“So, what’s wrong with the generalization that more sex = liberation? It locates sexual liberation in an experience of white heterosexual femininity. It does not take into the account the different experiences of racialization and sexualization of women, queer and trans people of color. For example, while, straight, middle-class women have been stereotyped as pure, asexual virgins, while women of color have been hypersexualized as exotic, erotic beings (see: Hottentot, harem girl, lotus blossom, fiery Latina, squaw, etc.) For racialized people, adopting a sex-positive attitude does not “liberate” them of such stereotypes, in fact, it fuels them further. In addition, the framework of sex-positivity does not offer a critique of capitalism and the way our sexualities are commodified and exploited, preventing the “free expression” of sex, in the favorite words of sex-positive feminists. Sex-positivity is also ahistorical; it does not take into account the ways attitudes about sex are related to histories of colonialism, especially the colonial imposition of gender and sexual norms. None of this is a particularly new way of thinking by the way, many feminists of color have critiqued sex-positivity for similar reasons.”—Shout-outs to counterstorytelling (aka Mushroom Rage) for this thoughtful, wonderful op-ed that spoke so many truths on so many levels. This article is probably the one where topics of feminism, gender, construct, colonialism, culture, and sexuality all intertwine— not just systemically, but personally as well. (via thephantomcatalyst)
This got left in my box by a fanmail (which does not give me an email notification, guys) and its something I support but I don’t think the President can do it. It has to be done state by state somehow.
“…for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters.”—
Looks like this essay was needed, so I went ahead and did it. Not sure I said everything I wanted to say, but I tried.
So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly. They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.
God, what a Mary Sue.
I just described Batman.
Wish fulfillment characters have been around since the beginning of time. The good guys tend to win, get the girl and have everything fall into place for them. It’s only when women started doing it that it became a problem.
Despite the stereotype that science fiction is for men, women have been deeply involved in the genre for decades, and their presence in many aspects of science fiction has been on the rise for just as long, particularly once Star Trek came on the scene. Star Trek, despite some of the obvious sexism of the original series, has done quite a bit to inspire female fans. During the 1960’s and the feminist movement at that time, Trek empowered women. Today, many women credit their professional careers in the sciences, entertainment, medicine, the military, and more with having been influenced in some way by Star Trek. Women were also part of the original driving force behind saving the original series and continue to join the fandom at an increasing rate.
I recognize the power of silence as a tool of protest; although I suspect that much of its power is based on physical presence or other means of making palpable what’s absent in ways that are difficult to recreate on a platform like Twitter.
I also recognize the stark and critical difference between being silenced and choosing to be silent.
I do not condemn anyone who participates in #twittersilence. I celebrate you for taking action.
I stand in solidarity with #twittersilence.
But I am not going to be part of it.
I don’t want to be silent.
Not in a context defined by peers harassed and threatened and chased away from speaking their truths.
I don’t want to be silent; or, rather, when I am silent, I want my silence to be in juxtaposition to something other than attempts to silence me and people like me.
Not when men accuse a panel of female actresses who spend an hour discussing their experiences and goals of “talking too much.”
Not when threats of violence are considered an acceptable way to express dissent.
Not when calls for civility are met with charges of censorship.
Not when I go to work every day in industries where women are already by and large invisible or made invisible or misgendered or stripped of their credit or assumed to have gotten where they are on the coattails of their male partners.
Not when harassment and outright assault are dismissed with a wink and a slap on the wrist, until victims stop seeing any point to calling out wrongs.
Not when standards are determined by people upon whose lives and experiences they will have no impact.
I’m tired of silence.
I’m choking on silence.
I’m suffocating in a vacuum of voices driven away, exhausted pushing against the hostile tide. Of the women who left. Of the women who took a look around and decided not even to try. Of women who shouted out and grew hoarse yelling from the margins while movements and blocs surged on, oblivious to a multitude of intersections.
I’m tired of speaking up feeling like an obligation, because there are things that otherwise will not be said, or will not be heard. I’m tired of watching every word because we are so few of that every sentence stands for something larger.
I’m tired of a world where the only options are fighting for every foothold and standing still.
