Eisner hangs up his brush

Will Eisner died on Monday.

eisner.png

There’s no way I can describe my admiration for Eisner’s cartooning. (If some genie appeared and offered to give me Eisner’s drawing skills in exchange for my legs, I wouldn’t even hesitate.) The best Eisner pages are simply perfect in every respect – the flowing, innovative, pitch-perfect layouts, the sure-handed anatomy, a surface loose and cartoony enough to keep things lively, and an exquisite brush line that only Walt Kelly ever did better.

Probably Eisner’ll be best-remembered for his pre-WW2 Spirit comics. That’s understandable. The Spirit was a great comic book, with a sense of design that remains stunning six decades later.

But for me the semi-autobiographical comics Eisner created in the 80s and 90s – about being young and Jewish and talented in the shadow of anti-Semitism and a gathering world war – are the peak of Eisner’s long career. Eisner’s cartooning was better in his 70s than in his 20s – looser, shorter brushstrokes, characters with lumpy bodies and faces like people I’ve known my whole life, and layouts too self-assured to bother being flashy. And Eisner’s later writing was both more ambitious and more human than the Spirit ever attempted. He did, as Kip said, have a tendency towards “shopworn stories” (and — let’s face it — a bit of a tin ear for dialog) but autobiography — and a real kindness towards his characters — helped him overcome that.

I took a cartooning class from Will at The School of Visual Arts. He was funny and sharp and overly kind with grades and not particularly interested in the comics we students produced (and who could blame him?). Most of the students had no idea they were being taught by a legend. He wasn’t a great teacher; the few students who cared had to work to engage his interest, draw out his insights, pestering him into talking shop. But holy fuck, it was worth it.

At the time, I knew enough to admire Eisner’s cartooning greatly but also thought his attitudes towards cartooning and storytelling were dated (and didn’t hesitate to tell Will so). In the years since, I’ve come to appreciate the lessons he taught – and his amazing kindness in putting up with argument after argument from a brash, ignorant kid like me. Will was too secure with his creative voice to bother keeping up with changing fashions, and his creative vision was firmly rooted in the 30s and 40s. But he knew the foundations of good visual storytelling like no cartoonist ever born, and that never gets outdated.

Kip has thoughts (“I’m smart enough not to write him off as a triumph of technique over substance, but even if I weren’t: my God , what technique”) and a lot of good links.

Posted in Cartooning & comics | 1 Comment

Stop selling food to fat people

Paul at Big Fat Blog links to this amazing example of… well, I don’t want to use the “f” word (not that “f” word, the other “f” word… no, not that one either. Think Italy in WW2. Yup, that’s the one), because it’s so cliched for a lefty to use that word. The author is George Lundberg, a TV medical pundit:

How can we stop the obese from becoming more obese? Pretty simple. Stop feeding them. Think about the other common self-destructive human behaviors. On a commercial airplane, in a saloon, or at a professional sports event, if the customer is deemed to be drunk, the keepers of the booze key will lock the cabinet. If a person drives a car at a dangerous speed, the driver is subject to substantial penalties. […] Yet, an obese person enters an eating joint, or a supermarket, and buys and eats any and everything he or she wants, and nobody seems to care. Does that make any sense to you?

So fat people shouldn’t be permitted to buy food? Lovely. “Sorry, fatty, but your waistline is clearly over the limit.”

Here’s the article – be warned, the link includes audio and video.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 3 Comments

Donna Frye should be mayor of San Diego

So I haven’t been following the news from San Diego lately, but I read this on a right-wing blog.

In San Diego, incumbent Mayor Dick Murphy was declared the winner when 5,547 ballots cast for write-in candidate Donna Frye were declared invalid by the courts. The ballots had Frye’s name written in, but did not have the associated bubble (indicating a write-in vote) filled in. Had those ballots been counted, Frye would have defeated Murphy by 3,439 votes.

I read that paragraph, and looked up, and it occurred to me that this was the right moment for me to stop reading. Because right now, I have no idea what political party Dick Murphy is from, or Donna Frye, or how their views differ.

So I can be somewhat sure that I’m not being partisan when I say: Donna Frye should have won the election. If someone writes a name in the write-in vote space, and otherwise hasn’t marked the relevant area of the ballot, then we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they intended to vote for the person they wrote in. For the court to allow an election to be turned by people forgetting to fill in the bubble is a travesty; it’s putting technicalities above substance.

