wisb-Guardian-Express

As you all know, I have recently become immersed in the comic world.  In particular, I've rediscovered my love for some of the same characters I recall reading as a child.  Of course, having been away from the comics world for so long, I've missed a hell of a lot, including the issue I'm about to review now.  Since I have started reading the Marvel NOW "reboot" of the Uncanny X-Men, it has become apparent that I really need to know what the hell is going on.

And so, here I am discussing "Behold the Watcher" (Marvel Point One) two years after its release.  For those that don't know, this particular issues opens an entirely new sequence of events within the Marvel Universe.  The purpose of the issue, as far as I can tell, is to offer a gateway for new (or lost) readers to get into the various interconnected story lines to come.  I came to this particular issue because I have started reading things from the Marvel NOW "reboot," including Uncanny X-Men and Uncanny Avengers, both of which spring off of events that occur in the Avengers vs. X-Men crossover from 2012 (there's a "duh" moment lost in here somewhere).  Basically, when I tried to read the Marvel NOW versions, I found myself jolted out of my comfort zone.  Things had changed so much that I not only needed to go back for my own sanity, but also to fulfill my curiosity.  And so here we are, two years late and very much engrossed in this new series of events.

• Nova tries to warn friends and foes alike that a familiar force is returning, hell bent on destroying everything (even planets) in its path.
• In the Earth-295 universe (one of many Marvel alternates), the Red Prophet (part of the X-Terminated) exacts revenge on a mutant foe, setting the stage for a new conflict between a decimated human population and a newly-risen mutant one.
• A cured Kaine (clone of Peter Parker) mulls over his past and what it means to no longer suffer from genetic degradation, eventually revealing himself as the Scarlet Spider.
• Two twins, Coldmoon and Dragonfire, discover not only that they have been lied to their whole lives, but that when together, their powers are amplified.  In an effort to destroy the people who kept them apart, they join the Avengers.
• Dr. Strange ponders the bizarre mental state of a local Greenwich Village man, only to discover that trapped the man's mind is Strange's future with the Defenders.
• Lastly, in a future where Ultron has returned and threatened to destroy all humanoid lifeforms, Hawkeye and an injured Spider-Man barely escape death (presumably this is a precursor to the 2013 Age of Ultron arc).

This fall, I am teaching a survey course in American Literature.  While I think my previous syllabi for this course have been non-traditional, this time I am opening up the flood gates.  Instead of teaching what we might call "American Literature," I am deliberately challenging the very idea of a single, identifiable "American" anything.  And if I get this syllabus approved, I will have one of the most intense, awesome fall teaching experiences ever...

This.  I'd put the images up here, but that's not fair to the individual who decided combining cats with Judith Butler's Gender Trouble would result in pure, theoretical wonder.

Enjoy!

Spoiler Alert:  the following podcast contains spoilers for the film being reviewed; if you wish to see the film without having it ruined for you, download this podcast and save it for later.

Paul Weimer (website / twitter) and Jay Garmon (website / twitter) join me to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of J.J. Abrams' second installment in the Star Trek film reboot.  Feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments below.

You can download or stream the mp3 from this link.

Last night, the SFWA folks hosted the 2012 Nebula Awards.  I didn't get to watch the live stream because I was trying to recover from the episode we recorded for The Skiffy and Fanty Show on Friday night (I'm still sort of recovering).  However, now that the awards have been announced, I see fit to talk about the winners.

Here they are:

Best Novel
2312, Kim Stanley Robinson (Orbit US; Orbit UK)

I like Robinson more than a lot of my friends.  I'm not sure why.  Most people I've talked to can't stand his Three Californias series, while I find them fascinating (especially The Gold Coast).  Regardless, I honestly had hoped to see Throne of the Crescent Moon by Saladin Ahmed or The Killing Moon by N.K. Jemisin take the award.  Both will probably appear on this list again, though, so maybe it's just not their time yet.

Best Novella
After the Fall, Before the Fall, During the Fall by Nancy Kress (Tachyon)

I love Nancy Kress, and this collection really was quite good.  Granted, de Bodard, Lake, and Liu were also on the finalists list, each them worthy of awards too.  Still, I'm satisfied with this selection.  Besides, Tachyon is bloody amazing.