There’s an Emma Goldman quote I love deeply, likely the source of the apocryphal line about dancing and revolutions: "I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s right to beautiful, radiant things."
Silence is the breeding ground of injustice. It prevents us from organizing, from finding solidarity in shared experiences. It keeps us isolated, trapped in miserable orbit of forces larger than we.
I am sick with silence. We are all sick with silence.
I remember watching #1reasonwhy build momentum; months later, I’m still watching its ripples spread. It gave collective voice to decades of frustration and replaced isolation and marginalization with connection and collective action. It was not the positive activism of #1reasonmentors and #1reasontobe—but it laid the foundation from which they were able to rise.
If we want change, we need the power and platform to say that the status quo is wrong.
I stand in solidarity with #twittersilence.
But if you’re looking for me this weekend, you can find me in #twitternoise.
This articulates my thoughts on #twittersilence really well, and why it’s really important that women and other marginalized groups continue to not be silent in the face of people trying to get us to shut up.
Agreed, this is why I will not bloody well be silent. Although I amend some of its sentiment. I can’t, in all honesty, stand in solidarity with everyone involved in #twittersilence. A great many of the women who are doing it because they want to make a statement and draw media attention? Sure. But I saw Caitlin Moran’s tweets when it was first proposed. She didn’t just want to protest harrassment, she wanted all the ‘nice’ people to leave Twitter. She condemned anyone who stayed. She’s also pretty anti-trans and has said some truly shocking things in her time.
I also object to her attempts to claim leadership for modern feminism. She doesn’t stand for me. Her feminism is one that denies me my lack of ‘natural’ femininity. This is not the first time she has advocated protest by passivity. I have heard her argue in interviews that women should ‘leave Have I Got News For You’ to the men, because she finds it too competitive, and therefore thinks it is not naturally suited to women. I‘ve written before on how I think it’s wrong to blame the nature of women as ‘unsuitable’ or ‘uncompetitive’ for gender disparity on panel shows. I don’t blame Caitlin Moran for not wanting to go on a show that makes her uncomfortable. What I object to is her saying that all women are like her and women are inherently unable to deal with that environment. Tell that to the women, like Victoria Coren, who school Ian et al on their sexism and still get invited back.
I do not think that passive protest is inherently bad. What I dislike is Caitlin Moran advocating passive protest as the only appropriate way for women to protest. I also dislike that many of the people who she thinks of as ‘not nice’ are the women who won’t sit down and shut up and passively protest the patriarchy in a ladylike fashion. Women like Stavvers. Whilst I’m quite glad I’ve never been on the other end of Stavvers’s ire, that doesn’t mean her ire is invalid. In fact, I wish I had the mental energy to be as bolshy as she is in the name of her cause. Somehow there seems to have been a generation of women I missed by only about five years that were less ground down by the patriarchy. I used to be angry and vocal like that, but the lack of support from anyone around me eventually drove me into passivity. But women like Stavvers did not. And I think that’s down to the Internet. The Internet being there and waiting for them when they hit teenage years, whereas it was really in its infancy when I hit mine. They hit the Internet and social media and found the support for feminist issues that was lacking for me. They connected with other issues and got angry about them too and built solidarity together. The idea of women withdrawing from social media partially in the name of silencing these women is abhorent to me.
So, if you’re taking part in #twittersilence and you’re not about silencing women or supporting Caitlin Moran, then yeah, I can be in solidaity with you. But I will not be part of a feminist movement that wants to silence these women for not being passive enough. I have already had that kind of energy beaten out of me. I will not be a part of perpetuating the silence.
Reblogging for the additional great commentary on some of the problematic elements behind #twittersilence and people who think ALL women should participate or they are being bad.
(Also, I didn’t know Caitlin Moran was one of the people behind this. Ugh. >_< )
So it’s been a little more than a week since my glorious return from the San Diego International Comic Convention, where I saw cool things, met cool people, and learned that “Hell” is another word for “being on the SDCC exhibit floor in a wheelchair.” I also contracted a horrific cold, and have been fighting my way back to the semblance of health, which is why my relative radio silence on the subject. But that’s neither here nor there: that’s just framework and excuses. Here’s what happened.