Posted in Elections and politics | 3 Comments

Sex-Assault Treatment Guidelines Omit Pill

This is bad, but not unsurprising news (Free registration required):

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued its first-ever medical guidelines for treating sexual-assault victims – without any mention of emergency contraception, the standard precaution against pregnancy after rape…

…The development of national guidelines was required under the 2000 renewal of the decade-old federal Violence Against Women Act to develop uniform, quality care for sexual-assault victims.

…One of the most inconsistent aspects of care is the morning-after pill. A 2002 analysis of national emergency-room data by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey found that only 21 percent of sexual-assault victims received it. In a 1998 survey of urban Catholic hospitals, a University of Pennsylvania study found that 12 out of 27 centers had rules against informing rape victims about the method.

This is standard care for rape victims, not a political battleground. As Rob Findlay says, anti-abortion rights groups “want the public to believe that emergency contraception — ‘the morning after pill’ — is on the same level as an early abortion.” In reality it is closer to the birth control pill, a much higher dosage of it.

Outlaw the morning-after pill and there isn’t much standing in the way to begin chipping away at our other reproductive options such as, to be alarmist, the Pill.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | Comments Off on Sex-Assault Treatment Guidelines Omit Pill

What I've Been Reading Since I Haven't Been Writing

Though I have taken a break from the computer, I have managed to compile a list of noteworthy items.

  1. Alternet brings us two retrospectives on 2004, Arianna Huffington’s list of Things to Forget and the Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2003-04. My favorite is the “conspiracy” that the war on Iraq is not about control of natural resources. In my circle, we call that propaganda.
  2. The Stepford Way: a female fantasy? Amanda of Mousewords has plenty to say on the notion of the general attractiveness of female submission.
  3. A guest blogger at Buzz, Balls, and Hype examines Mommy Lit, big sister to Chick Lit, and the notion that motherhood is not interesting to those who aren’t mothers. (And for that matter, that literary accounts of women’s experiences aren’t as interesting as men’s.)
  4. Sixteen Tons of Fun: Dave Eggers of “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius” writes on Monty Python. I received Eggers’ most recent work, “How We Are Hungry,” for Christmas and it is wonderful, better than his sophomoric effort.
  5. New to my blogroll is Whirled View, a blog by three highly credentialed women on liberal and progressive politics. Patricia Kushlis writes Selling Cars, Colas and Countries.
    People in the White House and Pentagon are baffled. According to The New York Times on December 13, American policy makers can?t understand why a country able to market cars and colas to people deeply hostile to the U.S. can’t also “sell its democratic ideals” to them. Madison Avenue is infamous for its ability to persuade people to buy things they don’t need and can’t afford, and yet, our leaders observe, the U.S. falls short in persuading most Arabs (or even most Europeans) that the Iraq invasion was a good idea.

    The Bush administration has been fixated from day one on the “marketing” and “sales” models for influencing foreign publics. Soon after the inaugural a successful ad woman was appointed to head up the Public Diplomacy section of the State Department. To the surprise only of those who recruited her, the lady failed to generate a love fest for America in the Middle East. So she’s gone; wanted to spend more time with the family or something like that, the usual pretext for the departure of a high level political appointee.

    Why am I not surprised or baffled? [more]

  6. And finally a fun link, Bollywood for the Skeptical. I have been drawn into the glory of Bollywood this year after taking two movie-heavy classes on South Asian culture. If you don’t know where to start, begin downloading the songs from the 1950s and 60s and anything performed by Lata Mangeshkar. You won’t be disappointed. While you’re at it, rent the 2001 Academy Award nominee “Lagaan” over the new year.

Happy New Year to all! Be safe and smart, as all of you undoubtedly are, over the holiday weekend.

Posted in Link farms | Comments Off on What I've Been Reading Since I Haven't Been Writing

"Alas" comments are down.

As I’m sure many of you have by now noticed, no one can add new comments. I’m not sure what’s wrong; I’ve emailed the admin, and hopefully the problem will be fixed soon.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | Comments Off on "Alas" comments are down.

Hereville page 22 is up

Page 22 is done! Well, sort of. I’m running late, so I’ve posted the black and white art. Later on, I’ll replace it with the color image.

UPDATE: Color artwork is now online.

UPDATE 2: The cross-hatching on Fruma’s right hand looked pretty good on the black-and-white version, but looks awful and muddy in color, so I just went and removed 90% of it. Much better now.

