You are viewing rhjunior

About this Journal
The caustic opinions of a politically incorrect fat cranky jackass.
Current Month
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031
May. 2nd, 2013 @ 08:31 am (no subject)
The reason for the failure of the publishing industry, summarized:

You see, the other factor for teh crazy moving in and the group losing all contact with reality is to have, at its core a sub group that is completely far removed from reality and that operates internally without any checks and balances. (I suppose numbers and figures SHOULD rationally have operated as checks and balances on publishers but a) the slow instauration of a completely push model made sure that the books they favored sold more than others, no matter how inane. B) any book that failed was ALWAYS the writer’s fault c) the steady creep down of ALL sales in the field was shrugged off as “people don’t read anymore” – the same way that when classical music went un-listenable (totally a word) the drop in sales meant that “listeners are getting dumber.”) Sara Hoyt, "Teh Crazy"

TL;DR version---

1)Editors and publishers live in a bubble, totally out of touch with the real world.

2)Because they're out of touch, they pick awful books, and prefer the worst ones.

3)Because they PUSH those books, those books sell best.... and they demand more of the same.

4)Because they demand more of the same, books overall start to stink on ice.

5)Because their books stink on ice, fewer books overall sell.

6)Because they don't sell well, the editors and publishers conclude everyone else is at fault-- the writers, the readers, etc--- in short, they shrug and say "people don't read anymore."
About this Entry
pestering
Apr. 16th, 2013 @ 03:38 pm All my books at Indyplanet.com
For those that missed it, ALL my Nip and Tuck books are available for purchase at indyplanet.com for $9.99 or less. Just go to

http://indyplanet.com/store/index.php?manufacturers_id=7167

To see what volumes are available.

(My other books are available there as well)
About this Entry
pestering
Apr. 4th, 2013 @ 05:11 pm Final Volume of Nip and Tuck now on sale
Finally, after nearly 15 years online, I'm bringing the curtain down on my webcomic Nip and Tuck.

As a sort of farewell gesture, the last hardcopy volume- "Nip and Tuck, Vol.3: Curtain Call" is now on sale at ka-blam.com.

http://www.indyplanet.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8291

100 pages, black and white.... a mixed collection of strips and artwork. 9.99 plus S+H
About this Entry
pestering
Mar. 28th, 2013 @ 11:26 pm (no subject)
About this Entry
pestering
Mar. 8th, 2013 @ 08:26 am Medical update: digestive woes
Had to go to the ER last night due to a relapse of my diverticulosis. Very painful, very unpleasant, trust me. I lived however...
Going to be spending the next day or two recuperating with my parents, so will be semi-available.
About this Entry
pestering
Mar. 3rd, 2013 @ 01:21 pm Happy BDay, Strangewulf!
Hippo birdy two ewe.
About this Entry
pestering
Feb. 16th, 2013 @ 02:15 pm MLP review: Magical Mystery Cure
Yes, just watched the season finale. It was well done, artistically, well written dialogue, lots of charming tunes, very nice visually.

I hate it.

After all that waiting and buildup, the episode answers NONE of the questions that fans have been going crazy about, eliminates none of the stated worries--- and what few HINTS there are make all sorts of terrible implications.

She's a princess now. Princess of what?
Does she stay in the castle? Stay in Ponyville?
What of the other five bearers? What does this do to the Bearers of the Elements?
And what the hell was that damn spell that caused everything SUPPOSED to do?
Most importantly, did Celestia MAKE her a princess, or just watch her grow INTO a princess? They actually managed to make THAT vague!


The closest to any sort of hint is the rather UNfortunate implication that anyone who creates a new kind of magic becomes an alicorn prince/princess...and ONLY to those ponies. unfortunate because hey, screw you, pegasi and earth ponies. Hope you weren't planning on a representative government-- unicorns only past the velvet rope.

And wasn't it nice of Celestia to consult with her citizens before coronating her flaky apprentice?

And if Celestia transformed her as a reward, rather than merely midwifing the process... this means Celestia and Luna have been hoarding the secret of nigh immortality to themselves, doling it out to the few ponies-- unicorns, invariably-- whom they deem "worthy." That's ghastly in and of itself.