Leading up to SDCC, basically every woman I talked to expressed the fear of being “cred checked” at least once. The fake geek girl may not be a real thing, but her shadow is long, and since people started claiming to have seen her, the rest of us have been accused of being her with increasing frequency. She is the geek urban legend, the prowling, predatory female who’s just there to take up precious space/time/swag with her girly girlish girliness, and she’s like The Thing From Outer Space—a creature with no face and every face, AT THE SAME TIME.
I attended SDCC and similar shows for years before anyone said “Gasp! Some of these geek girls ARE TOTALLY FAKE!” and I started getting my geek credentials checked. Since that began, I have been forced to defend my knowledge of horror movies, the X-Men, zombie literature, the Resident Evil franchise, Doctor Who, and My Little Pony.
Let’s pause a moment and just think about that. Men—adult men—have asked me to defend my knowledge of and right to be a fan of My Little motherfucking Pony. My first fandom, the fandom that is arguably responsible for getting me into epic fantasy (not kidding), the franchise that I have publicly credited with teaching me how to plot long-term. A franchise that was, at least originally, aimed exclusively at little girls who enjoyed ponies and hair-play. I think that all fandoms should be for everyone, and I love that My Little Pony has finally found a male audience, but are you kidding here? Are you seriously telling me that the second men discover something I have loved since I was four years old, I suddenly have to pass trivia exams to keep considering myself a fan? Because if that’s the way things are going, I want to hear the Sea Pony song right fucking now.
Most of the female fans I know have expressed concern about this credential checking, in part because who the fuck wants to have to take a quiz when you’re standing in line waiting to get Chris Claremont’s autograph? I mean, really. And there’s always the possibility that you’ll fail the exam, and a) many of us have deep-seated test anxiety, courtesy of the American school system, and b) no one likes being bullied. Telling me I’m not a real geek because I can’t name the members of the Justice League (spoiler: I can’t, I don’t read DC) is bullying. It’s offensive and it’s upsetting and it leaves me feeling like a faker, even when I’m not. Even when I’m demonstratively not.
And this “you’re a fake, you have no right to be here” routine is almost universally directed at women. I see these women in these incredible costumes that took hours to make and will cause chafing and shin splits and lots of other discomforts, and then I see them getting mocked for being “fake” by men in jeans and hero logo T-shirts. Captain America probably doesn’t like you making fun of women, good sir. Just saying.
Then, this year, I saw something wonderful. I was crossing the floor with Amy when we encountered a tall blonde dressed as Emma Frost. I will always stop and admire a good Emma—it’s in my genes—so we paused to study her costume and tell her how amazing she looked. She saw the name on my badge and lit up.
"I was hoping to run into you!" she said. “I remembered that you love Emma!"
One of my fans dressed as Emma Frost and she did it <i>for me</i>.
I have never felt so much like a rock star.
We stayed and chatted with her—because let’s face it, you dress up as Emma Frost to make me happy, you have damn well earned some chatting with—and she confessed that she had been cred checked not long before. “I said Emma was both the White Queen and the Black Queen,” she said. “Was that right?” I started explaining the Dark X-Men. While we were doing that, a man with a camera came up and started taking her picture without asking permission. She stopped talking to us, turned her body slightly away from him, held up her hand, and said, “You can’t take my picture unless you can tell me who I am.”
She was dressed as a very iconic Emma: all in white, with the half-cape connected to a semi-corset top, white boots, and a white “X” logo on her belt. She had small snowflakes on her collarbones, representing Emma’s transformation. She had the white choker. She had the blue lipstick. Basically, if you have any familiarity with Marvel, you would recognize her, and since that version of Emma has been on literally hundreds of comic book covers in the past five years, even most DC readers should have recognized her.
"Storm?" guessed the man.
All three of us laughed, but uncomfortably, like we were discovering a terrible secret. And while Amy and I stood there, this happened four more times: the unsolicited pictures, the refusal, the incorrect guess. Only three of the men actually stopped taking pictures when told to.