Best Novelette
“Close Encounters”, Andy Duncan (The Pottawatomie Giant & Other Stories)

Honestly, I have no real opinion here.  I'm sure Duncan's story is great.  I am, of course, a Liu fan, so I will always be partial to his work.  But Liu can't win everything, right?  I did get to hear Duncan read/speak at ICFA, and he's not bad.  So I'm OK with this selection.

Best Short Story
“Immersion“, Aliette de Bodard (Clarkesworld 6/12)

The right choice.  End of story.  Moving on.

Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation
Beasts of the Southern Wild, Benh Zeitlin (director), Benh Zeitlin and Lucy Abilar (writers), (Journeyman/Cinereach/Court 13/Fox Searchlight )

I'm really trying to understand why this film is so loved.  Everything I've seen from it looks awful.  Am I missing something?  To be fair, the rest of the finalists list was painfully predictable.  There was no Cloud Atlas, so as much as I would have liked to see Chronicle win...oh, right, that was not on the list either.  So it goes...

Andre Norton Award for Young Adult SF/F
Fair Coin, E.C. Myers (Pyr)

Honestly, this is probably the right choice.  I've heard nothing but good things about Fair Coin and I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't think Railsea was Mieville's best.  So kudos to Myers!

2011 Damon Knight Grand Master Award
Gene Wolfe

Yeah.  It was time.  Good.  A+

Solstice Award
Carl Sagan and Ginjer Buchanan

Nod.  Yes.  Perfect.

Kevin O'Donnell Jr. Service to SFWA Award
Michael H. Payne

Alright.  I have no idea who this is, but since I'm not part of SFWA, that's probably expected.  Good for Mr. Payne.

And that's all I've got to say.  What say you?

Oh, what?  He isn't?  Are you sure?  I mean.  He's black.  That means, like, Sue has to be black, right?  She doesn't?  Johnny or Sue could be adopted?  Or they could be children of different mothers or fathers or maybe they're interracial or something?  But I thought if you're half black and half white you just look almost white?  That's not true?  Really?  Well, the original Johnny was a white guy, so he has to stay white.  What about Idris Elba?  Oh, yeah, he was cool in Thor?  The original character wasn't a black guy?  Oh, well, then that's OK because he's not a major character.  Besides, this doesn't have anything to do about race.  I know I keep talking about it.  But just because I talk about race doesn't mean what we're talking about is actually about race, even if the only reason we're talking about it is because a black guy might be the Human Torch.  It's just not about race, OK?

That pretty much sums up the stupidity you'll find online about the rumor of Michael B. Jordan's (of Chronicle fame) possible casting as the Human Torch in the reboot of The Fantastic Four.
Cracked.com has a brilliant take-down here.  Read the comments on the first link at your own risk (I'll post some gems below).
Let's call this for what it is:  soft racism.  For example, here is this amazing quote from The Wrap (linked in the previous paragraph):

This is a horrible idea. Johnny Storm is an iconic Marvel character, a blonde, blue-eyed, party boy daredevil. He's not a second string character, he's a principal team member of one of Marvel's flagship series. As a long-time comic book collector, it would completely distract from any story to change Johnny's ethnicity. (It was bad enough that Jessica Alba was such an awful, awful blonde). Johnny once dated a Skrull - an African American could play her, or She-Hulk is an ancillary FF character - her ethnicity could be changed with little distraction, even Ben Grimm would be less distracting as another commenter suggested, although that would raise the question of whether Ben would stay Jewish (there are far less Jews in Marvel Comics than African Americans). But Johnny Storm? Comic book fans take "canon" very seriously, and this idea just smells like disaster.

Translation:  Johnny Storm was white in the comics, and if you made him black, we'd all get distracted because he's black; if you're going to have black people in this, let them play aliens or green rage monsters who are secondary to the plot, but don't you dare put a black guy as a main character, because I'll just be so distracted by...black guys.

Clearly, none of this has anything to do with race, am I right?  If you're distracted by black people, you're not distracted because they're black; you're distracted because they...are...look at the beautiful sunset!  There are a lot of people arguing variations of this type.  The irony is that in throwing a hissy fit over this topic, these commenters have inadvertently punched themselves in the face.  It's not possible to wiggle out of a soft racism charge when your main argument is "black people are distracting when they are in my movies about white people."

