Batman on TV 40 years on

Apparently it's the 40th aniversary of the Adam West Batman TV this week. By total coincidence I happened to see the unbroadcast Batgirl pilot yesterday and caught an episode of The Batman cartoon today.

It seems unlikely that the 7 minute Batgirl show was a test for an actual Batgirl series as it introduces both Batgirl and Barbara Gordon as new characters meeting Batman for the first time. It also heavily features the Batman cast, but it's basically one scene, set in the library where Barbara works, which will need to close for renovation by the end of it. My guess is that it was a test or sample of some sort to pilot the third season of Batman, which first introduced the "dominoed dare-doll" *cringe*.


I haven't watched any episodes of the show in years, so I couldn't say if there are any changes between this presentation of Batgirl and how she appears in the Batman show, except for one thing; the Batgirl motorcycle that Sleestak exposed us to recently on Lady That's My Skull is not the one in this show. This one has some bat-customisation (including a windscreen at such a low angle that a jolt forward would be liable to cause you to smash your face against the top edge) but is a lot closer to a stock machine than the frilly mauve nightmare Slee presented us with.

One bit of trivia that entertained me - although this bore no relation to the comics origin of this Batgirl, it shared the same villain from her first comics appearance, Killer Moth.


Fast forward nearly 40 years and we have The Batman; latest in a long line of animated versions of the character, and struggling under the shadow of the definitive Batman The Animated Series. I'd only seen a couple of episodes before, and it hadn't prompted me to make any effort to find more. I like the Tim Burton inspired "Batman Classic" feel of BTAS and this version isn't good enough to outweigh my annoyance that its presence limits how much of the BTAS version is allowed on Justice League Unlimited. It seems very strange that there are currently two interpretations of the same character in different shows, but that's a whole other rant.

How does The Batman fare when judged for itself? It has its own style, which is good. The conceptual artists at least have put in a lot of effort. I think it was courageous to go for such a radically different interpretation of the Joker, but it's an interesting one. I haven't seen enough to tell what they've done with it. And that's where the problems start, really. The visual style and the designs are interesting and fresh (mostly) but the actual execution...

Take the episode I saw today - it was the introduction of Man-Bat. Initially it looked like the motivation of the villain, Dr. Langstrom might be interesting as we find out he is studying bat sonar to help his deaf neice. Except that this turns out to be a lie and his neice can hear fine. In fact the only motivation he seems to have for turning himself into a grotesque monster is because he wants to be as scary as Batman. Even though he has been working on it for months he appears to have no plan once he succeeds. He just kind of flies around and sucks the blood of goats and stuff.

So all the depth and characterisation of the original version of the character is dumped in favour of a superficial monster of the week. Maybe they didn't have the budget for a plot with greater depth. They certainly didn't spend a lot on the animation. Although the actual designs are stylish and the animation we get is adequate, it fails to disguise how empty the world is. The streets are completely bare. Other than those essential to the plot there are no people and no vehicles.

This kind of economy does result in the few regular characters having to shoulder responsibility for covering all demographics, of course. So the only two cops who ever appear in the show are the laid back friendly black guy and his partner the hardass no-nonsense career girl (who I think is also supposed to be ethnic as her surname is Yin) who is determined to bring Batman to justice even though he saves her ass every episode. In many ways it's as cliche ridden as the '60's show, but it's not as funny.

Cake or Death?

While there are many differences between people, I usually have this idea that deep down our minds work in similar ways, causing us to instinctively respond in similar and ways to events. And then every so often I come across a situation that makes me wonder.

I mean, what kind of person when faced with the choice of cake or death says "What kind of cake?"

When Catgirls Attack!!

Kawaii Overload!!

The Care and Feeding of Compliments

And here's another thing; compliments.

Lots of people don't really understand compliments, what to do with them and how to respond to them. Often the response to a compliment is to deny it: "You look great in that dress!" "What, this old thing? It's nothing special." Whether this is some kind of social false modesty, I don't know.

Other people deflect them with jokes: "Your hair looks nice today." "So what was wrong with it yesterday?"

But some people really don't know how to deal with a compliment at all. Say something nice to them and they either look at you blankly or pretend that they haven't heard. They are uncomfortable with compliments and have no clue what to do with them.