That also begs the question of where are the alicorn PRINCES? Congratulations on that little bit of backhanded sexism, hasbro.

I furthermore address the fact that they basically took a scholar and a bookworm-- a character who loved science and research for its own sake, who flaked out if anything went awry--- and turned her into "a natural born ruler" and a crown princess who didnt turn a hair at being declared royalty and, oh yeah, SPROUTING TWO WHOLE NEW APPENDAGES, in a single episode. "We're not going to chance Twilight's personality." No, they're just going to ignore it entirely from this point on.

Structure wise, there was too much story in too little time, a problem that has been dogging the writing all season. This SHOULD have been a two-part episode; too much happens and it's all rushed. It's made worse by the fact that there's too much music. I counted FOUR different musical numbers in the first five minutes! They even resorted to dropping everyone into a cold opening, in media res, and STILL didn't have enough time to flesh out everything that happened. Why? Because the characters spend all their time singing the plot points rather than performing them. This isn't "not enough time," it's writing incompetence. Too much happens in too little time and they STILL manage to not answer any of the fans' real questions!

In competent hands the coronation episode could have resolved a lot of issues, moved the character development forward, and given the Hasbro executives what they wanted without cheesing the supporting fanbase off. Instead the episode manages to explain nothing, resolve nothing, please noone, and reveal nothing that the sentence "Twilight becomes an alicorn" didn't.

Oh yeah, and feature some absolutely butt-ugly toy designs.

I give them a 1 out of 5, and that 1 is only for not resorting to even WORSE cliche's and tropes as every corporate burned fan out there feared.
About this Entry
pestering
Feb. 15th, 2013 @ 01:37 am Beautiful Creatures?
Current Mood: angryangry
In short: Crap.



The majority of the movie is devoted to a ham-fisted display of the disgusting bigotry of West Coast elitists. All the cast (outside of the protagonists themselves) are grotesque caricatures right out of the rantings of a squealing, wet-diapered hollywood Limo Liberal. The only reason this movie was greenlighted was so that a group of hollywood bigots could piss in the face of half the population of this nation. In a more enlightened time these cocaine-nosed piglets would have either been shot full of holes in a duel of honor, or been dragged out of their mansions, tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. Either way they would have been little tolerated and less employed.

Even AFTER putting aside the vulgar insults slung at southerners, christians, conservatives, and small-town Americans, what little that was left of the movie was still a gross insult to human intelligence. Hell, it was an insult to the intelligence of any HOUSE PETS sitting in the audience.

To quote another review:
So let me get this straight. In the magical world of Beautiful Creatures, when a “caster” girl turns 16, she is “claimed” by either the “Light” or the “Dark.” She has no say in the matter -- she’s either inherently good or inherently evil, and that’s that. She has no free will. She has no control over her own fate. The claiming is merely the revelation of her unchangeable base nature.

Boys get to choose, of course. Boys are not inherently good or inherently evil, but are masters of their own destiny.

If movies could be not tossed aside lightly but thrown with great force, this would be one demanding that response.


Moving beyond the ghastly premise itself---

The "casters," apparently the writers apparently couldn't make their minds up whether they were trying to write a ripoff of "the Twilight Saga" or "Bewitched meets the Clampetts." The banquet scene was especially excruciating. The only way they could seem to hint at this vast, ancient secret society and its culture was have a few random characters (mostly old women) standing around in bizarre headgear and hairstyles acting eccentric, being blase' when the immediate surroundings start tearing themselves apart in a witch-cousin catfight, and talking about what holidays they don't celebrate ("We don't do Christmas?" Please. Even real life wiccans celebrate it, and call it 'Yule' instead.)

The female lead whom the audience is supposed to sympathise with was the standard whiny nobody-likes-me-I'm-a-weirdo self-absorbed teenage girl , and the male lead was a gormless grinning corn-pone idiot who spent most of the movie cheesing like a monkey and making "witty" remarks to his week-old girlfriend when he should have been running like hell away. For added leftwing hipster bonus points, he's also the narrator of the first half of the movie, making disparaging remarks about the culture, families, history , traditions, and everything else in his home town and moaning in orgasmic pleasure over "banned" books (we'll save that topical joy for another day).