As women, we are afraid of being unmasked as somehow “not geeky enough.” Meanwhile, these men, who were clearly just trying to take pictures of a scantily clad woman, not pictures of an awesome costume, can’t identify one of the most iconic figures from one of the largest publishers.
I’ve been saying for a while that the “fake geek girl” thing was a form of harassment: a way of making sure that women in fandom don’t “forget their place.” But this, more than anything, drove home to me just how big of a double standard it is. As women, we’re expected to know enough to “earn our spot,” but not so much that we seem like know-it-alls; we’re supposed to add attractive eye candy to the proceedings, but shouldn’t expect men to stop taking our pictures when asked; we’re supposed to worry about not seeming geeky enough, while never worrying whether the men around us could pass those same tests. The mere fact of their maleness is sufficient.
There was something beautiful about seeing the fake geek girl check flipped back in the other direction, but there was also something profoundly sad about it, because it illustrated just how deep this divide is growing. We’re all geeks. We need to have respect for each other, in all ways—no taking pictures without asking, no shouting “Emma!” at a cosplayer and then saying “See? I told you she knew who she was dressed as” when she turns around. Just no.
It needs to stop.
(And if you were that Emma, drop me a line, hey? I never did get your name, and you were awesome.)
1. Linguistic Intelligence: the capacity to use language to express what’s on your mind and to understand other people. Any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer, or other person for whom language is an important stock in trade has great linguistic intelligence.
2. Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system, the way a scientist or a logician does; or to manipulate numbers, quantities, and operations, the way a mathematician does.
3. Musical Rhythmic Intelligence: the capacity to think in music; to be able to hear patterns, recognize them, and perhaps manipulate them. People who have strong musical intelligence don’t just remember music easily, they can’t get it out of their minds, it’s so omnipresent.
4. Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence: the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body (your hands, your fingers, your arms) to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of production. The most evident examples are people in athletics or the performing arts, particularly dancing or acting.
5. Spatial Intelligence: the ability to represent the spatial world internally in your mind — the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world. Spatial intelligence can be used in the arts or in the sciences.
6. Naturalist Intelligence: the ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) and sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef.
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence: having an understanding of yourself; knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid, and which things to gravitate toward. We are drawn to people who have a good understanding of themselves. They tend to know what they can and can’t do, and to know where to go if they need help.
8. Interpersonal Intelligence: the ability to understand other people. It’s an ability we all need, but is especially important for teachers, clinicians, salespersons, or politicians — anybody who deals with other people.
9. Existential Intelligence: the ability and proclivity to pose (and ponder) questions about life, death, and ultimate realities.
Howard Gardner’s seminal Theory of Multiple Intelligences, originally published in 1983, which revolutionized psychology and education by offering a more dimensional conception of intelligence than the narrow measures traditional standardized tests had long applied. (via thalamtnafsee)
This book is a hugely interesting read — it’s very academic in places, but worth slogging through. People learn in so many different ways, and in different combinations of all the above “intelligences”.
Corporate culture doesn’t value all these intelligences, nor do they care. But all these intelligences are important.
Dan Didio: *shoots his company’s flagship franchise in the foot by breaking up Lois Lane and Clark Kent because he wants to get Superman and Wonder Woman together*
Joe Quesada: *shoots his company’s flagship franchise in the foot by breaking up Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker because he wants to get Spider-Man together with his weird Gwen-Stacy-wannabe-Mary-Sue*
I have to double-check on the Spider-man one (I thought he was dating MJ again?) but yeah on the first.
Between Sen. Wendy Davis’s filibuster and the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, this week has been a strangely successful one for progressives in Texas. However, there was a ruling before either of these realities that girded conservatives and tea partiers in the state. On Tuesday, the SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act should be excised, and that Congress “may draft another formula based on current conditions.” This section, which contained a formula forcing nine states and assorted counties to pre-clear electoral changes with the federal government, was one of the main pillars of the VRA, providing federal oversight to areas that had used traditionally discriminatory practices to prevent minorities from voting.