Somewhere, long ago I read where someone described a compliment as a gift, and the appropriate response to recieving a gift is to smile and say "thank you".

That works for me.

Atonement

The other part of saying sorry is atonement. That's when you ask the other person's forgiveness. These days when someone says "forgive me" they seem to think that merely saying the words should be enough, but traditionally this request to mend a hole in the relationship requires the person asking for forgivness to actually do something to make amends for whatever they have done.

Sometimes it's obvious. You accidentily put a ball through next-door's window; you expect to replace it. But with less immediately tangible situations people often seem to think that saying the words should be enough. An example occured yesterday when I was playing the online super villain game City of Villains.

Someone had invited me on to a team that was much higher level than my character, but the game has a system where you can 'sidekick' a lower level player and they are boosted to the level of the higher player while teamed up. All was going fine and well, except that my partner became (for reasons irrelevent to this article) fed up and decided to leave. He committed one of the worst breaches of ettiquette possible in an online game by quitting the team during a fight. Apart from any effect it had on the others to lose a team member at this point, it caused me to lose my sidekick status and suddenly I was surrounded by enemies who had just gained 10 levels relative to me and I was face down in the gutter.

I was surprised that he had the gall to contact me after this, but he did, apologizing to me for leaving but he wasn't happy with the team. It wasn't until I pointed out that his action was calculated to kill me that he even considered the effect his action had on anyone else, and he was genuinely upset and asked me to forgive him.

And I thought "What is my forgiveness worth to you? Are you prepared to fix the trouble you caused me? Are you about to help me work off the experience debt I acquired due to your actions? No, you just want me to say the words so you can feel better. Why should I let you off the hook when your action is going to take me maybe a half hour's effort to fix?".

So I said I'd forgive him when I had worked off the debt.

He didn't offer to help.

Links should be good

People have different views on linking. Some will give you everything including kitchensinkblog, and that's cool. It does give you a lot of different things to sample, but it's also very unfocussed.

My links are few; the blogs I link to are those that I check every day and ones I would recommend to anyone. It's a very short list and really deserves to be expanded. I could easily add Nobody Laughs at Mister Fish, Polite Dissent, Suspension of Disbelief, and probably several others that I have undeservedly forgotten*, but links to these can be found at the places I do link to, so I don't feel too much pressure to link to every single blog that I like. Anyhow, my point is that it's not routine for me to add a new one, and certainly not when I only just read it for the first time today.

Not only that, it's a linkblog. I have nothing against linkblogs, and have whiled away many hours when I should have been doing something else following entertaining links from such places, but I've never seen much point in linking to something that just links to something else.

So it's a big deal to me to add When Fangirls Attack to the list, and it's not just because they referenced something I'd written, honest. The subject of Women and Comics is an important one to me, and this is what Ragnell and kalinara address on a regular basis, bringing together links from all over the place that contribute to the debate.



*Blanket apology there to the creators of all those fine blogs that didn't spring to mind while I was writing this. I'm very, very sorry and should be spanked for leaving out something as wonderful as yours.

Half of seven is four

WARNING: Arr! There be spoilers ahead, matey!

I know a lot of people are waiting until Grant Morrison's epic Seven Soldiers is completed before passing comment, but I just got the opportunity to read the first four mini-series in one go, so I thought I'd venture a few thoughts.

First off one has to acknowledge that it's an ambitiously mad epic experience. Kudos to Grant for even attempting it. I can't think of anyone this side of Alan Moore who would even try to do something like this. It also makes me think of Kirby's Fourth World. That's the only other time I can think of where a single writer produced several monthly comics with distinctive individual flavours to tell stories that were part of a larger experience.

Which is not to say individual titles or stories are not without faults. There are times in almost all the titles where the Metaphysical bullshit detector veers dangerously into the red, but what really struck me was that most of the titles feel a bit cramped. In Manhattan Guardian the first three issues are about the Guardian's relationship with his girlfriend and family, then they are suddenly dropped and we're in major flashback city with very little set up. In Klarion our hero spends several issues escaping to the world above and then you blink and he's already established as part of a gang. I haven't read up on the background to the production but I have this sneaking suspicion that maybe the original plan was to do seven miniseries of seven issues each, and as part of some compromise with editorial it was reduced to four.

