PDA

View Full Version : BECAUSE YOU DEMANDED IT! V2 #4: WHO KILLED WOLVERINE? PART 4 OF 6


Jim Lemoine
May 26, 2005, 09:15 am
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/bydi2.gif" hspace=10 align=left border=0 alt="Because You Demanded It V2 logo">By Jim Lemoine, jimlemoine@comixfan.cjb.net

What? No guest-star?

NOT THIS TIME, JIM - WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR FIRST STORY-ARC, AND WE'VE GOT A MYSTERY TO SOLVE!

Oh, come on, does anybody really care? I mean, he died in BYDI #1, and we only got one complaint. Most people seemed relieved.

YOU'RE MAKING THAT UP.

Am not.

I GOT SOME PRELIMINARY SUSPECT SKETCHES BACK FROM THE DARK KNIGHT, SO IT'S TIME WE REVIEWED THEM AND STARTED INTERVIEWING SUSPECTS.

Look, I'm not here for this. Remember, (he said with expository recap glee,) I'm only here because of this Prophecy you keep talking about, the one that says if I answer a lot of questions, Good Comics will make a comeback, Neil Gaiman will write more Sandman, and the children of the world will enjoy free Twinkies. I most assuredly did not sign up for some murder mystery - I didn't even like the little runt.

WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE THE PRIME SUSPECT.

What?!?

IT'S LOGICAL. AS SOON AS YOU RE-ENTER THE WORLD OF COMICS, THE CHARACTER YOU HATE MOST DIES.

But... but... he's not the character I hate most! I used to love him! The character I hate most has got to be... ummm... the Supergirl that used to fawn all over Lex Luthor? That Satan guy who was supposed to be Nightcrawler's father? Trevor Fitzroy? Ben Raab?

HE'S NOT A CHARACTER, HE'S A WRITER.

I'd debate the second part of that sentence. And what's with the arc title? I didn't get to choose that. What about something cool, like "Murder at the Mansion" or something?

EVERY TIME WE PUT HIS NAME IN THE TITLE, SALES INCREASE BY 20%. CAN'T ARGUE WITH NUMBERS.

Yes you can, 84.5% of statistics are made up anyway.

ACCORDING TO THE DARK KNIGHT, YOU'RE THE MOST LIKELY SUSPECT. HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT YOU.


Suspect Name: James Lemoine
Connection to Crime: There when it happenned
Psychological Profile: Somewhat unstable, possibly schizophrenic
Motive: Quit reading comics. Hates generic superheroes with a passion
Notes: Kept giving me odd looks. Will keep my distance.


Oh, come on!

YUP, LOOKS LIKE IT'S YOU.

It can't be me - if it were that simple, this wouldn't be "Part 4 of 6", now, would it?

UMMM...

HA!!!

UMMMM....

The bit about the fourth part is a red herring. We all know it was you.

The... Fanboy?!? Wow, I haven't seen you in about forty columns.

Edi-Tor gave me a job. I'm his Continuity Expert!

Oh, God.

GET USED TO IT, MURDERER... NOW, 'BRAVELYBRAVESIRROBIN' ASKS, "WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PHOENIX FORCE NOW?"

Well... that's easy. The Phoenix Force is a cosmic avatar that...

No it's not! No it's not!

What are you talking about? In Excalibur (the first series, not the new Claremont vanity project that has nothing to do with its title), it was revealed....

That's so gay. I'm not going to work with you if you're going to make fun of Claremont.

Fine, who said I wanted to work with you? Now, as I was saying, the Phoenix Force was a power created to fight Necrom...

No it's not! No it's not! The Phoenix Force is part of Jean Grey, now in limbo (figuratively, not literally, as there is no connection with the mystical dimension currently ruled by Amanda Sefton) until X-Men: The End!

Look, I'm the one who's supposed to answer questions here.

... the Phoenix Force's chronological first appearance was in Excalibur, which predates its appearance in X-Men #101 (note that it wasn't called Uncanny back then), and comes well before the "prequel" appearances in Fantastic Four #286, where the truth about Jean Grey was revealed, however, later issues of Uncanny seemed to propose a deeper connection between the woman and the entity, specifically...

Ummm... so... yeah, right, Phoenix died on the moon....

... INCORRECT! The Phoenix Force merely discorporated, and in a story not seen until the launch of the Classic X-Men serials (mostly by Claremont and Bolton), we learned that it had in fact journeyed to Death's realm where it learned about itself and engaged in philosophical debates, all of this before, of course, it was coerced by the genetic manipulations of Mister Sinister to again interact with humanity, although in this case without a physical avatar, as Jean Grey's alternate future timeline daughter Rachel had travelled back from the future (I love saying that) after a run-in with an adult Kitty Pryde and the Sentinels, although we didn't find out until much later that....

... umm, so anyway, the answer to your question, Sir Robin? "What is the Phoenix Force?" I can answer that. It's a big, fat, unholy mess.

