Spirited Attempt

The first issue of DC's Will Eisner's The Spirit is a good comic book story, but it doesn't really capture the spirit (sorry about that) of Eisner's work.

For one thing, the story's too long. At 22 pages (OK--two of them are a useless double-page spread for the splash page), it's almost four times as long as one of Eisner's eight-page classics. And, yes, Eisner would have managed to get in the same plot in just those eight pages. This would have worked much better with two eight-to-ten page stories (make them related, if you must) with the kind of tight plotting Eisner excelled in.

While the art, overall, captures the sense of Eisner's work without slavishly aping his style, the coloring is horrendous. What Eisner would have accomplished in his line work--blending black and white to create a noir-ish look to the page--artists Darwyn Cooke and J. Bone have left to colorist Dave Stewart to achieve. The result is just muddy, not shadowy. If the dialog didn't, at one point, tell us that the Spirit is dressed all in blue, we'd never know it. Except for the cover shot, his outfit looks grey throughout.

And that's another thing--the exchange between the Spirit and newscaster Ginger Coffee about his outfit is just too fanboy-oriented. It sounds like the kind of discussion two guys in a comics shop would have about why the suit, mask and hat work as a disguise. Eisner never explained why nobody recognized the Spirit as the "late" Denny Colt--they just didn't. It was a given, part of the willing suspension of disbelief needed to make the stories operate.

Oh--and the villain seems far more Chester Gould/Dick Tracy than Eisner/Spirit in tone.

On the other hand, there are a number of nice touches in the story--the opening sequence, showing the cable news coverage, is very good, right down to the throw-away partial stories we see in the "crawl" at the bottom of the screen. ("...wo headed puppy killer captures jurors' hearts..." "...ited Nations officials finally admit they're 'basically useles...") Ginger Coffee's narration of her own rescue--which the Spirit originally thinks is just an annoying habit--is brilliantly funny.


This wasn't a total disappointment...just not a complete success. I look forward to what this team does in future issues.

Home-Schooled Speller to be Included

In what I consider to be a really bad decision, the Avon Grove school district has decided to let Meghan Reynolds participate in the middle school spelling bee. See the full story here.

What the story doesn't adequately explain (to me, anyway) is how Meghan is going to qualify for the school-wide bee. All the other participants qualify by winning the preliminary round in their respective classrooms. The only student in Meghan's "classroom" (her home) is Meghan--she is, perforce, the winner. She will be the only competitor at the school-wide level who has not had to prove herself in an earlier round. This is fair? She's essentially getting what would be considered a "bye" in the first round in an athletic tournament...but, of course, teams that get "byes" in athletic tournaments earn them by their standings.

To reiterate my earlier stance--parents who choose to home-school their kids have made a choice. I think they should have to live with all the consequences of that choice--including the fact that their child will not (or should not) be able to participate in extra-curricular activities in the public schools (and certainly not in semi-academic ones like a spelling bee). I just don't get the idea that these parents think the schools aren't a good place to educate their kids but a fine place for them to play.

A Plea for Inclusion--Except Where It Counts

The following is based on a letter sent to the Philadelphia Inquirer, in response to this article.

"She just wants to be included," says Kim Reynolds of her home-schooled daughter and the fight for her to take part in Fred S. Engle Middle School's spelling bee. Yes, she wants to be included, except where it really counts--in the classroom.

The winner of the school's spelling bee, who will go on to the county-wide level, should represent the students of the school. Meghan Reynolds represents no one except herself and her family. She is not a member of the student body of Engle Middle School.

As a life-long proponent of public education, I am opposed to Pennsylvania's Act 67 and its requirement that home-schooled students be permitted to participate in extra-curricular activities at public schools in their districts. Why? If such activities are so important to them, why is not the rest of the public school experience--classes and lunch with their peers, the camaraderie in hallways--not equally as important? If the argument is that their parents are paying taxes to support these activities, the same can be said of parochial school students; yet no one argues for those students to be part of the extra-curricular activities at public schools.

In many districts, there are curricular components to these activities. In my own district, band and chorus are classes, for which students receive a grade. That seems to be the case for Engle's spelling bee, as well. Further, in many districts, there are academic requirements that must be met before one can participate, especially in athletics. Who assures that the home-schooled students are meeting the same requirements? Their parents?

No--a well-rounded education consists of many things...and class participation should not be separated from extra-curricular participation. If you choose not to be part of the first, you should not demand to be part of the second.