The minor antagonists, two high school Libbies (who barely exist after the first thirty minutes of the movie) are only there to show how stupid, illiterate and bigoted the 'christians' are in this town, are performed with complete incompetence by their actresses and behave in a manner that I can assure you, speaking as a Christian and a person raised in the Christian community, would have gotten their backsides thrashed by their parents in real life for embarrassing them. The main villainess was a "leader of the Christian community" who behaved in a manner that made the Saturday Night Live Church Lady look believable-- she turned out to be possessed by a dead witch, which apologists will use as an excuse to justify her totally unsuspicious deranged Christian-fanatic moonbat behavior...

It even has the trademark teen movie "wacky idiot friend in a bad hat" who hangs on the periphery of everything going on, making additional snarky remarks about his hometown when the male lead is too preoccupied ... he's a cliche' that makes me want to punch the writers in the throat all by himself.

The dialogue was idiotic. The story was banal (poor widdle pwecious snowflake WITH A GRAND DESTINY must overcome terrible forces, like the Libby at school and oh yeah, an ancient curse, to be with her twue wuv whom she has known less than half a school year). The acting was appalling, the reactions of the characters to their situation was snort-inducing, the settings were motivated by the most obnoxious bigotries of the West Coast and all the characters made me want to smack the actors in the face with a plank.

And the name dropping, oh the name dropping. Apparently the creators of this drek are desperate to sell more blu-ray DVDs of old movies and bottles of orange Crush, and think it's the height of wittiness to get in a zinger against Nancy Reagan. Nancy. Freaking. Reagan. Apparently the cultural elites oozing around the sewers of Hollywood still pee themselves in a rage over how they didn't get everything their way back in the 1980s.

My only comfort is the fairly good odds that this disgusting piece of crap movie will turn around to bite the ones who made it right in the junk. Not that I expect them to learn anything from it; hollywood is populated and run by morons who have spent the past fifty-plus years sticking their thumb in a light socket over and over and expecting different results every time.
About this Entry
pestering
Feb. 14th, 2013 @ 11:48 am Regarding my prior post
Honestly, did you read ANYTHING I said?
I was not speaking of societal factors but of the underlying instincts and biology. In pretty much ANY warmblooded species, it is the male that puts on a mating performance; the female's part in the dance is to say "yes I'm female and fertile. PROVE TO ME I SHOULD WANT YOU." Other details are trivialities overlaying that root fact.

And yes, humans are no different. When you're talking about sex. You may not be able to get the Prince Charming of your Cosmopolitan Magazine dreams, but in the crudest carnal terms, any woman, anywhere, can get sex. (Honey Boo Boo's mom, just for starters, has had children by three different men.) Any man can get sex too, but only if he has social or political power in his hands and cash in his pockets. That's whether you're speaking of party girls, gold diggers, or prostitutes... or sensible women looking for a "good provider" (those plunging into romantic delusions to the contrary.)

This is the real issue of modern comics, and other media. Both the male and female characters on the front page are putting on both a sexual display, AND a power display. Feminists USED to admit this, back when they called it "sexual self-empowerment." They stopped calling it that when it proved disadvantageous to their political goals to admit that it's actually women who use sex as a tool of power.

Is there sexism in comic books? No. I'm tired of hearing that. The term "sexism" is a misnomer. "Sexism" implies a political agenda. It's an appeal to the bitter, angry, self-absorbed female-only perspective--- that sex is just a tool of power. And they see it that way, because socially, that is how women USE sex. No, the overt sexuality on display is not a conspiracy to "oppress" you. If men wanted to sexually oppress you, they'd stuff you in a burkha and stone you for "shaming" the males in their family with your wanton ways.

So no, it's not "sexism" in comics. What there IS in comics, is a lot of SEX. It is an issue of morality, not "power." When you make it an "ism" you pit innocent men-- who have no interest whatsoever in oppressing anyone-- against women, rather than against the people (male and female alike) who would abuse prurient content for financial gain.
About this Entry
pestering
Feb. 13th, 2013 @ 05:39 am (no subject)
been brooding on some things.