Things I liked: Each of the different series was actually different. While strands of meta-plot wandered from one to the other the stories themselves were quite individual.

Things I didn't like so much: The apparent compression of storylines, the metaphysical BS, and what the hell was the point of revealing that the Shining Knight was female five pages before the end of the story? The only relevance it seems to have is to add some intensity to the confrontation with Lancelot because we are informed that she's always had a thing for him. Surely that would have been even more poignant if Justin had been male? Knowing that she is female doesn't make you think "oh, that bit from earlier in the story suddenly makes a lot more sense" so it has all the surprise value of pulling a sock out of a hat - you weren't expecting it but you don't really care. I can only hope that it becomes relevant later on.

Pained apology

I recently received an apology from someone I knew. It was crap. In fact it was one of the worst apologies I had ever received. And it's not the first time. This is someone who is so bad at apologising that he actually makes any situation worse than before when he says 'sorry'.

In this instance, as is usually the case, it was a very minor issue where I had gently chided him for chasing me up about a non-essential issue before I'd had a chance to do anything about it. His response was "I don't think I deserve being called a nag, but I apologize to you if you think so." It's like talking to a politician. He denies that the accusation is valid but grudgingly agrees to humor me with the word anyway. But wait! There's more! He then goes on to explain in detail about how I had mislead him as to the situation and how it was my fault all along. All of which converts a bijou mole living space into a geographical feature visible from orbit.

He's pissed at me and I am now pissed at him where I wasn't before, but it's all so pathetically trivial that I can't be bothered to call him on it. That and it feels like anyone who over-reacts over such a minor issue is hardly going to be receptive when you try to talk to them about a real problem they have.

The dictionary gives several definitions of 'Apology', but the main one is this:

a·pol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-j)
n. pl. a·pol·o·gies

1. An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

Now if you refuse to acknowledge that you are at fault and deny responsibility for any offense then it's not an apology, however much you claim it is.

It's an insecurity thing, I think. And we all go through it when we are young. I know I remember a time when I found it tremendously difficult to admit that I had done something wrong, even when it was a genuine accident or misunderstanding. And later I too went through a period where I would apologise, but still find a way to deny responsibility for the situation. But at some point I became secure enough in myself that I understood that I could acknowledge my mistakes without it diminishing me in any way.

How to apologise

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel that you should make an apology to someone, keep it simple. Like the definition says, an acknowledgement expressing regret or asking pardon. Any attempt to elaborate beyond this should be strictly avoided.

Good example:

I'm sorry I stepped on your toe.

Bad example:

I'm sorry I stepped on your toe but your stupid foot shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Even if you do believe that the other person shares some responsibility for the problem, ie, putting their foot somewhere that it might easily be trodden on, it's irrelevent. An apology acknowledges your responsibility, nobody elses. If they then have the grace to acknowledge they were also at fault, then that's cool. But it's for them to say, not for you to point out. Plus, you know, if they then fail to do so you can feel morally superior to them for the rest of the day.

Since I've been gone

Apologies for the lack of posts this week. I just don't seem to have had much to say. But I just started reading the whole Seven Soldiers thing, so expect a comment or two on that soon.

Violence and the single girl

The Fan Fatale forum over at Big Monkey Comics brings up the subject of violence in comics, and how it differs where women are concerned to when it's just guys. This got me thinking, but it's a big subject and there is no way I can address it properly with one post, so I've decided to make it an occasional series that I'll add to whenever I can think of something to say on the subject.

The forum asks if violence towards or by women is portrayed differently than when it only involves men. I think another related question to consider might be will violence by or toward women be perceived differently by the reader?

I'm going to leave you to think about that for a while and take a look at a scene from Supergirl #3.*


Lex Luthor, who has been obsessing over Supergirl for some time, spying on her and pasting up candid photos over her all over his walls finally confronts her and beats her up. Now disregarding the whole creepy stalker aspect of the situation, what we have here is the classic hero/villain confrontation which can be found in virtually every comic ever published by Marvel and DC. So why does Lex feel the need to justify himself?

