RECENT POSTS:
Gigantic Frank Cho profile at the Washington Post
[Above: This Frank Cho image of Spiderwoman has nothing to do with the Washington Post article.]
The Washington Post goes full-tilt in featuring Frank Cho:
"Frank Cho visits Cards Comics and Collectibles, owned by a friend, in Reisterstown. Cho is a comic book artist and the creator of "Liberty Meadows," a series that chronicles the hijinks of a bunch of talking animals and a voluptuous animal psychologist named Brandy."
Michael Cavna promo for the Washington Post features on Cho
Photos of Cho: Slide Show
Article: Comic book artist Frank Cho has made a career of being bawdy and bold
online video: Frank Cho behind the scenes
The video online at the Post website is the most interesting, showing you how Cho uses an enormous sharpie pen to put together the images used for the Washington Post photo shoot. It includes the photographer trying to direct Cho and the stand-in Brandy model, plus interview excerpts where Cho tells about his personal problems and burgeoning artistic career, along with his often repeated stories about comic strip censorship
Toy Story Kleenex
Seduction of the Innocent, redux
Superheroes bad for growing minds and bodies: From sciencedaily.com, published Aug 15, 2010:"There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday," said psychologist Sharon Lamb, PhD, distinguished professor of mental health at University of Massachusetts-Boston. "Today's superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he's aggressive, sarcastic and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity."
Some of this may be right, but it surely misunderstands the foundations of the superhero comics of past and present. Any simple reading of the first Superman, Batman, et al., comic books extol quite a bit of the very things being condemned presently by Sharon Lamb.
"Researcher Carlos Santos, PhD, of Arizona State University, examined 426 middle school boys' ability to resist being emotionally stoic, autonomous and physically tough -- stereotyped images of masculinity -- in their relationships. He also looked at how this would affect their psychological adjustment."
I suspect a lot of the psychological gnashing of teeth about superheroes is manufactured by targeting cultural images with statistical bankability (perceived as influence), and then working backwards to explain male behavior. And simply revising the keywords used as negative characteristics changes the actual value basis for superheroes (as defined by the psychological experts in this article, what bonafides they possess beyond doing polling is not explained). To whit: "emotionally stoic" is probably a positive obverse compared to whining; "autonomous" can be self-sufficiency versus clingy, chronic co-dependency; and "physically tough" surely beats out "physically abused," that is, if victimhood can be defined as a negative (and in modern culture, that's debatable).
But clearly my list of alternatives is as knee-jerk as these researchers. Defining male behavior through the hyper-relief cartoon textures of superhero comics is a dead-end, because the superhero books, whether they exactly resemble the descriptions of these researchers, or are radically different, is simply not normal behavior in the real world.
My question is this: If superheroes influence the creation of the negatives the psychologists have in their grocery list, why don't the armies of comic book store customers possess those characteristics? Even a nominal study of the fanbase of superhero comics would show the reverse: a preponderance toward the whining, clingy, co-dependent victimhood behaviors versus the emotionally restrictive stoicism, let alone the pro-active energy typical in a comic book superhero. They should be seizing upon why males might hold up an ideal as defined by them, not defined by academics.
But their main target is the superhero movie, easy to condemn for violence (always considered a wrong within the emotionally contained chambers of psychology, where will power is claimed to dominate not only reasoning but reality itself). The rest of the article seemed to also contain a simple attack upon paternalism, which makes sense since fatherhood is deeply aligned with superhero themes, where a missing father accounts for any number of missions of help/rescue/revenge.
Seeking to tinker with the mechanics of 'manliness,' I think these attitudes presented by these psychologists suggests an inability to see beyond the fun-house mirror distortions of the basic American superhero comic. They should have more insight than what they pitifully have got if they're going to suggest reforms for a population of superhero-loving males.
Page from Batman and Robin All Stars #8 with the Jim Lee version of Catwoman
Frazetta Bio riddled with errors
August 19, 2010: Possibly the worst of the Frazetta bios to come along in the wake of his death is this one just published in the Brooklyn Eagle. The dates are a bit mixed up, and the resume given for Frazetta's achievements are only marginally correct or just flat-out wrong. Obviously the paper is trying to lionize a native son, but surprisingly poor journalism went into the fact-checking. Here's a sample quote:
"In the 1940s, he became addicted to comic books and comic book art. His comic book contributions started with Buck Rogers but then he sat in for Al Capp by drawing “Lil Abner.” He moved on to “Tarzan,” and eventually “Little Annie Fannie” for Playboy magazine.But his claim to fame was his creation for the Conan the Barbarian comics in 1966. "
A simply awful (or hilarious) biography sure to be quoted authoritatively in many places through the magic of the internet and search engines.
Frazetta Family Trust sells off "Conan the Destroyer" for $1.5 million USD. Highest price yet on a Frazetta painting.
Alex Raymond 1935 poster art for the Erroll Flynn movie "Captain Blood"