YOU KNOW, WHILE HE'S OFF ON THAT RANT, MAYBE WE SHOULD GO OVER HIS SUSPECT DATA.

I can't believe you told him that the mutant was going to guest-star in the column, and you didn't tell me. I mean, it's my column!

KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT. NOW, CHECK THIS OUT....


Suspect Name: The Fanboy
Connection to Crime: Mindless lackey of edi-Tor, knew the victim would be present
Psychological Profile: Obsessive compulsive, with an odd completist complex - possibly autistic?
Motive: Unhappy with current miasma of continuity, having trouble keeping twelve monthly appearances in chronological order
Notes: Kept asking me for an autograph. Will keep my distance.


You're all freaks.

I STILL THINK IT WAS YOU.

Right, right. Next question?

'ROGUEANDREMY' ASKS, "WHY DID PSYLOCKE AND REVANCHE SWITCH BODIES?"

Well, that's kind of a toughie. See, the thing is, it really depends on who you ask. Originally, it wasn't so much a body swap as it was a...

No no no no no!!!! You can't answer this, don't you see the question is all wrong?

What are you talking about now?

Psylocke and Revanche never switched bodies. Psylocke and Kwannon switched bodies. Revanche was merely a codename Kwannon assumed after she joined the X-Men.

Oh. Well, gold star for you. So anyway, originally there was no body swap, just a magickal reshaping of the body of....

No no no no!!!! You're so gay, your knowledge is dated! See, Kwannon was an assassin who encountered Psylocke just after she exited the Siege Perilous, a mutant with limited latent telepathic powers! In Psylocke's confused and fragmented state post-Siege exit, she lashed out psionically, irrevertibly giving each telepath half of the other's brain. This was followed by a discovery by the crimelord....

Is he going to keep doing this?

LOOK, JUST IGNORE HIM AND ANSWER THE QUESTION IF YOU WANT. I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

Good. The real answer to the question is that they switched bodies because Fabian Nicieza, who wrote X-Men at the time, hadn't read his back issues. No lie, he had no idea that Chris Claremont had explained it perfectly just a few years earlier, so he was trying to answer what he thought was a dangling plotline. He wasn't really entirely sure where he was taking the story either, which is why so little of it makes sense in hindsight. I'm not making this up, Nicieza's admitted to this. Just goes to show that his X-Men scripts were every bit as terrible, as his New Warriors scripts were outstanding.

HEY, ELITIST! GET IN HERE!

The Elitist? You hired him, too?!?

YOU BET. HE'S MARVEL'S NEW 'VICE-PRESIDENT OF MILLAR WORSHIP'.

That's an actual job?

THEY REALLY LIKE MILLAR.

Nicieza? Psylocke? Who are you talking about? I thought this was a column about the X-Men! Let's talk about Grant Morrisson!

His JLA was the best ever!

Hmmph. For a superhero story, I suppose... I think The Filth was actually a much more appropriate story, lending appropriate pathos and ethos to the medium, all in a quite meaningful array of pseudo-juxtapostion of imagery....

I can't believe you actually let them near each other.

YOU'D BE SURPRISED....

Oh, you... look, have you checked the mail? Did you see if my Ra's Al Ghul statue came in yet?

Your who statue? Man, why can't you read normal books like Superman or Batman?

They... live... together?

YOU'D BE SURPRISED.

I am.

NEXT QUESTION: JORDAN MAXWELL ASKS, "DO YOU THINK RICK SPRINGFIELD'S 'JESSIE'S GIRL' AND THE CARS' 'MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL' ARE ABOUT THE SAME GIRL?"

That's the best question we've had in a while.

They were both singing about Mary Jane!

You fool! They were both singing about the Silk Spectre!

Quiet, both of you. The appropriate question here is, "Is Jessie my best friend?" Obviously this can only be a hardcore trivia question for fans of the old ABC sitcom, Full House, the only televised instance of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen successfully being entertaining. Obviously, series star Bob Saget had very little time to spend with his friends, between raising three girls (four if you count the twins twice), anchoring his own television show, and reviewing all of those hilarious home videos of children hitting their fathers in the groin with various paraphernalia. Still, the eternal question remained - was Saget's "best friend" the debonair, Elvis-loving Uncle Jessie, or the goofy, Bullwinkle-loving Uncle Joey?

JIM, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S....

What, you think they were singing about the other Uncle Jessie, the one from Dukes of Hazzard? I think not - everybody knows his love wasn't for women, but for that old tractor he kept out back.

There was just amazing imagery in that tractor....

