What's your opinion?

[clodia_risa]

The short version of the conversation with my husband about Marvel. I told him the short story, and gave him the Quesada quote. He said, and I replied:
Husband: Hmmm... Is a compelling argument. Vote with wallet. They make what sells.
Is business.
Me: sdklja io;r;aigsh;feru gaerfgv
No.
That's not the point.
The point is that if I don't like one aspect of something that I'm not supposed to read it apparently.
Husband: Ahhh
Me: And if I "don't read it" I'm not supposed to say anything
Basically - if you don't like us, shove off. We don't care about your opinion at all.
It's very much excluding the female geek.
Husband: Ok... Clodia have point too.
Me: Yes. She does.
As for "writing what sells"
Doesn't manga have a much bigger section in every bookstore than American comic books?
Isn't manga all the rage with the women?
I'm not saying they have to change what they're doign drastically
but they should at least try to understand why "women don't read comic books" but do read manga
Husband: Clodia has point.
Me: Honestly, if he'd stop saying dick things like this and didn't make any other changes in their writing and drawing style I'd probably read a small selection of their books
but they are telling me that I don't matter I don't count and I'm not welcome
Husband: However, they have an established market to which they continue to sell. If they choose to focus only on that market, they have the right. May not be smart, but is their choice.

What do you think? Can they afford to not care what women think? Do they care that they are driving potential customers away? Are they trying to expand their marketshare or simply trying to hold onto what they have?

Comments

[zebeckras.livejournal.com]

I think, in order: In the long term, no; in the short term, no; and the second option. Because I think they are very, very, very focused on short term profits.

I told MY husband about this last night and when I told him the title "Marvel Divas" he was like "I *knew* it would be something like that!" I asked if that meant he'd heard of MD before and he said nope, not at all, but this didn't surprise him. *G* (Incidentally his job right now is working at the Library Of Congress cataloguing their comic book collection. He comes home with stories and occasionally pictures of covers. *G*) His overall statement was that for whatever reasons, America has had trouble moving away from the very origins of comicdom, which was: softcore porn.

For reals.

I still argue that the comics code might have been restrictive, but it led to less exploitation of women even as they were becoming more included (token or not) in the 60s; in the 70s and 80s they were using it to their advantage and actually DEVELOPING those characters, but once it was lifted they tossed out development in favour of titillation and it's all downhill from there.

There's a reason I stopped buying Marvel comics in the late 90s. :P

Dan's final point was that there are a large number of artists who are really good at drawing sexy women WITHOUT oversexing them. We named a few who had worked for Marvel: Art Adams, Alan Davis, John Byrne (he may have drawn big boobs, but he knew when to keep 'em covered - plus he intentionally modelled Kitty Pryde after Sigourney Weaver with the stipulation that she keep that body type as she grew up, ie, lean and athletic and er - well, flat-chested *lol*), plenty of others. I in turn then pointed out that most of these guys worked regularly with Chris Claremont who is becoming my American Marvel Comic Male Feminist Hero. ;D

I'm at a point where I really am just going to shrug my shoulders and say, okay, fine. If you really, really don't want my money, I can put it elsewhere. They've been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for years now anyway.