Aren't "Surges" Something to Avoid?

There's a reason we use "surge protectors" in electronics. Surges are dangerous--they are unpredictable with usually disastrous results.

Odd that President Bush can't see that.

A few days ago, just after Dubya's speech about the "surge", my wife--well aware of my politics--asked me who would be in a lower circle of Hell, Nixon or Bush II? I had to think about it for a while, and I think I've come to a reluctant conclusion--the Shrub is definitely destined to a lower level, IMO.

Why? Well, for all his faults, I never doubted that Nixon--even in the depths of Watergate--thought he was acting in the best interests of the nation. He was wrong--tragically so--but his intentions were never entirely selfish. And he certainly never had the hubris to suggest that he and his actions were, in some way, ordained by the Almighty.

Not so with Bush. I am quite convinced now that the only thing GWB is concerned with is his own image and legacy--nothing is more important to him than to not have a "failure" of the magnitude of Iraq occur on his watch. And so his tactic is "delay, delay, delay"...find any way to prop up his program for another two years, so that when the US withdrawal eventually comes, he can say, "That wasn't me, that was the next guy."

That overwhelming concern with self, combined with his belief--both stated and tacit--that his electoral victories (such as they were) were signs that he was divinely chosen to lead America at this time, and combined with his utter disregard for the clear meaning of the Constitution's words regarding the powers of the executive and legislative branches (never mind the Bill of Rights), make him a far more dangerous, and--yes--villainous individual than Nixon ever was.

In Shakespearean terms, Nixon was our MacBeth--a man who could have been a great leader destroyed by personal demons. George W. Bush, on the other hand, is our Richard III--a conniving schemer who thinks the success of his schemes is the hand of God at work...and their lack of success merely the work of those who will not recognize his divine inspiration.

Look What I Found!

I was going through my files, in anticipation of some more posting here, and discovered I still had something I thought was long gone--the original art that Phil Foglio did to go with the Challengers of the Unknown submission I discussed here. At left is Phil's version of the Challs--Rocky, Ace, Red (wearing the cold-weather version of the uniform), and Prof.

And here are the villians I was planning to use in that initial story--Multi-Man, D-Man, Roc, the Gargoyle, and Mistress Wycker--all established foes of the team. The plot, as I recall, revolved around a threat to the Challs' loved ones, especially Ace and June's daughter, Maggie.

"Entitled to Your Educated Opinion...."

I believe it was Harlan Ellison--and someone is sure to correct me if I'm wrong--who said, "Everyone is not entitled to his opinion; rather , everyone is entitled to his educated opinion." (It might be "informed" rather than "educated", but the point's the same.

An interesting discussion on this point is currently going on on comicon.com in a thread entitled, "OK for pros to bash fans on Comicon?".

The gist is summed up in these postings:

matchesmalone

Now that we've exhausted the wit of Bernard "You Work at McDonald's" Chang, here's the wisdom (from one of his replies to me):

"if you have to ask a question like: '...how does one both pencil and ink in the digital environment?' - should you really be commenting about art in general?

So how about it fans and pros alike, do you have a right to an opinion about "art in general" if you don't know how to both pencil and ink in the digital environment? Should only professional comics artists be entitled to have opinions about the work of professional comics artists? Should only friends of Tommy Lee Edwards be able to make (supportive) comments about Tommy Lee Edwards?

X-Treme12345

Originally posted by matchesmalone:
So how about it fans and pros alike, do you have a right to an opinion about "art in general" if you don't know how to both pencil and ink in the digital environment?

I thought this was pretty interesting, but it got lost in the middle of Matches' pledge for Internet Martyrdom™ He may have had a history of obnoxiousness in this case to warrant a reply like that, but I have seen quite a few pros replying to fan's criticisms basically with "shut up, you are not a writer/artist and don't know how to write/draw."

BATFAN

Originally posted by matchesmalone:
So how about it fans and pros alike, do you have a right to an opinion about "art in general" if you don't know how to both pencil and ink in the digital environment?

One does not need to know about the ins and outs of comic book art or writing to talk about it, but if you want to have an educated discussion about the subject then it's best if you know about the subject so that you wont look like a jackass in the end.

David Porta

You don't have to know anything about entertainment to know what you like and dislike and why.

In general, I agree that intimate knowledge of a medium is not required for stating an opinion as to whether you liked it...but if you're going to go into depth about why, I think it's best if you can speak with some knowledge, if not authority, about how these kinds of works are created, the challenges faced and met, the standards a professional is expected to meet, etc.