There is something distasteful about the whole scene. Is it because it's an adult male beating down a 15 year old girl? There have been teenage girl superheroes for a long time. Supergirl herself has been around since 1957. In the silver age a girl hero would be generally pitted against a girl villain, but Supergirl has fought plenty of adult male villains, and even faced off against Luthor on plenty of occasions. So what is different about this scene?

Is it that attitudes have changed over the years and such a scene carries connotations it would not have had before? Is it that Luthor, known for psychologically torturing women for fun, suddenly feels the need to justify attacking his enemy? Or that the explanation he gives is so thin and pathetic? "You wear the big S and that makes it okay for me to beat the crap out of you" doesn't begin to cover all the creepy stalker stuff that's led to this confrontation.

I think a lot of it is that the fight is so totally one-sided and so brutally depicted. Okay, at the end Supergirl appears to have hardly a scratch on her, but that's just a problem with the artist who has just shown her being repeatedly hit so hard that she's spurting blood but is incapable of actually making her look as if she's been bruised. Personally I think if you are going to show violence then do it properly and show the effects of that violence. I'd really rather do without the brutal beatings at all, but if you have to show one, then don't lie to us and pretend that 5 minutes later the character is all better with barely a hair out of place.



*Disclaimer: I picked this comic because it contains the scene I wish to address and I would have done so regardless of who wrote it. Those people who make a fuss every time I discuss a comic written by Jeph Loeb are free to suggest an alternative comic which contains an equivilent scene that I could address. Otherwise please feel free to get over yourselves.

Glad to be gay

Yesterday Robbie Williams won a libel case over a newspaper claiming that he was gay. The basic report is here but that doesn't give the real significance of the story. According to BBC radio 4's news program PM the dispute was not over whether he was gay, but by claiming that he was gay the newspaper was saying that he was a liar when he said he was entirely hetrosexual.

Why not just do them for calling him gay? Because now in the UK to call someone gay is not in itself libelous. As character defamation it has all the power of calling someone "bignose".

I can't but help see this as a mark of greater tolerance toward alternative lifestyles. It almost makes me feel patriotic.

Ever and anon

I blame Stan Lee.

He was the one who had the odd idea that Scandiwegion gods should speak in elizabethan english which, when you think about it makes as much sense as giving Kali and Ganesha japanese accents. But it kind of works to a degree, and does give the Aesir a sense of difference from ordinary mortals. Well, other than ordinary mortals that use thee and thou a lot, anyhow. The big problem with this is that a lot of the writers on Thor, being American, haven't got much idea how elizabethan english works, so they get it wrong a lot.

Okay, I have an advantage here. I'm british. I may not be able to tell you which way up our national flag is supposed to go, but I was taught Shakespeare well enough to get the jokes in Macbeth. It also means that the occasional Shakespearian word makes it into everyday speech here and there.

Most of the time you ignore the stupid mistakes. Either that or you don't read the comic. But now and again you get something that is so stupid it's funny. Case in point:


Now Dan Jurgens is apparently under the impression that "anon" means "immediately". It doesn't. It means "at another time" or "later". So here we have Hercules saying with great anger "Apologise to my father, Thor. In the fullness of time."

Similarly here we have Balder sent on a desperately urgent mission to Svartelfheim, and he says:


Translation: "If your life matters to you, you must free me at some point in the not too distant future!"

It gives the action a much more relaxed feel to it, don't you think?

Harley and Ivy

Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy: are they totally hot for each other or what?


Well yes, of course they are. But although giving comic characters a homosexual subtext is somehow a whole lot less controversial when they are female rather than if they are male, it's still problematic to openly admit it, especially when the relationship comes out of a cartoon aimed at a 'family' audience, ie. one where the older members of the family don't want to have to explain any of the more complicated aspects of life to the younger ones because the show they are watching was realistic enough to contain any. So although Harley and Ivy are often seen living together, in situations and states of undress that a pair of male characters could never get away with, no details are ever given about their relationship.