Posted in Cartooning & comics | Comments Off on Hereville page 22 is up

Exercise doesn’t bring about weight loss

It’s a strange day when I agree with a Tech Central Station article. But this article on exercise and weight loss (via Big Fat Blog) is interesting.

…Few of us realize that the most significant body of research shows exercise doesn’t appreciably change body weights at all.

Recognizing that many of the studies finding beneficial weight loss due to exercise were not well controlled, researchers at the University of Texas conducted the Heritage Family Study. Led by Jack H. Wilmore, Ph.D., they put over 500 men and women on a 20-week endurance training program. While concluding that exercise can induce favorable changes, the study admitted they’re of “limited biological significance.” Yet the researchers speculated that increasing the intensity and duration of exercise would “likely have a major effect on body-composition and fat distribution.” (As we’ll see, that hopeful prediction didn’t prove out.)

Just how “limited” were the weight loss benefits of exercise? Men lost 0.4 kg and women a mere 0.1 kg! Other research, such as the meta-analysis done by researchers at the University of Vermont, has consistently found women lose less fat and weight than men, an understandably important biological attribute for preserving fertility and the survival of the species. “In a recent study conducted in our laboratory,” wrote Wilmore, “previously sedentary, moderately overweight women placed on an intense, 6-month, resistance-training program actually gained total mass and fat mass, even though they were instructed to maintain the same diet and activity pattern that they had before starting the study.”

The article goes on to describe several more studies which found the same result: for many people, exercise won’t lead to significant weight loss.

What’s horrible about this is that, by presenting exercise for fat people as primarily about weight loss, mainstream media and medicine may actually be increasing deaths among fat people. Because exercise for fat people is presented as a weight loss issue, those fat people who try exercise and find that they remain fat may not see the point of continuing. After all, the exercise program “failed.”

If the major media and the medical establishment preached that exercise – not weight loss – was the key to good health, then many people (especially fat people) might exercise more, and therefore lead longer, healthier lives.

But mainstream opinion-makers won’t do that. Sure, it might save some lives, but there are more imporant issues at stake here. Talking about exercise and health for fat people, without making losing weight the measure of success, implies that we can be fat and in good health. And that view is heretical in our fat-phobic society.

Arguably, it’s not only heretical – it’s immoral. For many people, being fat isn’t just a physical trait; it’s a moral flaw. And suggesting that people should be fat and fit is suggesting that immorality should go unpunished. To the most fat-phobic people, that suggestion doesn’t just sound wrong; it sounds unjust.

Posted in Fat, fat and more fat | 25 Comments

On Merit. And Sex. Of Course

Unfortunately, I underestimated just how awfully slow this dial-up connection here is in backwoods Small Town America (TM), so I’ve dug up an oldy but a goodie post of mine from Brutal Women, and I’m posting it here for your enjoyment.

Cheers…

On Merit. And Sex. Of Course.

So, it bugged Amanda and Echidne, too, which I find quite funny, because when I hopped over to Kos’s place and read his justification for the lack of PC diversity among his guestbloggers, something in me went, “Huh?” too. Amanda explored the issue further, I think, in this post about the democratic party’s seeming reluctance to forward a progressive agenda for women.

Kos’s comment actually read a lot like the backlash against affirmative action. I would love it if we lived in a world where merit alone really decided whose voices we hear, but as Amanda and Echidne pointed out, we don’t live there. Bringing in a voice that comes at issues from a new and different perspective (non-white, non-male, non-Christian) is a merit in itself.

Now, I’m not going to harp on Kos, because blogs are, of neccessity, very personal endeavors, and you have a right to run them the way you want to: but if you’re looking to put forward voices for progressive change and you take out women – those bold, powerful women and minorities whose campaigns for equal rights shook up this country so enourmously and so quickly in the 60s and 70s, then you’re missing a whole lot of shit. You’re missing the whole point. You’re not looking to change the world, you’re just looking to change your own place in it. And when you’re on top, you’ll switch sides and go conservative, because you’ve altered the system so that you and your white male buddies are in charge, instead of rich guys like Bush and his buddies.

Shuffling around old white men within the same power heirarchy isn’t getting any of us anywhere. It’s got the dollar dropping, healthcare sucking wind, social security going out the window, and a backlash against women’s rights that’s been steadily getting worse (in some circles) since the 80s.

Because what are we really talking about, when we talk about these “huge issues” “dividing” the country? Sure, the war in Iraq is huge. The war on terrorism is huge. But creating Big Bad Enemies is supposed to unite a country, not divide it.

