction of prostitutes, dancers and slatternly lowlifes, that the movie unwittingly reveals the frank and masturbatory hatred of women that is fundamental to any understanding of the comic-book geek.
« via GreenCine »
I think that I share Johnny Waco's concerns about the broader criticism of the piece. "how would we respond specifically to charges of fetishizing and "casual misogyny"? ...what is the defense?" I feel that "portraying the truth of a situation" that "actually happens" is a fig leaf for mistreatment of a subject. Plenty of things can be "true" but that doesn't absolve directors (producers, movie studios, actors etc) from responsibility for what is displayed on screen.
"Reality" is no excuse for turning off our judgement, moral or otherwise. So, while there may be rapes, cannibals and chain-smokers in the real world, that alone is no justification for showing it all (and nothing else) on film. (I have had this problem with other movies, including The Color Purple and the way that the Dread Spielberg dealt with poor rural African-Americans, spousal abuse and the abuse of women as well as their intelligence.)
I do have a tough time believing that there is an inner-city ghetto run by a cabal of nymphet prostitutes who hack policemen to death with an assortment of swords. However I do admit that there are probably ladies of the evening who turn rope-tricks and if this is what you want to see then, by all means, go in peace. Or pieces. I'd like to suggest that prostitutes and strippers with "dignity and strength" are still prostitutes and strippers. I wholeheartedly agree that these issues should at least be recognized and then, hopefully, "adressed and confronted."
It personally feel that there is a distinction to be made in "entertainment from 'documentation' or 'stylized themes'." Documentary violence is, by and large, not intended to titillate nor does it. Violence that is stylized is designed to excite even as it depersonalizes and glosses over the more distasteful aspects of violation; it makes it all thrilling as well as acceptable. Perhaps "palatable" is more accurate than "acceptable". Having said this, I still think that realistic violence (even when it is put into a moral context) can be used in a fetishistic and manipulative way. (Again, the Dread Spielberg and Saving Private Ryan and let me point out that I wasn't the first one here to bring up the work of the Dread Spielberg.)
I'm also someone who takes "issue with someone who attacks something they don't understand, and marginalises the audience it is associated with." I may be alone in this (as I often am) but I don't think that this necessarily invalidates the attack itself. I also feel that the value system that exists internally within a work should not shield the work from condemnation. I think that most of us enjoy retribution exacted from "cartoonishly evil perpretrators." (That may be what they are there for.) Nor do I think that a creative work which depicts an amoral or immoral (or evil) worldview is automatically prurient, misogynist, racist, etc and therefore without merit.
The ethos professed by an artistic work isn't always the spirit of the work itself. What I mean to say is that the values of a fictional world are not always the same as the morality of the piece of fiction. Winston Smith finds true happiness and a love for Big Brother by the end of 1984 and I consider Orwell's work to be one of the greatest morality plays ever written. In spite of the fact that "everybody in that movie gets violated one way or another" and "prostitution doesn't mean a lack of integrity, and women handle their own problems" the film remains misogynistic in my eyes. It may well be true that all of the "rapists, abusers of women, and slut-killers are portrayed as unequivicably evil and deserving of harsh and violent reprisal" but this can't erase the fact that the women are all rape victims, physically abused and/or sluts.
It is not "kinda equal-opportunity exploitation" when women in various states of undress get a fleeting opportunity to try and even the score. When I watch a slasher film the blonde who displays more breasts than brains throughout the movie is usually able to inflict some injury upon the overdressed homicidal maniac. Sometimes she even escapes or kills him. It never ever crosses my mind that the guy in the mask has been exploited no matter how violent or fetishistic his death ends up being. I do really like the issue of "the questionable morality of avenging violence with more violence" but I didn't see any possibility of a non-violent resolution in the film, no matter what the conflict, even if that possibility would have ultimately been rejected.
Well, I have now reached my self-imposed character/boredom limit without the chance to address "one of the sloppiest, over-simplistic, stupid, and flat-out wrong statements I have read in print this year." All appearances to the contrary, I rather agree with that characterization but I found the discussion here more interesting by far. Thank you all for that. Let me just say that I'd guess that a "masturbatory hatred of women" would be a reflexive (repetitive?) degradation of women and the belief that their only purpose is to serve the desires ("needs"?) of men.
