Comics are making me think again, dagnabit!

The interesting thing about Larry Young is he refuses to be pigeonholed. His company puts out intriguing, thought-provoking stuff that does not fit a stereotype. It also allows us to examine it in more detail than, say, your average superhero book.

Such is the case with Smoke and Guns, Kirsten Baldock's debut graphic novel, which I had to buy with my own hard-earned cash while others got theirs for free. After crying in my beer about that, I read the damned thing.

I'm not here to review it. I liked it, but I'm not here to review it. It has gotten some good reviews, some medium reviews, and some poor reviews. Marc Mason thinks it should be a movie. That's fine and dandy. I want to look at it in a different way.

As I said, I liked it. It wasn't the greatest book ever, but it was fun for what it was. I don't think it was worth 13 dollars, but whatever. Most of the reviews have focused on the artwork of Fábio Moon, since the story is a little weak. Basically, this book is all style, and that is what bothers me.

As a man, I'm far from the best person to lecture anyone on how women should be portrayed in comic books. But just as I wondered, long ago, whether women would like Filler (also published by AiT-Planet Lar), I wonder if whether a woman writer can get away with somewhat exploitative depictions of women more than a man can.

Let's take a look at some of the artwork. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that the art was done by a man, but judging by Baldock's picture at the back of book, she had no qualms about the art.

Here's Scarlett, our heroine:

 

Here's Scarlett and Annie, her best friend:

 

Fine and dandy, right? Right. Typical comic book women - good-sized breasts, tiny waists, legs that go on forever, skimpy clothes. And they're packing heat! A horny guy's dream!

Is this artwork any different from, say, this:

 

I would think a lot of people out there, and a lot of women, would find this offensive. Maybe I'm wrong. This is the reason that gets cited for why women don't read comics - because comics are the realm of lonely, balding, weird men who live in their parents' basements and can't get laid. I know it's a stereotype, and it's not true, but it's still the perception. My question is: should we let Baldock off the hook because she's a woman?

Some of you might argue it's all in the context, and that Lady Death exists simply to provide those same lonely, balding weird men living in basements with a date for Saturday night, but when the cheesecake is relevant to the story, it's okay. You can make that argument. However, Smoke and Guns is nothing but cheesecake. It exists solely as an excuse to provide scantily-clad girls to shoot at each other. As I said, the story is flimsy. The book is ALL style. There is no context. If someone asked you what it's about, you'd say: "It's about scantily-clad hot chicks shooting at each other." That's its raison d'etre.

I don't really think it's all that offensive. Of course, I don't think Lady Death is all that offensive. I'm just wondering. Do we have a double standard when it comes to females writing comics, letting them get away with anything in the sex-and-violence realm because they are women and women are in short supply in comics? (Gail Simone's portrayal of violence is examined here, if you're interested.) Is Smoke and Guns at all offensive? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. It is, after all, mindless summer-action entertainment - think Speed without the Shakespearean dialogue - and maybe that's all it has to be. What do y'all think?

Read More