Texas, as you may have heard, was one of the nine states subjected to such federal pre-clearance, most recently with its attempts at voter ID legislation. The new regulations were the greatest accomplishment of the 2011 Legislative Session, but afederal court used the VRA to bar the legislation from implementation. Now, following the SCOTUS’s new ruling, Attorney General Greg Abbott says he will be pushing for implementation as soon as possible. “With today’s decision, the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately,” he said on Tuesday.
Indeed, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, applications for the new Election Identification Certificates (EIC) were available yesterday, following Abbott’s announcement. The EIC is now one of six options of state-approved forms of ID the state will require citizens to present while voting.
And while the process of obtaining an EIC is relatively straightforward — the application is short, and you are presented with a receipt upon same-day approval that allows you to vote — the burdens that led the federal court to its earlier decision remain.
"The regulations remained in basically suspended animation," Logan Churchwell, the public relations director with pro-regulation True the Vote, told the Houston Press. “We see this [ruling] as moving forward for our republic, and as a celebrated decision.”
As currently structured, citizens will need to present both proof of US citizenship and identification in order to obtain an EIC. While the card itself is free, applicants would need to pay up to $22 for a birth certificate as one of the options for obtaining an EIC.
Churchwell disputed the notion that the cost should preclude anyone from obtaining the identification card.
"It’s important not to zero in on the birth certificate aspect, as that’s a very narrow interpretation of what you need for ID," Churchwell told the Press. “That’s just too narrow of a reality.”
However, other issues stand even more starkly. According to Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for TxDPS, citizens will need to apply for EICs at a TxDPS drivers license office. There is no option for a mail-in application. You must show up, in person, to obtain an EIC.
But per the Press’s calculations, there are 70 counties within Texas that do not provide such offices. From Irion and Crockett Counties in Central Texas to La Salle and Duvall Counties in South Texas, TxDPS’s website shows that nearly 30 percent of Texas counties do not provide the necessary offices at which residents will have to arrive if they want to pick up an EIC.
A raft of other uncertainties remain. Cesinger said she didn’t know how many Texans would apply for the new cards or how many would need them. “There are no projections for either of those,” she said.
She also said she was unsure as to how long it would take to receive the EIC following an application, or what kind of outreach programs, if any, her department would use to educate Texans as to the new regulations.
“The engineers at NASA, in their infinite wisdom, decided that woman astronauts would want makeup - so they designed a makeup kit. A makeup kit brought to you by NASA engineers. You can just imagine the discussions amongst the predominantly male engineers about what should go in a makeup kit.”—Astronaut Sally Ride (ESA Bulletin 154, pg 8)
I’ve had multiple requests from people to make this post rebloggable. To be honest, I wasn’t even sure I was going to bother because continuing to talk about this is just so darn exhausting at this point. It’s very easy to feel like, “What’s the point?” When it comes to DC Comics and issues of gender…I think we are all feeling more than a little drained, tired and apathetic at this point in time. It’s tough to even find the energy to have the conversation because no matter what we do or say there are always people there ready to shout us down, tell us to be quiet and silence us. I know some really brilliant women who just flat out don’t have the strength to engage anymore and frankly, I’m nearing that point myself.
I want to make something very clear though: The writer of the the new Superman/Wonder Woman book, Charles Soule is a nice man and a good writer who was hired to do a job. I don’t particularly agree with some of the things he has said in his recent blog post (in fact, I think he’s missing some really key points) but there are ways to discuss these things with him and others while being civil. Does that mean you can’t debate? Argue? Challenge? Of course you can. But if you are going to engage with this man please keep that in mind. You can challenge and you can disagree but cursing at this man is something I want no part of. If you link my post to him with curse words, I want nothing to do with you.
You know, a few months ago this dude friend of mine showed up to hang out with me all dejected. Over a couple of drinks he explained his long face — earlier that night, he’d been walking down the street behind this really cute girl, and when she looked back at him over her shoulder, he thought it was in interest and smiled at her. Now, this guy is tall and skinny, can most commonly be found in glasses and t-shirts scrawled across with math jokes, is kind to animals, considers himself a feminist. What he doesn’t consider himself is threatening, so he was surprised, confused, and even hurt by what happened next: the girl in front of him responding to his called greeting of, “Nice skirt,” by taking off down the darkened street in a dead run.