Having said all that let me say that I love the Frank Miller books and I also thought that the movie was excellent... and I'll leave it at that. You might consider yourselves lucky... but I hope that you feel otherwise.
from odysseus...'"Reality" is no excuse for turning off our judgement, moral or otherwise.'
I'm not saying it is an excuse, the problem is it's used as one in some cases, but unacceptable as an excuse in others... again discluding sin city because I've never seen it, but that is exactly the excuse used for violence that is "ok'd" by people like the guy who wrote the article... anyway, my opinion is that no moral judgement need be made as a whole audience, judge it personally, like it or leave it, "adressing and confronting" are hugely overrated actions used by people who have nothing better to do than try and tell people what is and is not acceptable in ART(thought of as pure entertainment or not)... now if you were arguing the rating this movie was given that is another story, but the guy who wrote the article is just complaining about an apparent widespread mysogyny that has, to my knowledge, not been realized or come to unfold in the comic book community... I don't often hear about any real mysogyny brought on by comic books.
If Kevin Maher ok'd any form of violence in his article then I've either misinterpreted him or it totally went over my head. If you're talking about violence ok'd by "people like the guy who wrote the article" then I don't know what kind of people you're talking about. Or I've misinterpreted you. Or your reasoning has just gone over my head. If you could help me with my confusion(s?) I'd appreciate it.
If I understand what you're saying about "moral judgement... made as a whole audience" then I think that I agree. Censoring works of art, even works of entertainment, makes me feel uneasy. I certainly do not mean to dictate anyone's personal reaction to a work. However, I do believe that a person's personal reaction to art has to exist within a context, both artistic and social. To do otherwise is the very definition of psychotic. There is much to enjoy, even admire, in Birth of a Nation and Triumph des Willens but to watch them unaware or removed from any consideration of racism is wrong. It is wrong and it is dangerous. (lukeprog: Relax. I haven't forgotten. As always, as soon as I can articulate it I plan to.)
I think that it's problematic to try and make the case that there isn't a lot of misogyny in "the comic book community." At the very least, women in comics usually have little beyond a short list of very important, very large, attributes. Much as I hate misogyny (and who in their right mind wouldn't/doesn't?) I must admit that I find some of it acceptable. To put it in a better way, I find a little of it tolerable. (That may actually be a distinction without a difference.) I like (and own) several of Frank Miller's works. I think that the way he treats women is, for the lack of a better word... brutal. No matter how "artistic" or "loving" or "beautiful" their treatment might be it is still degrading. Liking ("appreciating" might be a better word) this kind of entertainment is not the worst thing that can happen... I tell myself. Failure to recognize the sexualization, the fetishistic erotism, the sexism, the paedophillia and all that "stuff" is truly the worst thing that can happen.
There may be no answer as to whether misogyny is caused by comics or merely reflected in them. It goes far beyond the question of pneumatic blondes becoming scientists in comics... they often are. But normal women, women who won't drive you into an eating disorder, women who don't make you feel like you need cosmetic "procedures" to add and subtract material from different regions of your body, women who exist for something more than to serve the interests of men, women who don't always wear make up, for gosh sakes!.. Normal women are not just invisible in comics, they are not just absent... they don't exist at all. It's like professional wrestling (and serves the same audience) where only a certain type of "women" exist. No matter how much people claim that these women are modern, independent and that they are not exploited it is obvious that they are nothing more than birds in gilded cages. And in reality, someone who truly loves birds would never stand for that.
To make the claim that women portrayed in comic books are nothing but pneumatic bimbos is misleading. First, it depends which comic books you're reading (as anyone who's read Martha Washington Goes to War can attest to). Second, you are right for the most part, but it is misleading to imply that only women are treated in such an unrealistic light. Men in real life are hardly the massive muscle-bound he-men portrayed in comics. Certainly the type of men who read comic books are probably not the type to spend all their time at the gym (Vin Diesel excepted). You say that "the way [Frank Miller] treats women is, for the lack of a better word... brutal," but you make no mention of the fact that the men are treated with equivalent brutality, unless you consider the 2-time mutilation of a man's genitals normal. The fact of the matter is that the mainstream comics portray an idealised, exaggerated world. The women are bustier, the men musclier, the evil eviler, the good better, and the heroes (women included) have powers beyond any realistic human capabilities. Given that these are the conventions of comic books, then a film based on a comic book should be regarded with those conventions in mind.