Some, however, have taken a different strategy, such as this fellow over at IGN:

The whole "defined by whiteness" arguement is stupid (by that same standard many black heroes should easily be recast as white as they're not "defined by blackness"), the guy is wrong for the role plain and simple, it's about race because that's where he's wrong for the role...if he was a 300 pound white guy that could nail Torch's personality exactly, he'd still be wrong for the role. Rather than taking the time to proper cast the movie the guy is trying to go with an associate wrong for the role, it doesn't matter how good he can act, Johnny Storm is white, and people are looking for proper adaptations for things of this sort...try creating or utilizing the existing black super heroes if it's that important rather than lazily shoehorning bad choices for the sake of it.

i.e., even though the Human Torch is not defined by his whiteness, he can't be played by a black guy because he's not black.  If you can see the circles going around and around here, you deserve a pat on the back.

The irony with statements like these is that they often not only refute themselves, but they also fall for the typical anti-racist-is-code-for-anti-white rhetoric that assumes that because you can't do the same thing to other races, it is just as racist to do it to white people.  Let's set aside the fact that changing the Human Torch's race isn't really an insult to white people (after all, it's not like we don't have a shitload of white superheroes in film already *coughWolverineCaptainAmericaCyclopsProfXBatmanGreenLanternOnAndOnAndOncough*).  What is alarming about arguments like this is the bizarre amnesia to which their proponents have succumbed.  Not to beat a dead horse, but racism is alive and well in this country.  This is why I find historical amnesia on this subject disturbing, since it allows people of any race to make arguments that are counterproductive and, in some cases, damaging.  The two positions are not equal:  casting a white guy as Luke Cage is not the same as casting a black guy as the Human Torch.  There is no history of white people being denied entry based on their race (especially in American comics).  Isolated cases may exist, but one cannot rationally argue that whites are discriminated against at the same level as blacks (today and in the past -- see here) -- it's an absurd claim.
None of this is new to the world of film adaptations, though.  We saw something similar when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall.  Not surprisingly, when the film came and went, it didn't seem to have that much of an impact on, well, anything.  Are people still throwing a hissy fit about it?  Not really.  It turned out that casting a black guy for a role previously written as white really didn't matter (and let's admit:  Elba was pretty awesome as Heimdall).  If Michael B. Jordan is officially cast as the Human Torch, I doubt anyone but the fervently racist will really care.  The only difference, of course, is that the Human Torch is a larger role than Heimdall, which has some people in a tizzy -- hence the "just cast some black folks as secondary characters" argument.

There are also comments like this:

honestly I am not racist..but I am a die hard fan of the fantatisc four..and I dont want them to just cast a black guy because...of whatever reason.its like they are not even trying at this point. He was white for petes sake ..if this is real i am not watching it

The infamous "I'm not a racist, but..." phrase.  I suppose the historical absence of black superheroes in the classic Marvel canon has remained unknown to this author.  There are a lot of them in terms of gross numbers, but most of them have remained relatively obscure (or firmly as secondary characters).  Few can name many black superheroes who have been around since the Silver Age who have the same staying power as the Fantastic Four.  Luke Cage and the Black Panther are about it (and you'll never get a movie about the latter because of the name)(please correct me if I'm wrong about this).  I don't actually know why there are so few black superheroes who have the same "fame" as the Fantastic Four or the Avengers or X-Men.  Maybe we need something along those lines one of these days...
Of course, I'm sure this person also doesn't know that another always-has-been-white character was fairly recently replaced by a black guy.  Also, a latino.  Both in alternate Marvel universes (Ultimates and 2099 respectively).  Somehow, those changes didn't destroy Marvel forever!

However, I think the more humorous comments fall in the "you can't change things" category, such as:

Make a movie for actual black characters from the comic books. The background is already there why change it up. A Luke Cage and a Black Panther movie and a Storm movie I would watch. Changing Nick Furry (sic) black actually made him better but making Johnny Storm Black well then you have to make Sue Storm black as well and honestly I wouldn't watch it if you paid me.