Except for one time, in the Batgirl Adventures special, Paul Dini (responsible for the whole situation in the first place) manages to slip in a couple of references that really leave no doubt as to what's going on. The most significant piece of dialogue comes when Harley and Batgirl find Ivy tied up, and at the mercy of the evil Kit Nozawa and her all girl gang and Batgirl says "Why you care about that walking waste dump is beyond me. You'd be safer around a spitting cobra."

And if that wasn't enough, there's also the panel where Ivy describes Harley as "More important to me than you'll ever know." And then when Harley and Ivy are finally reunited...

Aw, it's so sweet.

It's kinda funny that all this paranoid editorial self censorship has actually resulted in a relatively subtle depiction of a lesbian relationship. If they have to pretend it's not there it can never become an issue in the way overt depictions of homosexuality are usually handled.

Go Paul Dini!

We are all NPC's in someone's game

I was playing City of Villains this morning and some guy calls me out of the blue and asks if he can join my group. I point out that he is much lower level than the rest of the group I'm in, so he says that since his character is more of a support type, his total inneffectiveness against the enemies we would face was not important (which was true to a degree) and he'd get lots of experience points (gaining experience points, for those who don't play these kind of games, is how you progress and get better toys). This is also true, but I didn't feel that inclined to take on a group member whose main skill appeared to be freeloading. I explained this, he called me bad words, and I added him to my ignore list, which blocks me from ever hearing anything he says. But it got me thinking.

Had it been a friend who asked I would have invited them in without hesitation, and expected similar response from them if I was the lower level. We do it all the time among the people I hang out with. But allowing a complete stranger to join my team purely to gain from our efforts while offering minimal contribution themselves? That's going to take a little more persuasion than that they would greatly benefit from it, and I was a little perplexed that anyone should even offer this as a reason.

The only conclusion I could come to was that this guy didn't really understand the difference between a regular solo game and an online game. In an ordinary game there is you, and every other character you meet is generated by the computer and run by the game programming to respond to you in specific ways; these are called Non-player characters, or NPC's for short. In a MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game) you have plenty of NPC's, of course, but you also have a lot of characters that are the avatars of other players who, like you, are sitting at home playing the game on their computer. It's really not hard to tell them apart.

I sometimes think there are some people who never quite get that the other characters they team up with are real people. Their attitude is completely selfish and self-centred. They will leave the game in the middle of a big fight without warning, because they have decided to do something else, thereby getting everyone else killed who was relying on them. They will go take a break leaving their character parked in a position where they will continue to receive their share of the experience points being won by the rest of the team even though they have gone off to make coffee or are chatting with friends on IM. And they will consider it a reasonable argument that they should be put in a position where they gain maximum reward for minimum contribution, and are upset when this fails to persuade complete strangers.

You know, I think there are people like that in real life, too.

Epilogue: now what?

Several people have asked me what I'm going to do with my story now its finished, and when they'd get to see it.

The simple answer is not anytime soon. While there are parts I am very pleased with, there are others that I dread to reread now, not to mention all the bits where I decided that something which happened two chapters ago had now happened differently or not at all.

I'm going to get a bit of distance from it and write something else before I come back and do a second draft. The month may be over but I find I really enjoy this stuff. I always wanted to write since I was a little kid, but I never really had that much confidence in my own fiction writing ability. Now I do, so I'd like to do some more.

After that I may either try to sell it to a publisher or self-publish through Lulu.com or something. I'd rather make it available as an actual physical book than just post it online.

It may be a while but it's likely that this story will be available in some form eventually. I don't intend to just metaphorically stuff it in a drawer and not let anyone ever see it. That's not really my style. :>

Day twenty eight: final entry

I did it!

I can hardly believe it myself, but it's finished. The longest single thing I have ever written. I am in awe of myself. Well, I might be if I didn't have some idea just how much work will be required for the rewrite. Still feeling very smug, though.

I have this thing about life where I'm thinking if somebody came up to me and asked me what i had to show for the last six months, what would I say? Right now I could say "I wrote a novel".

Anyhow, it seems unfair to end this without a quote from the story, so here's a bit from the epilogue.

Greta’s dad led them out to the car park and stopped at a nice looking car, a deep green in colour. Candy had no clue about cars beyond them all having a wheel at each corner, but this was an impressive vehicle. It was the kind of car driven by people who could afford Rolls Royces but didn’t want to appear flashy.