I think you're right about art not being exempt from real-life morality. However, I don't think that it's art's job to portray an idealised morality. It is the audience's job to sort out for themselves what morals they can glean or reject from a work of art. Now obviously, taken to an extreme it would be irresponsible and silly to absolve artists from taking responsibility for their own work. However it is also a mistake to leave the responsibility for morality up to those who provide our entertainment. The problem, of course, is that we live in a society that shuns personal responsibility, but that's a discussion I'd really rather not delve into here, as I believe it's beyond the scope of discussing a film based on a comic book.
One other thing I'd like to address about the "fetishization" of misogyny. The horrors portrayed in Sin City are certainly designed to shock, and maybe even to titillate a little bit. That's no different from any other violent film - the simple fact is it sells. But it's a leap to think that it promotes misogyny in the audience. You make reference to Birth of a Nation - if we are expected to recognize that work as artistically important while still acknowledging its problematic morality, why can we not do the same for a work like Sin City ?
never having argued the point of mysogyny in comic books, I would like to admit that as an outsider to the comic book world I found myself nodding to that section of the article, about the shortcomings of female characters... but on the same side, I know plenty of comic book geeks, and none of them are the least bit mysogynistic, if that is how they like their female characters and it doesn't make a bit of difference in real life... so who cares... and I'd like to congratulate buddy for his articulating the idea that men and women in comic books are brutalized and all that... that makes much more sense than what the article was portraying, explained a lot.
and when I said that addressing and confronting these issues was pointless and shouldn't be done, i meant on a public widespread level... address away personally or with others that come in contact with, but writing articles and publicly condemning a whole group of people, why address such a thing, it's a damn movie.
Just a small niggling point. I'm actually a "she", not a "he". Not that it should make much difference, but in a discussion about the portrayal of men and women, maybe it does. I don't know.
And I actually disagree with it being pointless to publish an article confronting whatever issues arise from a movie. It's popular culture, and as such reaches a large number of people. Since our entertainment reveals much about societal values and interests, I think there's great value in discussing such things. I just happened to strongly disagree with the article in question, which was poorly argued and under-informed.
And as an aside, I keep considering creating a new name for myself here. This is the second time I've been mistaken for male. But I've done so much posting under the name "buddy", I hesitate to switch gears this late in the game. I originally picked the name because it's slightly ambiguous and I didn't think it should be an issue which gender someone is. Also, that's what some friends called me. Oh well, let the ambiguity continue, I guess.
I could always change your existing screen name, if you like. Of course, then there'll be a disconnect between posts that refer to you by name and your new handle, but otherwise it would have the effect of just changing your handle everywhere else it appears on the site.
What I should probably do is add a preference to the profile page where folks can specify male or female, then whenever somebody's handle appears on the site, I'll either include some hyperstylized bulging muscles, or a balloonish set of black-and-white breasts. :-)
Heh. Actually my problem is not so much the mechanics of changing my handle, as people already knowing me by one name. I've been known by a few names in various places and at various times in my real life, and after a while it just gets confusing. In places where people know me as buddy, I post as buddy. In all other places I'm susie derkins. I think I'll stick with that for the time being. Thanks, though!
"Susie Derkins", now there's a good handle! (I like "buddy" too, though)
Thanks! "Elaine Benes" was another possibility, but there's something about Susie that I always identified with. Maybe it's her complete bafflement about the male species.
Can you blame her, given her representative sample? Actually, "representative" is probably quite apt, in this case.
No, I can't blame her at all. He is quite representative, I'd say. Like her, I find boys chaotic, strange, alien, a little bit fascinating, and I may just like them. Just a little bit. :)
Excellent response. Thank you.
You're right about "the massive muscle-bound he-men" being equally unrealistic. They look like steroid cases inflated to 32 psi. They have muscles in places most men don't have places. They could be used as floats in a parade. I think that there is a difference here between equal and equivalent. The bizarre physiques of heroes of both genders are still the products of (admittedly stereotypical) "comic-book geeks".
The brutality to either gender also fits into the same framework. I don't mean to imply that all women are above the use or enjoyment of violence but the sexual undertone (overtone? tone?) and the power struggle strike me as masculine in both motivation and execution (so to speak.) I'd like to mention that there also seems to be an abundance of pot-bellied, bushy-browed villians wandering the pages of graphic novels. As you say, "these are the conventions... [and] a comic book should be regarded with those conventions in mind." One of the points (the point?) I was trying to make is that this worldview should be recognized for what it is. This "idealised, exaggerated world" is a cruel one for women.