“Yeah,” I said, “she probably thought you were going to rape her.”
“But that’s not fair,” he said. “I’m a good person; I’d never rape anyone! How could she think that? She doesn’t even know me.”
Out here in the wilds of the internet, I often find myself making arguments about shit like feminism and rape culture unilaterally. For one thing, there’s so much (like, so much) out there arguing unilaterally against this shit that I feel it’s necessary; for another thing, ‘round these parts there’s a lot of people jumping to hostility when it’s painfully clear they don’t have a handle on all the facts. But I’m more lenient with the people in my real life, especially dudes like the one mentioned above. I’m willing to extend to them a patience that I wouldn’t with strangers on the internet, because they matter to me, and it matters to me that they understand. So when my friend sat there that night, whining over his beer and responding to my attempted explanations with, “But I’d love it if a girl smiled at me on the street, or even catcalled at me! Fuck, even if a dude did it, I’d be flattered,” I decided to spend some time thinking about how to clear things up for him. It took awhile, but I finally came up with a metaphor to get the job done:
“It’s easy to be considered a misandrist when men are socialized to feel entitled to women and our time. So, if you ignore them, you’re a misandrist. If you insist they leave you alone, you’re a misandrist. If you focus on building healthy female-centered relationships over relationships with men, you’re a misandrist. Misandry is basically, prioritizing your agency, autonomy and fellow women, over men in a society that teaches you that being feminine relies on giving into men’s feelings of entitlement.”—
I probably should’ve answered that ask publicly in case anyone else was curious. The Star Trek Online story I liked is detailed in a novel called The Needs of the Many. The novel gives a little epilogue for pretty much all the characters from the three series in that era and takes everyone from the end of Nemesi to the launch of the video game. (It does have the supernova from the 2009 reboot mentioned in it, so this is a continuation of the original timeline.) I didn’t play the game but I liked it.
Not a Data centric book, though, his story is only covered in two chapters. However, if you’re fond of Jake Sisko it is definitely worth looking at since the concept of the book is “Jake Sisko interviews the Star Trek Universe.”
Do I have a treat for you today. As you know, this year is the 75th anniversary of Superman and Lois Lane. In April I ran a series of posts from some of the creators who wrote Lois to celebrate the character. Brad Ricca is a well known authority on the history of the creation of Superman and Lois and we discussed his doing a guest post for the series. The result is this post which discusses and shows for the first time in many decades some some of the early, non-Superman comics by Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel that led to the creation of Lois Lane.
Brad Ricca (shown below) takes it from here.
So when Sue approached me about writing a guest post for the 75th anniversary of Lois Lane, I jumped at the chance. I love the character, like DC Women Kicking Ass (especially on Twitter), and oh yeah, I have a book coming out called Super Boys (June 4, St. Martin’s Press) that is all about the creation of Superman. But I had one request: I didn’t want to write about Lois.
Superman, then, is the agent of modern fable — the most compelling
fable the 20th Century gave us….
At the heart of that myth and legend is Romance.
That is not the same as the weak, whiny demands of soapopera that begin with “characterisation” and crap on with demands for
ever more levels of “conflict”, “jeopardy”, “ensemble writing”, “tight
continuity” and all the rest of that bollocks. These things are unimportant.
Many of them just completely get in the way of the job at hand.
SUPERMAN requires only the sweep and invention and vision that
myth demands, and the artistry and directness and clean hands that
SUPERMAN is about someone trying their best to save the world, one
day at a time; and it’s about that person’s love for that one whose intellect
and emotion and sheer bloody humanity completes him. It’s about
Superman, and it’s about Lois and Clark. And that’s all there is. That’s
the spine. That must be protected to the death, not lost in a cannonade
succession of continuing stories.
That’s what, in the continuing rush to top the last plotline, I see getting lost.
”—Warren Ellis, WHY THEY’LL NEVER LET ME WRITE SUPERMAN Brief, Disconnected Notes On An American Mythology