I'm a few days behind the times so I missed all the hoo-ha about
that New York Comic-Con panel description, for those of you who missed it here it is:
“Girls Who Kick Ass: How do the ladies creating comics do it? They’re constantly blowing us away with the most outrageous and provocative titles. Jenna Jameson (Shadow Hunter), Colleen Doran (Distant Soil, Reign of the Zodiac), Amanda Connor (Birds of Prey, Painkiller Jane, Lois Lane ), Louise Simonson (New Mutants, X-Factor, Superman) and special guests reveal why they know what Fan-Boys want.”You might see why I'm shaking my head in between banging it against a wall and causing a rather bloody mess all over the place.
Yet again someone's lack of brain cells is equating making good comics with giving fan boys what they want i.e. boobs, ass and no identifiable story in between either of these two things. News flash, you don't need to make titlating comic to sell comics.
What-ever my gender is I'm going to buy a comic that's good. If it has tits an ass I don't care if it's good. If it has huge dongs all over the place I don't care if it's good. If it has none of the above aforementioned privates I'll still love it if it's good.
So what defines 'good?' Well here are just a few of the things I look for when defining if the comic is good:
- Interesting story. Without a story to me your comic is worth nothing to me, what's to keep me reading without it? Even the best comics can be structured around an amazingly simple idea, you just need to have an open mind and not be caught up with 'what sells' or 'what fanboys want.' That doesn't matter. What's more important, being proud of something you've produced that you've poured your heart and soul into or selling your work just because it had a bit of t&a? Trust me if you create a good comic it is going to sell, you might not sell thousands but the people buying your comic will be people who really treasure it for what it is.
- Decent characters. I use the word 'decent' very haphazardly. Any character can be made decent or interesting if they're written well. Hell even a character who's a naked porn star (Sorry Jemma, this isn't a joke at your expense I'm just making a point.) can be made interesting if written well. I'm reminded of the t.v. series created by Pam Anderson and Stan Lee, 'Stripperella.' (I can hear you groaning from here!) To me it was interesting enough to keep me watching, sure when it boils down to it it was a story about a dumb blonde stripper who moonlights as a super heroine but it made to qualms that it was anything else. It knew it weaknesses and made them damn funny, constantly making jokes about the main character's profession as a super hero and as a stripper and making a statement about the super hero genre as a whole. I also feel that Adam Warren's 'Empowered' does the same thing in much the same way.
- Art. As with everything what one considers as good changes from person to person. It's what makes us all different and is responsible for so many different comics being out there today. When I talk about good art for a comic I'm thinking about pacing, how the art suits the story and the characters, emotions, style, panel layouts, all that junk.
I seem to be getting a little off-track but I hope my point is starting to become clear. There are many things that make a comic good that don't have to include 'giving the fan boys what they want.' Why can't we have comics that are so good that they're 'giving fans what they want?'
Why does this always come down to gender? Does having different private parts automatically mean that we like different things?
I guess this when issues like this arise I'm constantly reminded of Eddie Berganza's plea made early last year to get female readers picking up Supergirl again. (You can read a great take on this
here.)
Berganza's main selling point for Supergirl to the female readership was that no longer should women be angry that Supergirl was a badly written, stereotypical blonde idiot sexy symbol in a superhero costume because he had written a character in the story to be exactly the same but he was male! Instant equal rights for all! This stupidity of this argument makes me realise why maybe there aren't as many women or people in general reading comics when some of the most well-known titles are being written by people who honestly think that writing in another un-interesting sex object into a story is going to make it better.
I'm sorry Eddie but two wrongs do not make a right and as far as I'm aware people want to read comics that are good. So how does this relate to the NYCC panel description? Well I guess the point I'm trying to write quite long-windedly is that obviously people like Eddie Berganza and who-ever write that NYCC panel description are so out of touch with comic fans in general and what makes a good comic that anything that is good must be a saucy work 'giving the fanboys what they want' and that a story with a multitude of badly written characters must be picked up by 'women' because we don't count as real comic fans because we're not not boys and of course women only write comics for boys and not 'people.'