The issues that were put up front to handwave people away from the war are the two big issues that people in the US are now most passionate about, and clawing at each other about: abortion/reproductive rights and homosexuality.

Let’s get that straight (ha), once and for all. The attacks on freedoms have to do with women. Yes, yes, terrorism is a big issue, and racism, and I don’t want to forget those – but reproductive rights and attacking homosexuality and preaching Back to Bible Basics is about controlling women.

Gay men are scary because the conception of “gay men” in red-staters heads likely brings to mind anal sex (whether or not said men engage in anal sex), and the gender binary says that means one of them’s gotta be passive, one of them’s gotta be the woman. Which means any man can be passive. Any man can be the woman. And in a society whose fear and disgust for women is shared by many women who spent their childhoods believing they could grow up to be “real” people, this is a terrible revelation.

And there’s nothing scarier to people who love to argue biological and/or Bible determinism than two women who not only can support themselves, raise children together, and provide one another emotional support, but don’t need men around for sex either, cause they’re quite fulfilled all on their own.

That’s some scary shit.

And, scarier than that: women who can decide to have children or not. Women who decide, therefore, whether or not a man has children.

That’s why people are angry about abortion. That’s why the father’s rights freak-outs are freaking out.

Women control fertility. Children don’t come out of thin air. They’re created OF a woman’s body: her blood, the food she eats, the air she breathes. That’s what makes a baby. A woman. Men submit a string of DNA, which triggers a chemical reaction inside of the egg, and the egg begins to divide itself. An egg is cells. Dividing cells attach to the wall of the uterus. Attaches back to the woman. And it’s women’s bodies that take over from there. Life depends on women. Life is women.

Get over it.

This pisses people off. It’s always pissed people off.

If the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, then the people who control women control the world.

That’s why controlling women is a major part of pretty much all major religions. That’s why women should be quiet in church, and obey their husbands, and not fall in love with women.

And yea, this world doesn’t benefit all men. There are lots of geeky guys who don’t want to be violent, and hurt people, and be mean to women, and play sports, and rule the world. There are a lot of guys who really do want to just have friends, and love people. In fact, I think most people are like that, male or female. If we let sex be more social and less romantic-kill-me-I’m-dying-you-must-marry-me-cause-I’m-lonely/pregnant/can’t do my own laundry, then I think we’d be getting back to what the hell sex is really about in the first place. There’s a reason women’s clitorises are outside of the vagina, and a reason 70-80% of women don’t have orgasims with penetrative sex alone.

Sex isn’t all about procreation.

::gasp::

The biological “facts” about men and women like to ignore the clitoris, and the fact that men can get off just fine without a vagina.

Sex is about keeping people together, forming social connections, it’s about showing affection. And when women are allowed to control their sexuality, when they decide that no, maybe, they’ll live in a house of women and raise children, or a house with some guy friends and some girlfriends, or a house by themselves, they have the power to cut men out of the affection loop, and eventually, the children loop, if they so choose.

This is real power. And women are raised to believe their bodies are wacky, abberant, dirty, disgusting, bloody, awful, fat things.

The bodies that could rule the world.

We’re told we don’t have merit. We don’t have voices, because if we were really all that good, obviously, someone would have noticed us. If we were quieter, prettier, if we preached violent foreign policy, men would like us, and if we parrotted their own views back at them, we’d be allowed to talk.

We would talk about what they wanted to talk about: We’d stop talking so much about those silly bloody uteruses that are so obviously so bloody fucking unimportant that the women carrying said uteruses have been the targets of rage, hatred, and Biblical control for most of recorded history.

In fact, women’s issues are so completely frivolous that men don’t even talk about them, except to harp about how women being able to take care of themselves and kiss each other is biologically abberant because it leaves men out, and how women should be forced to carry around a man’s strand of DNA until her body creates a child with it because “killing” a man’s DNA is so much more awful than forcing women into slavery for said DNA.

Yes, we’ve been over this before. Women bloggers aren’t read because in addition to screaming at the world and talking about healthcare and politics, they talk about their uteruses, and talking about uteruses doesn’t interest men.

In fact, it doesn’t interest anyone at all.

That’s why entire religions, social mores, and scientific theories have been built up to control them.

Women have no merit at all.

I don’t know why I didn’t see it sooner: being a woman, and all.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 10 Comments

Lousy Christmas bonus nets $354 (and counting)

Horizon Air Collectable Fine China.

Just one day and 23 hours of bidding time left!

Posted in Whatever | 4 Comments