And pictures are available at a website near you (after age verification, have your major credit card ready). Anyway, the odds of Uncle Joey having a steady girlfriend, much less a date, is dubious - after all, he hosted the much-hated America's Funniest People, and most women I know won't go to fancy restaurants with guys who contantly make antlers with their hands and ask for spinach in an old sailor's voice. Since we know from the song that Saget had an interest in his best friend's girl, and since it would be mostly impossible for Uncle Joey to have any girl to speak of, one must infer that the girl was, in fact, one of Uncle Jessie's many paid escorts. Thus, yes, Jessie's girl and My Best Friend's Girl are one and the same: Rebecca Romajin-Stamos, perhaps better known in these circles... as Mystique.


They were all singing about Mystique??? Dude, I am just in awe.

Yeah, who's your daddy?

I thought Mystique only had eyes for Magneto. I mean, they're all over each other in X-Men 2, and that's canon.

You're so closed-minded!

You're so trapped in the past!

Will you two please go away? I'm trying to do a column here.

Hmmph. Fine. I've got a new Rising Stars TPB to buy anyway - the third one's out. I'm hoping it'll have Fan Favorite Ezekiel in it!

Thank God. You got another question?

YEAH - 'ICEMANFAN21' ASKS "WILL WE EVER SEE THE THIRD TPB OF RISING STARS...." WAIT, NEVER MIND, GUESS WE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT. 'ZACEK' ASKS "IF THE G.I.JOE VILLAINS ARE SO MUCH COOLER THAN THE G.I.JOE TEAM, WHY DO THEY NEVER WIN?"

Gotta disagree with you on both counts, Zacek. I mean, on one hand you have Snake Eyes and Refrigerator Perry, and on the other hand you have Magnet-Head and a guy with his face sticking out of a cobra's mouth. But I should admit, the Baroness is hot.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID LAST TIME THAT BEFORE OUR DEAD MUTANT FOUGHT HER, SHE USED TO BE A...

Quiet, you. On the other hand, you're wrong about the bad guys never winning - actually, all of their recent activity is just a front to hide their latest huge victory. Think about it - only the Baroness had ever seen Cobra Commander's face, right? So nobody's really sure what Cobra Commander looks like... and he was most active in the eighties. Meanwhile, a certain Yale grad and current "Leader of the Free World" was conspicuously missing from the public eye during the same time period. Both of them like to go to war, and both of them go on extended rants, and both of them had this thing for Donald Rumsfeld, I'm just saying, is all....

REMEMBER THOSE OLD G.I.JOE/TRANSFORMERS CROSSOVERS WHEN COBRA AND THE DECEPTICONS WORKED TOGETHER? THOSE WERE GREAT!

Oh yeah, I remember those. As I recall, they went something like....

Destro: Together we shall destroy both the Autobots and the Joes!

Megatron: Tell me again why we need these puny flesh-creatures, when my fusion cannon has more power than all of your weaponry, put together?

Serpentor: Together we can rule!

Soundwave: Your costume is illogical.

Cobra Commander: Join us now, Decepticons!!! (and bend down, there's a crick in my neck from staring up at you!) If you are not with us, you are against us!

Soundwave: Incoming transmission from Arkansas, Megatron. The Clinton fleshling has made a superior offer.

Megatron: Excellent. Starscream, step on the humans, please.

SQUISH, SQUISH


FUNNY, I DON'T REMEMBER THEM GOING QUITE LIKE THAT...

Yeah, they were awesome.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE ELITIST IS THE MURDERER... HE ALWAYS SAID WOLVERINE WAS HIS LEAST FAVORITE CHARACTER IN NEW X-MEN....

What, he's a suspect, too?


Suspect Name: The Elitist
Connection to Crime: Mindless lackey of edi-Tor, knew the victim would be present
Psychological Profile: Arrogant, ostentatious, closed-minded, superior
Motive: Wants to clear way for stories about more meaningful X-Men like Martha the Floating Brain, Stacy X, and Beak's Babies.
Notes: Keeps telling me that the Boy Wonder "dilutes my mythology." Have punched him twice in reply.


NOW, JON HANCOCK ASKS, "IS GARY NEWMAN THE ONLY POPSTAR WITH A PILOT'S LICENSE?"

I can only think of one way to answer that.

"Let Mighty Thor consider 'pon this logically," spoke to himself the Thunder God. "The Son of Odin desires that mortal delicacy known as pie. Thus far, the Pride of Valhalla's cravings have not been sated. Who, on all of this strange realm of Midgard, might help the Thunder God?"

Then, a bolt of lightning shattered across the heavens in jubilation. "Aye!" bellowed Mighty Thor. "Surely mine noble comrades, the Avengers, couldst offer aid to Thor!" And so did the Thunder God again twirl the divine hammer Mjolnir and fling himself into the skies, across the strange landscape of New York and toward that respected abode where he'd often cavorted with what heroes these mortals could provide.

So did the God of Thunder alight his mighty frame at the doorstop of Avengers Mansion, which he entered with the grace of Divine Right. Once there, the Son of Odin was disappointed to find that many of his mortal comrades were not present - but a few were indeed in residence. First, Mighty Thor approached the mortal marksman, Hawkeye, who gazed unblinkingly with rapt attention at the somewhat godly 72" projection television, 'pon which he watched the rather odd antics of an animated roll of meat, a devilish set of fried potatoes, and a disturbingly violent flagon of cream.

