The Four Color Media Monitor

Didn't Buffy and Angel already have sex in the tv show? Was that treated with respect, or not? (Never watched Buffy, so.)

Great, there is nothing worse but a bad lemon, but being paid for it. Headdesk.

Ah, c'mon Avi. Didn't you get the memo? For comics to be considered adult/grown up/not just for kids/worthy of serious literary consideration/deserving of scholarly musings, they must have potty language, strong sexual content and/or incredibly violent imagery. Great storytelling? Nah! Exceptional characterization? Forgetaboutit!

Just walk away, Avi. Slowly.

*headdesk* indeed, John K. Yes, Angel and Buffy have had sex on the show--but only once, because that "moment of happiness" made Angel lose his soul and go on an evil rampage that could only be stopped by Willow restoring Angel's soul to him. So I'm not sure how they could revisit that one--unless all the characters are hit with amnesia AND have their IQs lowered hundred points or so.*

Yeah, there are lots of feminist Whedon fans who keep telling me how "pro-women" he is, and when I'm watching Buffy and Serenity I almost believe them. I keep wondering which member of the Whedon family is being held hostage by Meltzer.

*Of course, IC couldn't be created unless everyone had been hit with amnesia and have their IQs lowered a hundred points or so; it seems to be par for the course with BM. He doesn't care about backstory, no matter how many writers have created it. how many years it took, or the total lack of logic; all that matters is that "Hey, let's make Jean Loring a murderer because that would be really cool!" or "Hey, let's make Buffy an empty headed slut because that would be really cool!"

Uh, wow. There's just miles of silly here, and I don't know where to begin. Okay...

Brad Meltzer is not a "so-called novelist." He writes novels. That makes him a novelist. He can be a so-called good writer if a person feels inclined to that opinion. But saying he's a "so-called novelist" makes as much sense as calling him a "so-called white male."

No, they don't "make sex (and romance) look and sound as though it's bad for the human race and the rest of the universe." That's the bizarre conclusion you drew from reading someone's review. Remember Telephone? One kid whispers something to another kid, who then whispers it to another, who whispers it to yet another until what was originally said is distorted into something completely different. What you've done is the Internet-home version of Telephone.

Joss Whedon writing an introduction for Identity Crisis doesn't put his respect for women in doubt. That's asinine. At most, it arguably puts his taste in comics in doubt.

And thinking Buffy f#©%ing Angel makes her an empty headed slut is more misogynistic than what's said to be in the comic.

Whoa, Skippy. You've dumped your own megaton of silly here, so let's sort it out;

Brad Meltzer is not a "so-called novelist." He writes novels. That makes him a novelist.

1. Yeah, BM writes novels. Bad novels. To paraphrase a line from a good novelist "That's not novel writing, that's typing." You're picking a teeny, tiny nit about phasing, that's all.

Joss Whedon writing an introduction for Identity Crisis doesn't put his respect for women in doubt. That's asinine.

No, what's asinine is telling folks to ignore the actual content of a work. It's difficult for me to believe Whedon has much respect for women when he writes an intro to a comic where the female characters are either killed, turned evil, or rendered voiceless. You can tell me how much you love civil rights all day, but if you write an into to a GN where one of the few good, important black characters is murdered, another is turned into a villain, and the rest are turned impotent so the white guys can look much better than they actually were, then I'm going to have trouble believing you.

2. No, they don't "make sex (and romance) look and sound as though it's bad for the human race and the rest of the universe." That's the bizarre conclusion you drew from reading someone's review.

Avi didn't draw any conclusion, my trollish friend. He quoted a negative review from a critic who's actually read the comic (something you haven't done, it seems). Then he said the concept sounded "stupid", which it does. It sounds even more stupid to me since I've actually watched "Buffy", which is something else you apparently haven't done.

And thinking Buffy f#©%ing Angel makes her an empty headed slut is more misogynistic than what's said to be in the comic.

3. No, sleeping with Angel once doesn't make her an empty-headed slut. Sleeping with him AGAIN even though she knows that the last time she did so caused him to go on a murderous, torturing, killing spree makes her an empty-headed slut. See the difference? Reading is fundamental.

Of course, a bad novelist like Meltzer doesn't care that such a development makes no sense from a character stand-point. The big fascination for him is Angel and Buffy "doing it". If you can't think of anything to do with your female characters other than turn them evil or get them into bed, regardless of logic, emotion, or their past history, that makes you a misogynist, if you even understand such a word.

Thanks for playing, Skippy. Feel free to go hide under your bridge again.

Dang. Blogger ate my comment. :-(

It's alright, it's there. I'd noticed that there was a strange glitch in the comments that caused 2 or 3 to just appear on the "backstage" pages, but another comment added seems to fix the problem.

Yeah, BM writes novels.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

It's difficult for me to believe Whedon has much respect for women when he writes an intro to a comic where the female characters are either killed, turned evil, or rendered voiceless.

You're probably right. An intro to a comic you don't like outweighs everything he's written himself, everything he's said, and the relationships he's had with women. That makes sense.

Avi didn't draw any conclusion, my trollish friend. He quoted a negative review from a critic who's actually read the comic (something you haven't done, it seems). Then he said the concept sounded "stupid", which it does. It sounds even more stupid to me since I've actually watched "Buffy", which is something else you apparently haven't done.

Yes. He did draw a conclusion. It's right there in his post. Look again.

I've watched the TV show, but I don't read the comic. And still I can recognize the dissonance between what the review says is in the comic and what Avi says is in it because I have basic reading comprehension skills. Something you seem to lack.

No, sleeping with Angel once doesn't make her an empty-headed slut. Sleeping with him AGAIN even though she knows that the last time she did so caused him to go on a murderous, torturing, killing spree makes her an empty-headed slut. See the difference? Reading is fundamental.

Exactly! Reading is fundamental. Go read the comic and not someone's review.

Don't worry. I'll wait. I'll still be here when you finish.

Done? See the difference between what you're saying and what's actually in comic?

Of course, a bad novelist like Meltzer doesn't care that such a development makes no sense from a character stand-point. The big fascination for him is Angel and Buffy "doing it". If you can't think of anything to do with your female characters other than turn them evil or get them into bed, regardless of logic, emotion, or their past history, that makes you a misogynist, if you even understand such a word.

I understand it. But the way you use it, I don't believe you do.

And now you too are coming to bizarre conclusions without having actually read the comic. Buffy doesn't have sex with Angel because Meltzer "can't think of anything other than get her into bed," anymore than her having sex with Angel during the 2nd season was because Whedon couldn't think of anything else to do with her. The comic series' plot is propelled forward by the act; enough of it that it was probably something Whedon plotted and passed on to Meltzer when he wrote his issues.

Thanks for playing, Skippy. Feel free to go hide under your bridge again.

Always happy to shine a tiny light of knowledge into a pitch black room of ignorance, Jeany.