Of course, this individual is oblivious to the myriad of ways that Sue and Johnny could be different races (adoption, different mothers/fathers, or, you know, maybe Sue ends up mixed race and the entire universe collapses).  The commenter even makes the amusing argument that it was OK for Nick Fury to end up black, but you can't blackify Johnny because...err...Mr. Angry Comment just won't pay to see it.  In other words, he'll pay to see black characters if they are secondary to the narrative OR if we are talking about imaginary film adaptations, but if you screw with a major character, well, no money for you.

But what is truly amusing about this is this individual's profound ignorance about the Marvel universe.  Marvel has already changed characters.  Most famously, and not without controversy, they completely rebooted a sea of characters when they created the Ultimates imprint -- they changed background stories, updated the settings, and so on (and, yes, switched some characters' races).  There are numerous instances in the Marvel universe where alternate worlds have come into existence, characters have been completely rewritten, and so on and so forth.  The Marvel universe is called a multiverse for a reason:  it's full of pocket universes, external realities, and so on.  Ultimates literally occurs in a different continuity -- a different "universe," if you will.  And since the film universe is already completely different from the comics, it is no less ridiculous to change Nick Fury's character than it is to change the Human Torch's (or Heimdall's, for that matter).  These film incarnations of the classic heroes are not the same heroes from your comics.  They aren't even the same heroes from the updated Ultimates line.  They're not the same heroes from any of the other side universes either (except, perhaps, the Marvel Now universe, though I haven't read my Iron Man comics yet, so I can't say whether this is true or not).  They are completely different versions of our favorite heroes, and even more so now that Columbia has rebooted Spider-man and, now, The Fantastic Four.
Lastly, I think the only thing that really matters is whether Michael B. Jordan can perform the role well.  Having seen his work in Chronicles, I think there's potential.  Whether he will have the same cocky attitude as Chris Evans in the first two Fantastic Four movies, I cannot say (assuming that's what we're looking for, here).  But I can say that all of this hubbub about how wrong it is to have a black guy as the Human Torch has made me realize that I really shouldn't care if Idris Elba becomes the next 007.  Anyone who has heard me argue against Elba's casting in that franchise can officially toss out everything I said as nonsense.  If Idris Elba brings something to the table as a possible future Bond, then let him have a stab at it.  And that means we should all support him for no other reason than whether you think he, as an actor, can play the role.  Who cares if James Bond has always been a white guy?  Not me.  Not anymore.

(Idealistic Shaun for the win.)

If this is the end of Robert Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man films, then he's certainly left with a bang.  While far from perfect, Iron Man 3 (2013) continues Stark's emotional development with the same humor and action we have come to expect.  But it is also an unexpectedly deep look at Stark as a man amidst increasingly dangerous villains, tying together not only the previous two Iron Man movies (2008 and 2010), but also Joss Whedon's The Avengers (2012).  Flawed though it may be, Iron Man 3 is an excellent conclusion to a superb series.

Iron Man 3's basic premise is this:  Tony Stark has returned home from the events in New York City, only to find himself overwhelmed by panic attacks and nightmares; to distract himself, he has begun tinkering endlessly in his lab, building suit after suit after suit.  Meanwhile, the United States
has become the target of a mysterious "super" terrorist who calls himself the Mandarin.  Soon, the President re-brands War Machine as the Iron Patriot and sends Colonel Rhodes out to hunt down the infamous terrorist.  Back home, Tony challenges the Mandarin, meets some old faces (sorry, I won't ruin this for you), and finds himself face-to-face with a wall (of mysteries and mysterious men with unique abilities).

