InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I'm one HELL of a butler"

lang_ea (lang_ea) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-06 23:26:00

Entry tags:

creator: jim steranko, genre: romance, publisher: marvel comics

Did Somebody say MOAR ROMANCE COMICS?!

Then you shall recieve! >D

Even though; gang, I'm totally out of inspirational Jim Steranko work...I will nonetheless continue with my expose on Romance Hero(ine) Dickery! Involving more from Marvel's 36 page 'Our Love Story'.

I'd like to call this the " Keep your mouth shut and maybe I'll love ya" Story arc.

My first thought was: AW! Look at them! The both of them look so cute!

But I shoulda known...

The story begins showing Tag as a big gentle giant who already has a girlfriend. The dude obviously has no interest in learning other than music, and his girlfriend who knows how to mean business is looking out of him. This would suck if you had a crush on him--but come on, demonizing the girlfriend for trying to give him a wake up call?

"Not so fast, female?" Whah?

Well. That was behaving like a dick, wouldn't you say, guys?

Then he goes and dates other girls.

Oh christ! Is she wearing a yellow sweater over yellow slacks?! AUGH!

Oh! Who coulda imagined?!

Yup, nothing like randomly coming back to your second fiddle declaring your love after never having spoken for SO FRICKIN' DAMN LONG.
*ahem* Ladies and gentlemen; this is tonight's new yet subtle breed of hero dickery; hope you enjoyed the show! ;)

(Post a new comment)

	darklorelei 2009-05-06 06:34 pm UTC (link)
	Yay! You're my favorite! (Reply to this)

	greenmask 2009-05-06 06:44 pm UTC (link)
	Mmmm romance comics. Where everyone is whacky and they love it. And so do I! (Reply to this)

	brilliantnova 2009-05-06 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	" Not so fast female" What is he a Ferengi?? I lol'd (Reply to this) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-06 07:37 pm UTC (link)

What's fucked up is, that actually sounds like more than a few romance comics (and even other period comics) that I recall reading. It's like the writers were saying, "We COULD just reinforce all of the patently batshit gender roles of our time with our ham-handed plots and characterization, but that's too SUBTLE! Whenever possible, we also need the DIALOGUE to reduce women to OBJECTS, as well!"

I still recall an old Lee-and-Kirby FF issue in which a supervillain tricked Sue into being jealous of what she perceived to be competition for Reed - at the end, Sue is saying, "I feel so foolish!" and Reed, a.k.a. Mister Sensitive, tells her, "Oh, Sue! You weren't being foolish - you were merely being a FEMALE!"

At which point I went OH ~~JOHN RINGO~~ STAN LEE NO :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	greenmask 2009-05-06 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	I guess that.. in a way.. he's saying females aren't fooli- Ohh, darn it. Oh stan lee no. :[ (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dr_hermes 2009-05-06 08:41 pm UTC (link)
	If you were feeling charitable, you might take that as Reed trying to make Sue not feel bad about being duped, saying it wasn't her fault. There was certainly tons of Silver Age dialogue with women putting men down the same way. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-05-06 08:46 pm UTC (link)

I was hardly being serious either way, since while it was a bit condescending, it was also written close to HALF A CENTURY ago, by a guy who was progressive for his time in a number of other respects, back when social mores were WAY different, and as embarrassing dialogue goes, it has NOTHING on either a) the screamingly racist sloganeering in WWII superhero comics or b) the TERRIFYING level of misogyny in CURRENT comics.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-05-06 09:12 pm UTC (link)

Or the CONSTANT man-bashing you get as well, not only in COMICS but on TV (both programs and commercials),as well as the MANY romance movies where the man is always CLUELESS and WRONG, and the woman straightens him out and makes him meet her requirements. Mostly it depends on which demographic they're pandering to. It's usually telling different audiences what the artists THINK they want to hear.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-05-06 09:30 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for the mansplanation! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-05-06 10:11 pm UTC (link)
	One point of view is never sufficient. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lookingforsigns 2009-05-07 01:02 pm UTC (link)
	I think the stupidest part is that all the "guys are dumb lol" you get on sitcoms, commercials, and movies? It's mostly written by guys. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	sistermagpie 2009-05-07 01:38 pm UTC (link)
	God, I hate that. Especially because the woman always looks even dumber anyway for spending her life complaining about the guy and "taking care" of him. There was a time I wound up seeing a bunch of Home Improvement eps and that was the whole show. Including the wife expecting a total double standard of treatment between her and her husband. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lookingforsigns 2009-05-07 01:49 pm UTC (link)
	Pretty much. The subtext is that no matter how stupid or plain-looking they are, they'll still have an attractive wife who won't hate them for more than half an hour. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-05-07 02:13 pm UTC (link)