"Pie!" said the God of Thunder. "Friend Hawkeye, where might Mighty Thor find pie?"

"Huh?" responded the distracted Hawkeye. "Oh, I dunno... ask Wanda. She's my cherry pie."

"It shall be so!" said Mighty Thor happily.

Soon, the Son of Odin did find the lovely mortal who called herself the Scarlet Witch. "Pie!" repeated Thor. "Where might Thor find pie?"

"Pie?" asked the Witch. "Well, I...."

"Pie?" interrupted the robotic Vision. "Odd you should ask that, Thor. A project of mine, nearing completion, is set to provide the final answer of pie once and for all. I have been studying the subject in some detail. Would you like to see it?"

Indeed the Thunder God was pleased, so he left the Witch to accompany the mechanical construct. Alone, the Witch thought to herself on the meaning of the Thunder God's strange words.

And when Mighty Thor discovered that the Android Avenger had discovered the final digit of pi, not any true pie, the Thunder God did go somewhat berserk. The Vision's computers were reduced to rubble, and the Vision himself turned pale with embarassment, as the Son of Odin flew off once again, disgusted and frustrated.


SURREAL.

Vanilla Ice.

YOU KNOW, THE DARK KNIGHT DID SEND OVER ONE MORE CLUE ABOUT THE MURDER MYSTERY.

Yeah? What's that?

HE SAID THAT THE EXPLOSIVE DEVICE PLANTED IN THE MUTANT'S HEAD WAS SPECIFICALLY PROGRAMMED ONLY TO GO OFF AFTER A CERTAIN VERBAL CUE. IT HAD TO HEAR SOME EVIDENCE OF THE ARROGANCE OF A ONCE GREAT CREATIVE MIND GONE TO HELL, FALLEN TO THE DEPTHS OF INANITY.

That's funny - wasn't I talking about the Go-Bots when his head exploded?

I THINK SO....

I don't think that fits... then why did the explosive go off?

I'M NOT SURE, BUT I'M SURE THE WORLD'S GREATEST DETECTIVE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT! AND MEANWHILE, YOU'VE GOT MORE QUESTIONS... HADRIAN ASKS, "IF I CONSTANTLLY ATE TWINKIES, SWISS CAKE ROLLS, ZEBRA CAKES, AND/OR OTHER SUCH PREPACKAGED WONDERS, WOULD MY BODY ABSORB ENOUGH PRESERVATIVES SO THAT I COULD SURVIVE A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST?"

Ah... someone's been watching Family Guy. We approve.

IS THAT A COMIC BOOK?

Never mind. Actually, this is an experiment that has been attempted, although few people are aware of the result. In the early 80's, at the height of Cold War fears, an American named Bob decided to try this exact plan. The result? The wholesome goodies gave him a gentle demeanor and a heartwarming smile. He grew a gooey, creamy center, a sugary sweet attitude, and was known to have a flaky exterior. He grew a fondness for little girls (although, strangely, not little girls named "Debbie"), and had three of his own (four if you count the twins twice). He would go on to double-date with Uncle Jessie and Mystique, and subsequently proved resistant to cancellation, nuclear warfare, and good taste everywhere.

I THOUGHT THIS WAS A COLUMN ABOUT COMIC BOOKS?

Okay then, talk about comic books.

WHAT A PERFECT OPENING! REMEMBER A COUPLE OF COLUMNS AGO WHEN I SAID THAT WE WERE READYING A NEW LINE OF MINI-SERIES, ONE-SHOTS, AND PROMOTIONAL MERCHANDISE TO COMMEMORATE THE DEATH OF THIS GREAT MUTANT HERO?

Oh, no....

WELL, WE'VE FINALLY GOT THE FIRST MINI-SERIES READY! IT WAS CREATED BY SOME OF THE FINEST YOUNG WRITERS AND ARTISTS IN JAPAN, AND WILL BE DONE IN A MANGA STYLE, WHICH MEANS, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THAT IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE READ BY THOUSANDS OF FEMALES WHO LOVE MANGA! THIS IS OUR PROJECT TO REACH OUT TO THAT GREAT UNTAPPED FEMALE MARKET - A MARKET WHICH WE'VE RESEARCHED THOROUGHLY, AND ARE NOW READY TO SERVE WITH THE GRAPHIC FEATURES MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM AS EXTRAPOLATED FROM THEIR LOVE OF MANGA - BIG EYES, SKIMPY OUTFITS, AND GREEN HAIR!

Oh, God....