Honestly, that is about as close as I can get to describing this film without ruining some of the major twists and discoveries.  There are a remarkable number of things going on in this film.  I am still astonished that they could work so much into a 130 minute time slot without producing a film that feels unnecessarily rushed; instead, Iron Man 3 is just a tad bit long, with parts of the latter half of the film moving a little too slowly for my taste.  Part of that dragging feel stems from the fact that the movie is divided across three interests:  Tony's war with himself (his apparent PTSD), Tony's attempts to find and uncover the Mandarin, and the U.S./Rhodes' attempts to do the same (subplots aside, of course).  While Shane Black (writer/director) handles these elements well enough, I think the attempt to focus on so many elements (particularly via the framing device -- Tony's voice over that connects a past event to the events of the film), with twists and all, is a tad much for one film.
Still, I cannot help but appreciate the fact that, much like the previous two Iron Man films, this third installment actually addresses some of the real-world ramifications of Stark's life as man and machine.  The previous films explored Stark's conflict with the morality of the military industrial complex (Iron Man) and the fear of impending death (Iron Man 2).  Here, the conflict is two-fold:  as in the second film, the past has come to haunt Stark, but in a far more personal way than before (the frame narrative explores this).  More importantly, however, is the connection back to The Avengers, which has affected our hero in the way you'd expect:  a psychological disorder (PTSD).  I can appreciate the desire to show this on film, but what makes this work for me is the fact that our hero actually has psychological issues.  Iron Man 3 explores the psychology of Stark in more depth than previous editions, giving the character a uniquely "human" feel.  Unlike other superheroes in the Marvel film canon, Stark/Iron Man is fully realized as a complex individual.  Far from the eccentric, prick-y man we saw at the start of the first film, this concluding volume has shown us that he is, in every way possible, just as susceptible to the pressures of daily life (and war) as the rest of us, even if, at the end of the day, he is still eccentric and prick-y.  What makes him super is not some superhuman ability to "cope," but rather his intense desire and dedication to a "cause."  This is the underlying narrative of Iron Man 3, and one that we can hope will continue in The Avengers 2, however briefly.
Related to this is one of the strongest aspects of the film:  the cast and their interactions with one another.  Downey, I think it is fair to say, is probably the only person who will ever truly fit into Stark's shoes, and here he has to pull out more than simple sarcasm and jackassery.  Stark's panic attacks and nightmares require a careful balance between epiphany and masking; nobody would expect Stark to accept what is happening to him, and Downey does a fine job portraying that conflict.  While the PTSD symptoms could have been handled with more care, I think Downey (and Shane Black as director) remained true to the character.

The other cast members are also on top form:  Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts remains as charming as ever (she also gets a little action time, which is awesome to see) and Guy Pearce proves that he needs to play a Die Hard villain at some point in the near future, pulling out an excellent Jekyll & Hyde performance as Aldrich Killian.  It's hard to believe that Guy Pearce once played this Queen:
The standout supporting actor performances, however, must be given to Ben Kingsley (the Mandarin) and Ty Simpkins (Harley Keener).  Kingsley's Mandarin is cold, calculated, and preacher-like -- even creepy.  I believed him as a terrorist, as a fully-realized villain with complicated motivations.  They've updated his character, too, and in a way that I think makes the Mandarin more relevant.  In the film universe, the Mandarin is more akin to the mythic face of terrorism today; that myth becomes important to the narrative, and forms one of the various critiques of U.S. foreign policy in Iron Man 3.  Much like Pearce, Kingsley demonstrates a chameleon-like ability to become other people.  While I still have some reservations about the way this narrative played out, the concept of the Mandarin offers food for thought (particularly to us scholarly type people).

Child actor Simpkins, however, gives the film its heart-filled center.  As Keener, he has a profound impact upon Stark, and the two (Downey and Simpkins) play well off each other -- humor and all.  I think paring the two gives Stark the gateway he needs to see beyond his own dilemmas, and Simpkins delivers a wide-eyed-but-looking-for-a-role-model performance worth noting.  If there isn't a remarkable young actor in Simpkins, I will eat my own shoes (metaphorically speaking, of course; I imagine shoes these days are made out of material that will kill me if consumed).
Of course, all this requires solid writing.  For the most part, Drew Pearce and Shane Black deliver, though there is a noticeable lack of depth in some of the villains, despite the fact that their motivations for doing what they do are complicated, if not understandable.  This is all too common in action-oriented films like this, but it is unfortunate when you have the opportunity to present villains who are motivated by more than simple villainy -- villains about which the audience can feel conflicted.  While many of the "henchmen" in Iron Man 3 do have complicated reasons for doing what they do, they don't act like it.  They are just villains in the purest sense.