Like, the issue feminists have with how women are portrayed in comics. you point out to them that MEN are just as over-idealized in the comics, and their reply is "oh right, well, you don't see Captain America or Superman trying to show their boobs and butts to the camera at the same time!".... And you're left floundering. Not because they have an overwhelming truth on their side, but because you can't conceive of how they're not grasping what you just told them.

Because you can't understand how anything claiming to be human can look at men, women, and sex, and not realize that men and women approach sex from different perspectives. It takes either an indoctrinated feminist or an androgynous alien from outer space to not understand this.

First off, let's review some basic biological truths about sex here. I'm talking basic realities for pretty much every warm-blooded species on the planet, and probably the overwhelming majority of vertebrates.

The fundamental rule: In order to mate, males have to prove they're "worthy." Females just have to prove they're female.

You ever notice that the males in most every species are the ones that put on the mating display? They do the funky dance, wave the plumage, raise the mating call, battle for dominance with other males. The female, to the contrary, just has to be present. Occasionally the female has some sort of display, but it generally revolves around indicating that they're in heat. The male, to the contrary, is in a competition to prove he is virile, healthy, competitive, a good provider and protector...

Human beings are no different in this regard. The whole mating dance is complexified by political, social, cultural and subcultural subtexts, but the fundamental rule is still there. It means that men and women view sex differently, approach it differently, have different motivations about it and because of it.
In short, Women perform the social mating dance by displaying their fertility (their physical attributes), Men perform it by displaying their power (physical, political, financial).

Phrased in other ways, in the cynical language of the secular:
Women use sex to get what they want. For men, sex IS what they want.
Women use sex to gain money and power, men use money and power to get sex.
Men have to be "worthy", women have to be "accessible."


All facets of the Fundamental Rule.

Feminist ideology does not recognize or accommodate that.

The feminist, trying to use feminist dogma to interpret the world, cannot see that. She interprets male motivations through female spectacles. She sees a typical comic book cover and doesn't see males and females shopping the same aisle from opposite sides. She sees female characters exhibiting the yin of sexuality, and male characters exhibiting the yang, and concludes that since the male is not doing the mating dance in the "yin" fashion, that the female is the only one being sexualized-- and therefore debased and subjugated to the male.

Perhaps the real issue is feminism's own sexual confusion. Feminism not only interprets male behavior through female motivations (seeing sex as a "power struggle"), but it fails to interpret the feminist's own motivations and perspectives with any sensible consistency. The same ideologues who interpret Wonder Woman's traditional costume as debasing and an effort by males to sexually subjugate women would march down the street in protest if the Editor in Chief at DC comics demanded she be dressed in a modest and frugal New England conservative pantsuit... and accuse him of attempting to sexually subjugate women.

(A brief aside here: which culture is actually subjugating female sexuality to male power-- the one that has women wearing bikinis in public, or the one that beats them as trollops for not wearing a veil?)

Dealing with the intersection between feminism and fandom is to deal with the stereotypically schizophrenic. Feminists sneer at traditional superheroine costumes as debasing, degrading, oversexualizing, pandering---
But when a noted figure in the comics subculture takes note of the teeming masses of tight-body COSPLAYERS flooding the comic conventions in those selfsame 'debasing, degrading, oversexualizing, pandering' outfits, and cynically remarks that they're more likely there just to exploit the influence their physical attributes give them over hopeless nerds than out of any actual comic fandom... well, God have mercy on his soul for stating the apparent.

You see, he broke the unwritten law: Thou shalt never acknowledge the Fundamental Rule.

When you approach it from the perception that, for women, sex is a tool for obtaining power, then a great deal of actions on their part start to make sense, though.

The more I hear feminists whine about the issue, the more I suspect that the reason they are mad about sexually appealing women in comic books (and movies, and elsewhere) is that they are not personally in control of the supply of feminine pulchritude. Comics with shapely females in tight costumes means that a large group of men that they have deemed socially unacceptable (comic book fans) have access to pen and paper boobies without their permission. The schemes of feminism are largely Lysistratean; without cultural control over sexuality (both male and female) they lack the power to scorn, mock and shame men (and contrary-minded women) into obeying them. So long as any corner of culture exists that even SUGGESTS that it is okay for women to be sexy and men to be macho, their power over society is diminished.
About this Entry
pestering