SO WE'RE PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT INTERNATIONAL SUPERSTAR KIA ASAMIYA HAS JOINED WITH OTHER ANIME SUPERSTARS TO PRESENT A STORY OF THREE OF THE SURVIVING X-MEN SEEKING A MUTANT'S LEGACY - IT'S WEAPON X-2!!! HERE'S AN EXCERPT:

Last time they saved the world. This time it's personal. 'Roro's story continues in the first true sequel of the X-Men series. New dangers threaten New York. Familiar allies are at hand. And somewhere, somehow, a friend may still be alive...

'Roro: {giggle}

Kittu: {giggle}

Rahne: Giggling is stupid.

Kittu: Oh, don't be a spoilsport, Rahne. Hey, if I look at you from a distance, it looks like one of your eyes is missing!

'Roro: {giggle}

Rahne: Come on, we have to track down those recording spheres - he may still be alive!

'Roro: We can fly all over the world in our Blackbird and go on missions and help mutants! We can prevent war between the Young Avengers and New Mutants!

Kittu: No, I have a better idea - let's have a concert! It will bring the world together!

'Roro: {giggle}


GENIUS, HUH? THE CHICKS ARE REALLY GONNA DIG THIS....

It amazes me how you people never learn from your past mistakes.

WHAT?!?!?

Never mind, release your series. Look, are we done yet?

I GUESS SO....

Good. Faithful readers, we're out of time, and I'm out of patience. If you've got questions, quandaries, or murder mystery resolutions, post them in the thread below, or e-mail them to becauseyoudemandedit@gmail.com. We're getting more questions than ever lately, and we appreciate it.

NEVER TELL THE FANS YOU APPRECIATE THEM! THEN THEY THINK THEY CAN MAKE DEMANDS OF YOU!

Don't you have a mini-series to release?

OH, AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX.

<CENTER><HR WIDTH=75%></CENTER>

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, Mighty edi-Tor, the Fanboy (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=15343), the Elitist (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=17349), Victor Von Doom (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=26645), the World's Greatest Detective, Phoncible Bone, the guy with the claws, and Emelius David, Doctor of Psychology (http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=18527), and should not be mistaken for the official opinion of Comixfan, its other staff, or anybody who actually matters. Bravely Brave Sir Robin is a registered trademark of Monty Python Studios, and has no relation whatsoever to the bravely brave (non-Sir) Robin who currently appears daily in the Teen Titans cartoon, somehow standing straight under the weight of his newly humongous head. Full House is a registered trademark of... well, actually, we're not sure... nobody seems willing to take credit for that one. Twinkies remain registered trademarks of the Interstate Bakeries Corporation, who are honestly considering divesting themselves of all Twinkie rights just to stop their biweekly mentions in this column.

Lia Brown
May 26, 2005, 09:58 am
Suspect Name: The Fanboy
Psychological Profile: Obsessive compulsive, with an odd completist complex - possibly autistic?

Hey, I resemble that remark :P

Surreal as always, Jim :thumb:

bravelybravesirrobin
May 26, 2005, 12:59 pm
it's an unholy bloated mess then



huh



that's less impressive than a cosmic avatar i've gotta damit.

Hadrian
May 26, 2005, 03:16 pm
Anyway, the odds of Uncle Joey having a steady girlfriend, much less a date, is dubious -

Isn't it true that Dave Coulier (aka Uncle Joey) used to date one Alanis Morrissette and is the inspiration of her "break out hit" You Oughta Know?

Also when Uncle Joey did his "Cut it out" thing that was so endearing why did a single digit (his right pointer I believe) represent "it"?

meta
May 26, 2005, 04:00 pm
I love these columns, the highlight of any Comix-fan day. Of course I just hope that it was I who killed Wolverine, I may not remember it, but that's only because I'm as insane as Deadpool, and my healing factor erases my memories......


Hmmm, not sure even I buy that one.

Well great column nonetheless

HandofGod
May 26, 2005, 06:05 pm
Jim is awesome!!
I want to have 10,000 of his babies :giggle:

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 26, 2005, 06:34 pm
too damn funny. best one yet. :cool:

Isn't it true that Dave Coulier (aka Uncle Joey) used to date one Alanis Morrissette and is the inspiration of her "break out hit" You Oughta Know?


yes and no. yes, they used to date. and while Dave Coulier tried to then say the song was about him (he's so vain), he found that no one was listening because he was no longer even moderately famous and surprisingly even LESS funny than he used to be (which was considered to be mathematically impossible). all the same, Alanis basically came out and said "no, it's not about you, it's about one of the other jerks i've dated who screwed me over."

but now she's with Ryan Reynolds, and they'll make each other happy. :D

(although it does disturb me to this day to think that Alanis went down on Uncle Joey in a theatre...::shudder:: )

FromBeneathYou
May 26, 2005, 07:18 pm
I'm actually offended by this column. Not really because of its context, but mainly as the use of the word gay as a synonym for stupid. Call it overreacting fine, but at least acknowledge the fact that when you use the word like that you offend people. Part of the reason I love comics so much is because they preach tolerance, for the underdog, the mutant, the outcast, etc., and seeing a disregard of the feelings of group of people from a comic fan isn't only hypocritical, but also hurtful. Yes, the use of gay to mean stupid has become somewhat of an American vernacular, and people who say it argue that they don't hate gays, but they fail to acknowledge that using gay in such a way, however subtly, purpetuates ignorance. I am a comic fan. I am also gay. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Please Jim, and everyone else whose reading this, catch yourself next time. I'm not saying people should wave pride banners and march for tolerance, I'm just asking that you be considerate.