I'd never, for example, speak about musical composition beyond the typical American Bandstand "It's got a good beat, you can dance to it, I give it an 85," because I simply don't know enough about music--other than occasionally performing on an amateur level--to speak knowledgeably about it. But I think I've been around comics long enough--30 years or so, including some time attempting to submit proposals--to opine with some expertise.

Your thoughts?

TV--Improving or Not?

'Way back in April, I posted a comment that network television was in "a rut". I figure it's time for another look at what I'm watching, what I'm not, and where I figure TV is and where it's going.

I still can't honestly say I have any "appointment" viewing this season. The closest thing to that is Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip--I try not to miss it, but if something gets in the way, I feel no compulsion to tape it. Actually, I've gotten even more interested in the series since I found out that certain characters and elements mirror Aaron Sorkin's life. Sure, we could all figure out that Danny (Bradley Whitfield) has a lot of Sorkin in him...but it took a profile of Kristin Chenoweth in The New York Times Magazine to make me realize that Harriet (Sarah Paulson) is based on that Broadway star and former regular on The West Wing...right down to certain incidents in their respective lives. I now suspect the recently introduced film producer who admits to wanting to date Harriet (again) is another avatar of Sorkin.

I like Numbers (or as they insist, NUMB3RS), but I think it's going to lose something without Peter McNicol, who is moving on to a regular role on this season's run of 24. It always hurts when a show starts paring down the supporting cast.

The only Fox show I make any effort to see is House, though the constant repeats in its schedule have made it difficult for me to maintain interest. There's nothing on the CW I routinely watch, though if Smallville follows through with some of the hints in the recent episodes I've seen (and previews), it may bear closer watching in the future. Likewise, there's nothing on ABC that makes me sit up and take notice.

I was watching Justice on Fox, until they cancelled it. It was a lawyer show with a nice twist--in the final minutes, they would show how the crime actually took place...often indicating that the defense attorney's version was dead wrong...and sometimes that both sides had it wrong! It was the most unusual legal show I'd seen in ages...and that includes Shark, though I like James Woods and Jeri Ryan, and the relationship between Woods' character and his teenage daughter.

On the other hand, I did watch the second season of the new version of Doctor Who on SciFi, and I'm looking forward to the next one as well.

I'd be very interested in my readers' thoughts on this TV season.

Challenge?

One of my favorite series from the Silver Age was Challengers of the Unknown...and, unlike many, I actually preferred the Bob Brown-drawn version to the original Jack Kirby/Wally Wood issues. For one thing, once Kirby left, the Challs began to exhibit individual personalities in speech and habits, which made for a more interesting group.

But by the end of the '60s, no one seemed to know how to make a group of non-super adventurers work. There were several attempts to rework the concept, but none of them really jelled. Later attempts to revive the series...including a "Vertigo-ized" version of the originals...never caught the spirit of the characters or the idea behind them, either.

About 20 years ago, through my buddy Bob Greenberger, I submitted my attempt at reviving the Challengers. As I expected, it never saw the light of day. I no longer have the original proposal, but here are some of the highlights, as I recall them:

"Ace" Morgan--Like all the Challs, Ace never had a real first name in the '60s. I decided "Ace" was more than just a description of his flying prowess but an acronym for "Arthur Charles Edward". In 1990, I made him a former 'Nam pilot...today, I'd probably make him a former shuttle pilot. I also had married him off to part-time Challenger June Robbins, and given them a 10-year-old daughter, Maggie.

"Rocky" (Robert) Davis--With pro wrestling a joke, I turned Rocky into a former gold-medal Olympic weight-lifter, and a college grad with a degree in physical therapy.

"Prof" (Philip) Haley--Not just a diver, but a polymath scientist--sort of Jean Cousteau combined with Carl Sagan. His special interest is in ancient civilizations.

"Red" (Aloysius) Ryan--No wonder he prefers "Red"! Red is the youngest Challenger, a former gold-medal Olympic gymnast. He's the one--other than her parents--who is closest to Maggie Morgan, her beloved "Unca Red."

I gave them utilitarian uniforms, in purple and gold--recalling both the Kirby-era jumpsuits and the Bob Brown-era yellow-and-red outfits. The uniforms were layered...tight-fitting t-shirt under a jacket, with baseball-style caps. I suggested there might even be a cold-weather version as well.

My art is crude--I'm out of practice--but here's a look at what I had in mind.