The idea is that the shows are aimed at a female audience, and this is how they presumably view marriage-- the wives are attractive, composed, able to solve problems while they are married to fat, clueless juveniles. It's a complete reversal of equally unfair 1950s sitcoms with the ditzy airhead wives and sensible husband. Somewhere we went 180 degrees without hitting the middle ground.

I'd like to think a lot of women in the audience would rather watch a partnership between two clever, appealing people. But how often does a show like that ever get on the air? You never know if the audience is only watching what's available or if it's what they prefer.

My favorites of the romantic comedies still remain those breezy, cheerful films of the 1930s and 1940s. Nick and Nora Charles, played by William Powell and Myrna Loy, for example-- they're fun to watch interacting, even when the mystery has been sidelined for the moment.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	wonderwomanhero 2009-05-06 07:26 pm UTC (link)
	Aww, I expected Nita to come back and go batshit insane on him for being such a prick. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	superfan1 2009-05-06 09:10 pm UTC (link)
	Me too, but that would of been my ideal way to go with the story. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	"Tag"? box_in_the_box 2009-05-06 07:30 pm UTC (link)
	What is he, one of Sarah Palin's kids, with a name like that? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: "Tag"? merseybeatler 2009-05-06 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	Haha! Win. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: "Tag"? gypsydavy 2009-05-06 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	That's was my first thought too! Great minds and all that... (Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-05-07 01:40 am UTC (link)

Mmm, I'm not so sure I agree with you there. I mean, sure, it's not terribly lovely for someone to juggle girlfriends like that, but the overwhelming impression I get from this guy is that he's kind of a great big lovable goof of a guy who doesn't really live in the same world as the rest of us. Furthermore, he seems very anxious to please - he doesn't argue with anyone; he just agrees, and makes gentle qualifiers. So it doesn't seem all that unlikely that all the more aggressive girls in school are asking him out, and he doesn't want to let any of 'em down, so he just dates all of 'em! Granted, that sounds like the sort of slimy excuse that a ladykiller of a ladies man would make, but for a slightly spaced-out big ol' artistic teddy bear like Tag, it kinda works. And remember, this was written during the era of free love! Personally, I kinda like the guy - he's one of the first characters I've read in this sort of comic that actually seems like he could've existed, and would be fun to hang around with.

(Reply to this)

	penguinzero 2009-05-07 08:25 am UTC (link)
	I can never look at an old romance comic like this without trying to think of how to rewrite it into parody, like that 'Truer than True Romance' volume that came out a few years ago. Maybe something about groupies, for this one... (Reply to this)

sistermagpie
2009-05-07 11:47 am UTC (link)

The big shame here seems to be that they set up this false dichotomy of nagging girls who apparently don't know that you can make a career with music at all vs. doormat mouse who can't open her mouth except to receive his tongue.

Unfortunately Tag winds up living the kind of fantasy that kind of is destructive, like all he has to do is sit around strumming and eventually he'll be on television. It'd be more realistic to show that Tag was more ambitious than any of those uptight females. Also they couldn't even really show the mousey girl as loving him for who he was because she didn't know him. She just had her fantasy version of him. Which she now shares with every single girl who's his fan, btw. She never even had to be supportive of any of his plans or dreams. Just sit and be quiet.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	lang_ea 2009-05-08 12:11 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's true. She didn't really do anything or encourage him. Nita should be the likelier romance heroine since she and he seem to go way back and she was looking out for him in class. Do you know how bad you'd feel knowing that you might fail a class just because you made yourself look bad by falling asleep/have no interest? (Reply to this) (Parent)