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 26, 2005, 07:43 pm
I'm actually offended by this column. Not really because of its context, but mainly as the use of the word gay as a synonym for stupid. Call it overreacting fine, but at least acknowledge the fact that when you use the word like that you offend people. Part of the reason I love comics so much is because they preach tolerance, for the underdog, the mutant, the outcast, etc., and seeing a disregard of the feelings of group of people from a comic fan isn't only hypocritical, but also hurtful. Yes, the use of gay to mean stupid has become somewhat of an American vernacular, and people who say it argue that they don't hate gays, but they fail to acknowledge that using gay in such a way, however subtly, purpetuates ignorance. I am a comic fan. I am also gay. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Please Jim, and everyone else whose reading this, catch yourself next time. I'm not saying people should wave pride banners and march for tolerance, I'm just asking that you be considerate.

but it's not like Jim used it in that context. it's being used ironically by a character who no one should want to emulate. the character is satirical, making fun of overreacting internet fanboys. and that is a term they use quite commonly. so it seems like you're getting offended by Jim making fun of something you don't like yourself. context is everything, people.

i use the term colloquially myself from time to time...not as much as some of my friends. and not as much as some of my gay friends. it helps that most of us are comedians and almost all of us are involved in performing and the arts in some way so we've got a bit of a sense of humor and don't take things like that too seriously. all the same, i've started adding on a bit whenever i do it: "that's so gay. and not in the good man love way." :D

Chris Day
May 26, 2005, 08:13 pm
as usual, the Thor section got a laugh from me, but overall it wasn't as funny as the previous BYDI issues...

Silver Storm
May 26, 2005, 10:11 pm
I also was offended by the usage of "gay" in this article. I have been working most of my adult life with queer youth and maybe you guys don't think little things like gay = stupid have ramifications, but they do.

Do you have any idea how powerful words are? Do you understand how oppressive it is to read gay = stupid in an all ages forum?

It is a fact that gay kids have the highest suicide rates. Oftentimes, they have no one to talk to about their sexuality and to have someone use a label that they may need to identify with as a pejorative has the power to decrease their self esteem.

I am deeply disturbed by the cavalier usage (twice) of gay as a synonym for stupid and have lost much respect for a forum that I previously believed to be an inclusive website.

Sincerely,
Silver Storm

Martin Dudek
May 26, 2005, 10:11 pm
I've some questions Jim can answer, both about the dearly departed clawed freak.

1.) With Wolverine's recent secondary mutation to appear in multiple titles at once (Madrox should sue for copyright infringement), why does anyone care that this specific one died? I mean, it's not like the mighty Edi-Tor couldn't just go grab the New Avengers or X-Men version to replace whatever one died.

2.) What would happen if all the Wolverines met each other? Would they fight each other to the death? Would they cancel each other out and readers all over the world rejoice? Would the universe implode?!

Anand Khatri
May 26, 2005, 11:36 pm
Great column as always Jim.

:yoda: Questions few for you I have:

1) Will Kevin Smith ever finish a book?

2) As Martin said before, there seem to be more Wolvies running around in the Marvel Universe than Madrox can make multiples. Coud the same be thing be happenong to Magneto? He has been declared dead many times. The last time he died, it was an "imposter" who had been decapitaded by Logan. If he was an imposter then does that mean he has body doubles? Clones? Multiples? Continuity screw-uppers?

3) Who would win? Howard the Duck vs. Captain Carrot?

dreamer
May 27, 2005, 12:14 am
i was also bugged with the usage of the word gay in the column but thought to myself 'nevermind'. i mean this is supposed to be a fun thread and all kinds of nonsense is dropped all around and i thought he was just parodying the supposed frequent usage of the word in the absurd sense or something to that sense. i wouldn't think the particular pass of it in the column was 'offensive'.

a warning is nice. let's not take this to a level where we claim degrading views on the column, much less the whole site.

after all jim is a waay nice guy to be shovenistic (or however you spell that word) and am sure that he'll pop around to make it clear.

anyways, hope all ease up and enjoy or something.


:dunno:

Jim Lemoine
May 27, 2005, 12:34 am
I'm going to break one of my own rules here and actually reply to this, because apparently there are at least three people here who just didn't get it.