The man opened the boot and he and Greta’s dad started to pile their cases into it. Oh, thought Candy, he’s the chauffer. Which was nice.

“So what’s my little girl been doing at school this term?” Asked Greta’s dad, smiling that big smile. Now there’s a loaded question, thought Candy.

Final word count for first draft: 50,249

Day twenty seven

One of the problems you often find at the end of a novel is where the reader finally finds out what is going on. At the worst this can involve the heroes taking a chapter at the end of the story to explain the plot to each other after it's all over even though they all know it already, or there's the old cliche of the villain going

"And now before I kill you I shall explain the details of my dastardly scheme."

But how do you get around this kind of infodump cliche? I find as I reach the climax of my story I have to do some of this, partly because I only just worked out a lot of it myself. I started writing it during the final big confrontation, but that just seemed stupid.

Why on Earth would the villain be explaining the plot in the middle of a fight? I read way too many comic books.

So I went back a bit and had various characters who hadn't met before locked up in a cellar so they could compare notes, but it's still kinda clunky. At least it gives me the opportunity to set up one of the final twists a bit better.

Most unexpected plot twist of the day, possibly the whole novel, occured when I realised that the bit of the epilogue I wrote on Friday isn't the epilogue at all. The actual epilogue occurs a little earlier. What I started writing on Friday was the first chapter of the sequel.

Oh dear.

Word count now: 48,133 and on schedule to pass the finish line late tomorrow!! OMG OMG!!!

Day twenty six

Okay, I'm now getting that whooshing sound as I fly down the hill at ever increasing speed and I'm wondering if I've got any control of this sled or where it's going and am I going to hit a tree.

I had been intending to let the climax of the story build a little more slowly while I figured out what was going on, but given the amount I'm writing right now each day I realised that if I used the last day to tie up loose ends and finish the epilogue, spent the previous day on the climactic confrontation, that only left today to set up the climax.

So about 500 words in to today's episode everything shifts up a gear and the characters who were sitting around being witty and attempting to puzzle out what was going on now have to go deal with a situation RIGHT NOW.

I'm going to have to smooth that out a bit in the rewrite and build up the tension a bit more, but I don't have time to worry about that now.

This is one of the bits I find most difficult to write, when I know I have to get characters from A to C via B and have D, E and F occur along the way. I find it very mechanical, as opposed to when I can just point my characters in the general direction I want them to go and let them get there in their own sweet time, being witty and clever along the way. My main characters are such fun to write that it's like I'm not writing them at all, just running along behind them and taking notes.

One of the most memorable things I read about creating characters was by Dave Sim, back in the sane days. I forget the exact quote (yes, it was that memorable), though I'm sure someone can remind me, but the basic idea was that he reckoned that the mark of good characterisation was that you could lock your characters together in a closet for an issue and you'd still get an entertaining story. He eventually did something very like this in Cerebus #51 or #52 and proved his point. Now I know if I locked my two main characters in a closet they'd just start making out, but maybe if I tied them up...

Meanwhile, back at the novel I did finally work out who the villain was, and it wasn't who I had been setting up at all. And yet somehow it all makes sense and gives the thing a neat twist.

Word count now 45,675.

Day twenty five

Things are starting to get exciting now.

There was something about hitting 40,000 that felt like reaching the top of the hill. It had been a big struggle at times, and a lot of fun at others, but when you have reached that point then all you have left to do is something that you've already done four times over. I was still a little vague on a few minor plot points, like who the villain was and what they were up to, but these were just details.

The biggest worry left was really whether I was going to go over or under fifty thou. It felt like the amount of story left was pretty much on target, but it might take a sudden twist and all tie up a little early, in which case I knew there were plenty of places I had only roughly sketched in where I could go back and add description and detail, but I didn't really want to be doing that if I could help it.

Now I have just over five thousand words left and I don't see any danger of under-running. It was a bit of a slow start this morning and I did a bit of the epilogue, since that was more interesting than the next sequential scene, but I can now see I'll be hard pushed to get from here to there in five thou.

I think I might just pull this one off.

Day 22

Just zoomed past the 40,000 word mark. I'm still on schedule to finish November 29th.

Woohoo!