I haven't read Martha Washington Goes to War but, from the flash research that I did, she looks fairly pneumatic to me. (At least some...) People seem to have a problem with its unremitting political correctness. I have less of a problem viewing a fictional reality through this lens but I think that the PC worldview should also be recognized for what it is. I feel that, exactly like the (more) typical portrayals of women and men in mainstream comics, the treatment of Caucasian capitalists and African-American women are both unrealistic and dangerous if they go unchallenged. Just because the women/men and minority/majority dichotomies are equally stereotypical does not mean that they are equivalent and that an artist (or medium) is even-handed.
I'm in complete agreement with you (if I'm interpreting you correctly) when you say that it's not "art's job to portray an idealised morality." What I meant to communicate and emphasize was that the ideals of an artists work should be recognized and taken into account. "The mainstream comics [which] portray an idealised, exaggerated world" should have its ideals identified by an audience. The dynamic between personal and collective responsibility is an interesting, intelligent and subtle one and you certainly are correct that "it's beyond the scope of discussing a film based on a comic book." And I'd like to propose that an artist who doesn't/can't identify the ideals of her work isn't much of an artist. And I'd like to follow your example and leave that idea undelved. For the purpose of this conversation. For now.
I'd like to say something about the "One other thing... [you] address about the "fetishization" of misogyny." What I'd like to say is, "Exactly. Bravo."
(Okay, I'd like to say something more...) The fact that Sin City (in both of its incarnations) is "no different from any other violent film... it sells" was the biggest problem that I had/have with the article that kicked this all off. Maher fails to realize and address (or flat-out ignores) the fact that studio executives (ie "Hollywood") have the same sensibilities as the "typical socially maladjusted and intellectually inert comic-book geek." This means that movie-goers, by and large, are guilty of the same transgressions. However, I suppose that movie-goers are not as inviting a target as "comic-book geeks". (Let me note that I think there is far more diversity in the world of film than there is in the comic book world. But adolescent boys still make up the largest segment of ticket buyers... you can see this in the movies that are made and the budgets that they get.) There may be a thin line between something "that it promotes misogyny in the audience" and something that makes it acceptable. I happen to think that it is far more complex, problematic and the difference exists in shades of grey.
You conclude by saying that, "if we are expected to recognize that work as artistically important while still acknowledging its problematic morality, why can we not do the same for a work like Sin City?" and I believe that we are in agreement. I'd like to answer that by changing the word order, but not the import, of your question. We are expected to recognize problematic morality while still acknowledging work as artistically important. There is no reason that we cannot do the same for a work like Sin City . That is how I'd like to conclude.
Fair enough. I'd just like to say that I never thought I'd be in such an in-depth discussion about a comic book. I find more often than not (if I discuss comic books at all), I'm defending the medium as an art form rather than discussing the finer points about morality. This whole thing has caused me to consider some issues surrounding comics that I hadn't really before. Interesting, and thanks for the input.
Whoops! (maybe)
If your "Fair enough" is in response to my "That is how I'd like to conclude..." then please don't think that I meant to cut off discussion. I just wanted to end my post in that way. Obviously I'm interested in what you think and I didn't want to force everything to a premature conclusion.
There. No need to keep on responding. Now that you know, I feel better... even if you didn't misconstrue me.
Then again, on the other hand, maybe I might decide to choose to be indecisive... Who knows? Perhaps it's possible.
No worries, you weren't misconstrued. I had just said all I meant to say, and appreciated your input. If you had any more to say on the subject, of course you're more than welcome. Go ahead and feel better. :)
Just a few random issues:
1) Here's an interesting thought - when Bonnie and Clyde came out, it raised questions about the glamourisation of violence. By today's standards it's, well, pretty standard. The scale may be different, but the issue seems to be a timeless one.
2) Here in the UK the film is restricted to 18 yrs. So would this discussion be different if the rating was different in the US?
3) The film industry is so widely distributed that any controversy is immediately, and loudly, debated in public fora. Yet the comic book industry has been plugging along virtually unchecked by public watchdogs. As far as I know, there are no age restrictions when buying comics (unless they're pornographic, in which case they come under porn laws).