The usage of the word "gay" was by a character who, in case you missed it, tried to use homophobia to cover his own homosexuality. And in case you missed it, that particular character wasn't exactly one to be admired. Now I'm sure some people will be offended that, "Oh, no, he introduced a gay character that wasn't 'one to be admired'," and if you are, then you're again missing the point. The point was more along than the lines of "it's pathetic to hide who you are." But then, it might be more fun to get offended than it would be to recognize that point, and hey, I'm all for fun.

In a past installment of this very column, in fact, I think I covered how insulting it is to use "gay" as a synonym for "stupid". Go read your back issues, we'll wait.

That's the extent of my defense of this column. If you still want to get offended over something, go right ahead. But as the honorable Jordan Maxwell pointed out, you're not reading the column as it was intended to be read.

dreamer
May 27, 2005, 01:05 am
hey, i thought it was to make fun of (or 'for making a point' as you say) something, so i was like, trying to tell the other two that it shouldn't have been meant as offensive.

but to tell the truth, i don't always get what all those things going around are in this column (and i know i'm not the only one. heck, i've been wondering where that guy who speaks about this column being an injoke in between the moderators) and i still think it's funny and i find some very entertaining stuff in there. (and yay, the 'clawed freak' is dead! and i know you did it jim! :p)

but anyways, i don't know what i'm talking about here, but making out some fanboyish bable.

but, frankly; where did that 'actually a closet gay, who trys to hide his homosexuality behind the veil of homofobia' come out from?


:hypno:

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 27, 2005, 03:35 am
well, the fact that he's living with the Elitist seems to be the only indication...which went over my head too until Jim just pointed it out. but i guess they do seem a bit too...chummy.

anyway, it's satire. it's mocking the thing that is represented. this is like those ultra uptight parents who get offended by Mark Twain using the "dreaded n word." like the presence of the word itself is so horrid. context must be taken into account.

Silver Storm
May 27, 2005, 04:03 am
I'm going to break one of my own rules here and actually reply to this, because apparently there are at least three people here who just didn't get it.

The usage of the word "gay" was by a character who, in case you missed it, tried to use homophobia to cover his own homosexuality. And in case you missed it, that particular character wasn't exactly one to be admired. Now I'm sure some people will be offended that, "Oh, no, he introduced a gay character that wasn't 'one to be admired'," and if you are, then you're again missing the point. The point was more along than the lines of "it's pathetic to hide who you are." But then, it might be more fun to get offended than it would be to recognize that point, and hey, I'm all for fun.

In a past installment of this very column, in fact, I think I covered how insulting it is to use "gay" as a synonym for "stupid".


That's the extent of my defense of this column. If you still want to get offended over something, go right ahead. But as the honorable Jordan Maxwell pointed out, you're not reading the column as it was intended to be read.


The fact you already had a column about the pejorative use of "gay = stupid" disturbs me even more by your use of it here. One would think you would know better. You can't even use ignorance as an excuse.

I think it's a cheap shot to blame your audience for not understanding how your column was meant to be read. Those who took offense, myself included, have every right to our feelings about how we felt about the text. In our cases, your writing didn't convey what you intended. It failed as satire, parody, whatever you wish to call it. Take some culpability for your style and level of writing. To blame your audience for missing your point reeks of immaturity and unprofessionalism.

The flippant tone in your response (I don't look for things to be offended by, and i don't think of being offended as a form of entertainment.) communicates to me that you aren't taking the feelings of those offended seriously. Perhaps you have taken this as a personal attack and your ego is wounded for being misunderstood. I never said you were a bad person. I think you made a mistake and your writing, along with your intention, were misguided and unclear.

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 27, 2005, 04:25 am
hmm...the character who spoke the line is, himself, a parody of a stereotypical kind of comic book reader which Jim is mocking. therefore, everything that this character says will, most likely, be satirical in some way. again, context is crucial here. you're getting upset over that something Jim was himself mocking. so the fact is that you're in agreement over the issue that's being argued here. it's rather like someone getting upset with a political cartoonist portraying Bush making some ignorant comment against gay marriage because the reader is for gay marriage. well, yes, and obviously so is the cartoonist. the character is an object of mockery. his words are satirical and meant to show how wrong such an attitude is. that's the entire purpose here. so if you didn't realize that the line was meant to be ironic and satirical, that Jim was mocking the thing he was presenting...then yes, the fault is with you for misreading the line. he was portraying it in a negative light, which one would think you'd agree with. but heaven forbid logic and reason enter into the argument. you have yet to truly address any of the arguments made to appease you and show you that you're both on the same side here, opting instead to remain offended. how then can you say that you're NOT choosing to be offended? both Jim and myself have explained the usage of the term, have explained the context, have put forth for those who can't interpret the simplest subtext exactly what is being said here...and yet you continue to be offended for no good reason, merely for the fact that the term is being used at all with no regards for the context or intent.

honestly, sometimes i lose hope for the whole damn species...

Dylan McKay
May 27, 2005, 04:46 am
Ironically enough, Family Guy has been adapted into comic form, so technically speaking, mentioning it is comic related.