The only other problem I have with the film has to do with the new Iron Man suit (the MK 42).  While the films (and the character in general) has always required one to suspend disbelief, I found the newer suit implausible, if not outright ridiculous.  This particular suit flies to Stark in pieces, guided by wireless nodes in his arms.  While the MK 42 becomes important to the conclusion of the film, I found it hard to accept the premise, if only because it seemed a little ridiculous to me.  Still, for those expecting a lot of Iron Men in Iron Man 3, you'll get the great gift of all:  the Iron Legion.  The CG, of course, is damned beautiful, especially in the concluding moments (explosions and all).
Of course, what holds everything together for this film are not the visuals (pretty as they are), the villains (compelling though they may be), or even the narrative as a whole.  Rather, what makes Iron Man 3 such an exciting and fascinating conclusion to the series -- if, indeed, this is the end -- are its fulfillment of Stark's emotional arc and the presence of exceptional actors (working with decent material).  While far from a perfect film, Iron Man 3 is, I think, what a lot of us were hoping for:  a high-octane superhero epic with well-acted character development and psychological depth.  I definitely recommend seeing it in theaters if you can.

Directing: 4/5
Cast: 5/5
Writing: 4/5
Visuals: 4/5
Adaptation: N/A (I haven't read enough of the comics)
Overall: 4.25/5 (85%)
Inflated Grade: A- (for solid action, continuity considerations, and addressing Stark's human side)
Value: $9.50 (based on a $10.50 max)

(Note:  I am still open to comic/graphic novel suggestions.  Feel free to leave them here.)

Yesterday, I went to the comic book shop.  It has been close to a decade since I last went into one, and longer since went shopping for comic books (or graphic novels -- manga excluded).  And so, I took the bus out to MEGA Gaming and Comics in Gainesville, FL expecting to find a few interesting things in that tiny shop by the gas station.  Little did I know what I was getting myself into.  MGC is not so tiny after all.  Unlike the place in Placerville, CA, where I would sometimes buy Magic: the Gathering cards and what not, MGC seemed enormous in comparison.

The fellow running the place was also quite helpful.  The greatest fear I have as a new comics reader (or renewed, if you will) is jumping into the middle of a series and getting hopelessly lost (DC and Marvel in particular).  While I think some of my selections will require some backwards reading, the staff member (whose name I didn't catch) was kind enough to point me in the direction of a number of renewed properties that would be less alarming to a new reader.  Apparently DC and Marvel have recently tried to reboot some of their characters/series (the New 52 for DC and Marvel Now! for, well, Marvel), and I wouldn't have known that if MGC's staff hadn't told me.

As the list below will indicate, I didn't get that many things that were suggested by you readers.  Part of this was because the store simply didn't have some of them or were missing book #1.  The other part was that I forgot to write some of the titles down on my way out, and subsequently forgot the titles.  I've since added them to my Amazon Wishlist.  Since I have already read two of the books I purchased (yeah, that fast), I expect I'll buy a lot more stuff in the future, which means that my Amazon Wishlist is going to fill up with comics and graphic novels.

In any case, I won't hold off telling you what I got anymore.  Here goes (large pictures ahead):

And there you go!

The other day, I stuck my foot really far into my mouth.  While recording an episode of The Skiffy and Fanty Show, we managed to get into a discussion about race in the various colonial empires (a discussion that is not part of the actual episode -- beyond off topic, really).  I managed to say something that, moments later, I realized was phenomenally stupid.  Why was it stupid?  Because I simply did not have enough information to make any reasonable assertion whatsoever.  If it's not already obvious, the topic was race in the Spanish Empire (Mexico in particular -- pre- and post-independence).  I caught myself fairly quickly (which is nice, considering the last time I said some stupid stuff on the show), but I still feel pretty damn bad about it.

I'm going to run off to the comic book shop at some point this week.  And that means I'm going to buy me some comics...which is where you lot come in.  Since I haven't been in the comic/graphic novel world in a while (aside from some manga here or there), I really don't know what's interesting and what's not.  I'd like to know what kind of stuff you have enjoyed that you think I might enjoy too.