4) The critic Jim quoted says "paedophilia and slut-killing are big in Sin City". This is blatantly untrue, as the reason the story is being told is because the cartoonishly evil perpretrators of these crimes are due for reprisal. If this kind of thing were par for the course and "big in Sin City", then surely it wouldn't cause such passionate reactions in Sin City's other citizens. At no point are the offenses against women considered in a glamourous light. Perhaps the bigger issue is the questionable morality of avenging violence with more violence. But that's the deal with Sin City, isn't it - that justice must be meted out by the public due to the corruption of the police force. Doesn't Batman touch on this same issue? What is the morality of individual-driven justice?
4) Sin City was never meant for a young audience. The unenlightened masses still believe that comics (and cartoons) are for kids, and hence the backlash against Sin City. However it is my opinion that Frank Miller (among others) has done much to bring comic books into the adult realm, giving them more style and sophistication than can be appreciated by a younger audience. I think the biggest mistake the critic makes is to think that the fanbase for the Sin City comic books are adolescent boys. While it is true that adolescent boys are titillated by such content, but I would argue that the target audience for this kind of work is more akin to the target audience for Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, or some other non-Quentin Tarantino film. (Oops - I'm drawing a blank.)
It can hardly be called misogynistic when the rapists, abusers of women, and slut-killers are portrayed as unequivicably evil and deserving of harsh and violent reprisal. It is a world where prostitution doesn't mean a lack of integrity, and women handle their own problems. As a woman, sometime comic-book reader, and human being with a literature degree, I take issue with someone who attacks something they don't understand, and marginalises the audience it is associated with.
Which is all to say that this person should be casually dismissed as a dumbass.
OK, it's bulls**t.
There are two things here. The first is the stereotyping of comic-book "geeks," which lbangs rightly eviscerates as simplistic.
But how would we respond specifically to charges of fetishizing and "casual misogyny"? In the film, there is a lot of violence directed toward women, and almost every woman is a stripper or prostitute. I can see why some cultural critics would make charges like this; what is the defense?
Johnny Waco (who loved Sin City!)
my defense has always been that why does it matter? it's a movie portraying the truth of a situation... you don't call a movie about the holocaust anti-semetic... so don't call a movie about inner city comic book violence and strippers and prostitutes misogynistic.
I think the biggest problem with this is when there is a rape scene in a movie about gangsters or criminals, like OUATIAmerica, leone got flack for being mysogynistic simply for showing a gangster with whom the audience feels for raping someone and paying for it in the end... it's all a bit ridiculous...
I'd also like to know what the hell a "masturbatory hatred of women" even means.
Well, except that the Holocaust actually happened, and Sin City is solely the creation of one artist's imagination...
Johnny Waco
are you saying that "paedophilia, slut-killing" and the "softcore depiction of prostitutes, dancers and slatternly lowlifes" doesn't actually happen? that is my point
I mean he's not saying that a bunch of nuns are snorting coke and riding bikers all night long, this stuff actually happens, so why can't he put it in his fiction? just like any other fiction movie does, usually without question, unless of course it's mysogyny, then there is a problem.
I simply think it's inappropriate to compare works struggling to come to terms with the Holocaust, one of the most horrific events in history, and a work like Sin City that, as much as I like it, is composed of styles, images, and themes from hard-boiled pulp novels and noir; Sin City is entertainment, first and foremost, not a documentation or meditation on reality.
Frank Miller pulls from works that, yes, probably contained more than their fair share of misogyny and titillating violence. He may give it a different spin, giving the women more dignity and strength, even when they are prostitutes and strippers, but it is still legitimate for a critic to question what is being said through a book/film like Sin City. He may be an idiot in his simplistic stereotyping, but the issues he brings up regarding the work itself deserve to be adressed and confronted, not dismissed as the writings of a "dumbass," as another post labeled them. Calling names and glossing over his critiques is just too easy.
Johnny Waco
see, it's things like this that are the problem... thinking that something like the holocaust is somehow more real than other violence, that really happens, granted I've never seen sin city, so i can't make an argument specifically to that, nor do i want to... but dismissing any movie's moral merit by saying it's "entertainment, first and foremost" and needs to be "addressed" is in my mind dumbass-worthy, how is a random violent "entertainment" movie any less meditative than an "entertainment" movie about the holocaust(I've seen very few war movies in general that weren't for entertainment), whether you get that entertainment from "documentation" or "stylized themes", doesn't make any difference to me... it's all of the same standing as long as prejudicial and demeaning comments and themes aren't just made up out of thin air and used as a device of insult... and from what i've read, that would put sin city no further down the "moral ladder" than a film about the holocaust... and I wish people would stop giving that whiny "innapropriate to compare works" about this, with works like this, because one was a horrific event in history and one wasn't... I wish that guys who write articles like this would get their heads out of his asses, they are ALL movies.
