Wow, it’s so hard to understand why a woman-written comic about a female superhero who wears a sensible costume, writes fanfic, and stuffs her face with tasty gyros is so popular and trendy, while a cover for a forthcoming male-written book that portrays its female…
I think throwing Dennis under the bus here is pretty shitty.
i think that dennis is a really good writer (also the only comics writer i don’t know who i feel like i have to refer to by his first name), and after reading his take on early x-men in season 1 and some of avengers und
(Cut for length. Obv click through to read it. AlwaysAlreadyAngry is great and I am entirely with her in terms of general structural issues and problems in comics.)
The problem is that the only response I can have to this is to pull out covers of books with women writers that have sexually eye-raising covers (or alt-covers), which means throwing whatever writer and artist I choose under that same bus. It’ll be getting crowded beneath that bus.
Blaming the writer for an artist’s choices is problematic on many levels. It gives writers a level of power they simply don’t possess - in fact, shouldn’t possess. When the original post is slanted towards mentioning facts when they’re relevant is implication that the fact it’s a male writer is a big part of problem. The fact that it’s front loaded in the sentence implies it’s the primary problem.
(That both series artists are male isn’t touched on - in fact, all the credit or the blame to the choices in the book is given to the writer. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how comics work.)
When Dennis has done literally nothing here, I think it’s unfair of the original poster. And worth stressing, I’m responding to the comment by the OP rather than the article.
Clearly involving women more in all aspects of the creative process in comics is a good thing. But, this entire mess seems more like an editorial problem than a writer or even artist one. Someone in editorial chose to commission and market a porny variant cover from an artist known for drawing erotica on a female helmed book. Someone in editorial chose to put Greg Land, who say what you will about him as a storyteller, has a style that tends towards… let’s say problematic portrayals of women. (For me, the Land cover is the more worrying one, because it shows a lot of the same weird anatomy and male gaze issues and is representative of the art that will actually be in the comic.) While Dennis Hopeless seems like a good fit for the book, editorial has made suboptimal choices elsewhere on the title.
I think this speaks to how important it is to have women in senior editorial roles. I suspect if someone up the foodchain was female we would see less egregiously sexist malarky and probably more women in creative teams too.
Also, someone really needs to point out to Marvel editorial how dumb all of this is. I know a few female Carol Corps members who are 1) ravenously reading comics and 2) were probably first introduced to Jessica Drew through Kelly Sue DeConnick’s work on Captain Marvel and Avengers Assemble. This is just casual observation, but the Carol Corps seems to really like Spider-Woman and would probably be a built in audience for this book. This is also an audience that probably feels pretty shitted all over right now by the editorial choices on this book. Porny variant covers aren’t just crass and icky, but are also probably bad for longterm business.
(Which is to say women geeks have money! Why are we treating them badly!?)