What I'm looking for:

• SF/F-ish stuff (broadly speaking)
• Things that won't require me to be overly familiar with preceding material (so don't drop me flat in the middle of a story arc if I need to have read the previous two to figure out what the hell is going on)
• Graphic novels OR standard comics (or collections/omnibuses)
• No "universe" restrictions (you can throw me into DC, Marvel, or whatever)

I've recently become interested in reading comics again.  I used to read them as a youngin', but sort of gave up on them for one reason or another (I used to collect all the trading cards from Marvel, too, and probably still have some floating around -- there's a box of comics somewhere in my closet).  But rather than jump in to whatever is going on right now, I want to read a lot of the backlist to get a sense of how things have progressed.  Understandably, that means doing so digitally (through the Marvel database, etc.), as trying to buy all those older comics would probably bankrupt me.

What I'm wondering is whether any of you have experience reading comics on any tablet.  I know there are a lot of different types out there, from the ASUS Transformer to the iPad to the Galaxy, but reviews can only go so far for me.  I need a bit more before I make that investment.

If you have read comics on a tablet, or at least have experience with one, let me know your thoughts about that particular device:  pros, cons, recommendations, etc.  I am partial to tablets that are connected to a vibrant app community, as reading comics will probably requiring the use of apps (PDF and CBR/CBZ readers).

Thanks!

A certain someone has written a brilliant little post in which they argues that John Scalzi should be impeached as SFWA president and N.K. Jemisin / Saladin Ahmed should be removed from the Nebula Awards short list because they apparently hate white people.  You read that right.  And you will also notice that I haven't linked to said individual's post, if only because it is mind-numbingly stupid.  If you're desperate enough to read it, though, you can do some clever Google searching.  For simplicity's sake, I will refer to this individual as Mr. Frosty Pants.

The post that has most offended Mr. Frosty Pants seems to be Scalzi's rather popular "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is."  I recommend you read that post, since it is obviously a steaming pile of anti-white nonsense (this must be what the white nationalists mean when they huff and puff about the genocide against the white race; damn you, Scalzi, for your word murder).  Of course, in the real world, it is a somewhat humorous way to explore how racial privilege works.  This is not what Mr. Frosty Pants takes from it, of course.  Instead, he argues the following:

And let me add this: defamation is not a numbers game based on how many people are in a country or room at a given time, however much some people would like to pretend otherwise and so think they have a free-fire zone. Defamation is defamation, and it is always wrong. I defy anyone to tell me in what instance defamation would be correct.

Setting aside the fact that he doesn't actually understand the legal definition of defamation, or the fact that defamation cases are nearly impossible to prove, since a requirement for proof is to demonstrate material damage from a given set of statements, I find the notion that Scalzi (or anyone) can possibly defame an entire race by pointing out even a perceived reality (boy, our politicians are truly fucked if Mr. Frosty Pants is right!).  Since Mr. Frosty Pants is, we can assume, a straight white male, it is highly unlikely that discussing the benefits his status entails in a society that remains, even to this day, race-conscious will result in anything approaching material damage.  After all, how can Mr. Frosty Pants defend the notion that Scalzi's, Jemisin's, or Ahmed's words have had a realistic impact on his ability to function in a society where straight white men are, not surprisingly, still generally considered to be "at the top of the pack"?

But Mr. Frosty Pants doesn't accept the premise. Instead, he demands that these three anti-white bastards provide evidence:

There is no racial or gender conspiracy in America to hold back N.K. Jemisin or Saladin Ahmed from doing a single thing in this country. If they believe otherwise, I publicly demand they start producing facts and names and address those specific individuals and stop attacking complete strangers based on the most childish stereotypes of the race and gender of millions of people they have never met. If either John Scalzi, N.K. Jemisin or Saladin Ahmed feel someone in America is contributing to racial stereotypes or cultural xenophobia, name them and confront them and leave the rest of us out of it as co-defendants or guilty parties. You may even find us on your side in such a matter, but not if we are demonized for waking up in the morning or for what we looked like the day we were born.