I never thought I'd even indirectly be defending any film robert rodriguez had a hand in, specially one i've never even seen.
As films standing alone, a Holocaust film can be compared to any other film no problem, at least on levels of effectiveness, acting, script, etc., but if we are examining the specific issues brought up by the critic, then this is something else entirely. Holocaust films, whether effective or not, are dealing with, from different angles and aspects, the central evil event of the twentieth century, if not of all time. The violence in Sin City on the other hand, is stylized. When the film first came out, many film critics, including several listology users, pointed out that Sin City would surely have been rated NC-17 if it had not been so stylized, and that the film could be accused of being a case of "style over substance." There is nothing wrong with that necessarily, but the critic Jim quoted above poses a legitimate question: does this violence reflect a deeply embedded misogyny and casual approach to violence that stems from the comic-book world and its fans? I answer his question as several have here, no, this kind of stereotyping is simplistic and offensive. However, does Sin City, standing completely apart from its comic book origins, go too far in its use of violence? Is the violence misogynistic? I'm still not sure about that.
The film is certainly not trying to portray realistic violence or the situations we find in inner-city America--does that make the horrific violence here different than that in Schindler's List for example? Does Schindler's List use violence more responsibly? Does it use it for a more noble purpose? Yes, yes, and yes. That still doesn't mean Sin City is a reprehensible or irresponsible film, but it does mean that it is a question to be taken seriously, and that the critic is right to raise the issue, even if we decide he is ultimately wrong, and that he is way off-base with his other absurd assertions.
Johnny Waco
fair enough... again I was ranting in general and have never seen sin city
No more personal attacks, please, or I'll start moderating this thread, and nobody wants that.
Getting back to the topic at hand, my primary objection with the original piece is the stereotyping of the fans. Certainly many of the other points the author raises aim squarely at the "guilty" part of my listing the movie as a "guilty pleasure". I, for one, couldn't sit down and watch it with my wife without blushing mightily. In fact, having two young daughters the movie made me wonder whether I really wanted to keep those comic books on the shelves...
Sure, the women are empowered, but only up to a certain point. And they are far more objectified and violated than they are empowered. But then again, everybody in that movie gets violated one way or another, so it's kinda equal-opportunity exploitation (I'd have to watch it again and keep score to see how equal).
Interesting thing about the softcore porn aspects of the movie - as scantily clad as everyone was, I did not find it particularly titillating. Just as the violence dodged the NC-17 rating by stylizing it, I think lots of the sex appeal was stylized away as well. Which perhaps leaves me with stylized guilt rather than the real thing.
Ah, I see now that several of the posts above have been clarified (I was working from the e-mail notifications rather than the latest versions of the posts). Sorry about the moderation threat, and thanks for clearing things up.
yeah, my bad, poor wording... any of my personal attacks that seemed aimed at johnny are really aimed at the guy who wrote the article, even one i think i missed in my editing.
I saw something that seemed to be a personal attack and pointed out that I was angry about that, but then I saw grandpa_chum revised it, and I figured he simply mistyped, so I revised as well. I don't want any misunderstandings, and I certainly have no ill feelings towards anybody. I've enjoyed this discussion, believe it or not...
Johnny Waco
haha, i enjoyed it to... when i rant so randomly I lose track of who it is i'm directing statements towards, luckily i read it through after posting the first time.
B*llsh*t.
I second a Bull sh***
My, what a load...
For starters, you really can't use Sin City as an example of a typical comic book in any sense whatsoever.
Even more pathetic, though, the line, "the frank and masturbatory hatred of women that is fundamental to any understanding of the comic-book geek" is one of the sloppiest, over-simplistic, stupid, and flat-out wrong statements I have read in print this year.
Complete crap.
Is that the sort of feedback you were awaiting, Jim? :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
You've summed it up nicely, thanks! I read that whole pile of drivel mouth agape (not the ideal oral configuration when presented with a pile of anything, frankly).