Of course, since he also rejects the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, and other organizations that actually study this stuff, it's pretty much impossible to present him with actual evidence, since he won't believe any of it anyway.  But I'll take a stab by presenting this.  In short, that link takes you to the text for the second session of the 109th Congress on July 24th, 2006, in which the speakers point out that race-based discrimination in a great deal of the voting districts originally covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act is still happening.  Congress were debating whether to reauthorize that bill, which would allow, among other things, the Federal Government to maintain oversight on historically "racist" voting districts in a number of States.  Submitted during those debates were numerous documents and studies showing that most of those same districts had the same problems as they had had in 1965, when Congress decided they had to step in to protect minority votes in areas teaming with racists.  We all remember the Civil Rights Movement, don't we?  They weren't just hosing black people because it was a winter sport, or tossing bricks through Martin Luther King, Jr.'s windows because that's how you show love in the South.  No.  They were doing those things because of deep-seeded racial hatred.  And it was the white folks who were the primary perpetrators of those crimes.  Not all the white folks.  Just a hell of a lot of them in certain areas of the country.

The point is that Congress determined that we're really not over all that stuff yet.  While angry white folks are not hosing people anymore (or actively tossing bricks through windows or assassinating Civil Rights leaders), the same racial hatred still exists.  Racism certainly has changed over time, generally speaking, but that doesn't mean that we've magically moved on.

So when Scalzi, Jemisin, and Ahmed point out, perhaps with a great deal of snark, that racism isn't over, they're not speaking from a position of racial hatred against whites.  When they talk about white people doing racist things, they aren't talking about all of us (there were a lot of progressive-minded white folks in the Civil Rights Movement; some of them were assassinated, too).  Even when they are talking more generally about white people, such as in Scalzi's post, they don't do it to piss on the white race, or to suggest that the white race is inferior to another (which is the default root of racism); they are pointing out the inherit privileges that still exist for white people.  Those advantages can change based on a variety of factors, including, among other things, class.  I benefit from my skin color not because there is something wrong with me, but because racism isn't dead yet (or at least not dead enough that Scalzi's point becomes a thing of the past).  Scalzi's post is about making us all aware of that default setting so we can actually do something about it.

In other words:  pointing out racism when it happens doesn't mean you hate white people.  You'd be hard pressed to convince Scalzi he hates himself because he is white (nor me); he doesn't.  He's just aware that being white in a country like ours means you have default advantages.

But I guess I'm preaching to the choir here.  Mr. Frosty Pants certainly isn't going to get it.  His post is an exercise in "trying not to get it."  And he's doing a real good job of it...

Oh, and if you're curious, the House 393 to 33 and the Senate voted 90 to 0 for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.  As Mr. Frosty Pants might say, there be a lot of self-hatin' whites in that group... *insert eye roll here*

In other news, you should go support N.K. Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed, and John Scalzi by buying their books. My recommendations:  The Killing Moon by Jemisin; Throne of the Crescent Moon by Ahmed; and Old Man's War by Scalzi.

The following were the most popular posts on my blog for the month of April.  The repeats have me a tad baffled, as at least two of these posts are in the top 10 list of my most popular posts of all time.  Weirdness.

Here's the list:

10.  "Academic Spotlight:  Disability in Science Fiction:  Representations of Technology as Cure edited by Kathryn Allan"
9.  "Retro Nostalgia:  Gattaca (1997) and Framing the Multivalent Ethical Dilemma"
8.  "Movie Review:  Oblivion (2013)"
7.  "Death Star Economics and Ethics? (Or, What Would You Do With a Death Star?)"
6.  "Retro Nostalgia:  Metropolis (1927) and the Torment of Humanity's Dreams"
5.  "Book Suggestions for 'American' Lit Syllabus (a terrible title...)"
4.  "Literary Explorations:  Gender Normativity, Genre Fiction, and Other Such Nonsense"
3.  "Top 10 Cats in Science Fiction and Fantasy"
2.  "Top 10 Overused Fantasy Cliches"
1.  "To the Hugo Defenders:  Check Your Financial Privilege at the Door"

Anywhoodles!

The Daily Times reports that the Navajo Nation Museum and the Parks and Recreation Department are working with LucasFilm to translate Star Wars into Diné bizaad, the traditional language of the Navajo people.

There's more detail at the link, obviously, but for now, I think it's appropriate for us all to jump up and down in celebration.  Because this is too awesome...