Just being a smart ass, Jim himself said we should hide our true self.

Silver Storm
May 27, 2005, 05:19 am
hmm...the character who spoke the line is, himself, a parody of a stereotypical kind of comic book reader which Jim is mocking. therefore, everything that this character says will, most likely, be satirical in some way. again, context is crucial here. you're getting upset over that something Jim was himself mocking. so the fact is that you're in agreement over the issue that's being argued here. it's rather like someone getting upset with a political cartoonist portraying Bush making some ignorant comment against gay marriage because the reader is for gay marriage. well, yes, and obviously so is the cartoonist. the character is an object of mockery. his words are satirical and meant to show how wrong such an attitude is. that's the entire purpose here. so if you didn't realize that the line was meant to be ironic and satirical, that Jim was mocking the thing he was presenting...then yes, the fault is with you for misreading the line. he was portraying it in a negative light, which one would think you'd agree with. but heaven forbid logic and reason enter into the argument. you have yet to truly address any of the arguments made to appease you and show you that you're both on the same side here, opting instead to remain offended. how then can you say that you're NOT choosing to be offended? both Jim and myself have explained the usage of the term, have explained the context, have put forth for those who can't interpret the simplest subtext exactly what is being said here...and yet you continue to be offended for no good reason, merely for the fact that the term is being used at all with no regards for the context or intent.

honestly, sometimes i lose hope for the whole damn species...


Jordan,

You lost any credibility you had with me by that last sentence. Perhaps it would be a better idea to keep the mocking tone and insultory language to yourself. They do nothing to help further your points and certainly do not bring me around to your views. Your words have expressed contempt for my opinions and feelings related to this topic. The fact that you think I'm offended for "no good reason" indicates to me that you do not (and probably never did) care about my perspective. You are too busy defending Jim's honor (perhaps pride) to understand that my feelings are valid. Period. They carry as much weight as anyone else's.

You don't have to agree with me that the word usage was still a poor choice and still potentially hurtful. You certainly don't have to insult my intelligence or make disparaging remarks about the human race.

The "it was a parody and that's the context it was used in" argument is still a sad excuse for an apology and unacceptable to me as an explanation.

I understand that no offense was meant. I have read "where you're coming from" and I still maintain it was a poor parody and poor choice of word usage.

If Jim had responded sans indignance and sarcasm, then I might have been able to come around to his position. However, his (and your) comments have been laced with flippant language that has created a gulf between us. We may be on the same side regarding gay issues (and this I still highly doubt), but there is still a divide between us.

There remains a larger picture here outside the realm of this column and one for which you both have yet to accept responsibility.

In the future, I propose that you treat others who do not share your opinions with a tinge more respect.

Janne Pietikainen
May 27, 2005, 11:24 am
A question: Would it help the comicbook media if celebrities wrote some?

I mean they get to guest star on tv all the time just because they're celebrities and it always makes a show a bit more noticeable. The quality is totally another thing, so would the lack of it outweight the focus brought to the book?

HandofGod
May 27, 2005, 02:08 pm
Silver Storm and anyone else who is making mountains out of molehills
of the usage of the use of "Gay = stupid" and the use of it as slang in a clearly ironic/sardonic sorta way....well you just need to stop, with your blazingly stupid attempt at being political correct.
1st. You're coming off as completely irrational.
2nd. The use of the word "Gay" wasn't used in a malicious manner and was meant to be offensive because the character in use was meant to offend...i.e the antagonist
3rd. Jim is allowed to be colorful and creative with his writing...stop being such a damn pc nazi censure about things.
4th and possibly the worst thing...with your blasted rants you have totally distracted from the real BYDI...
Now if you have anything relevant that does not require spoon feeding by all means please say something

getting back on topic....that was so true...what is it with teenage girls, manga and green hair?

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 27, 2005, 05:52 pm
Jordan,

You lost any credibility you had with me by that last sentence. Perhaps it would be a better idea to keep the mocking tone and insultory language to yourself. They do nothing to help further your points and certainly do not bring me around to your views. Your words have expressed contempt for my opinions and feelings related to this topic. The fact that you think I'm offended for "no good reason" indicates to me that you do not (and probably never did) care about my perspective. You are too busy defending Jim's honor (perhaps pride) to understand that my feelings are valid. Period. They carry as much weight as anyone else's.

and if i cared about having any credibility with you, this might affect me. but i use a mocking tone intentionally because i find your argument ridiculous and worth mockery. like satire, mockery is a way of using humor to point out the flaws and ludicrous nature of things. my words express contempt for your opinions because i have contempt for your opinion in this matter. and you perspective, as you've expressed it, seems skewed to me. I am not defending Jim's honor or his pride. I was initially just pointing out the nature of the comment that might have been misinterpreted by those who were needlessly offended and defending the freedom of columnists on this site to write how they damn well please.

it seems less like you think your opinions and feelings carry as much weight as anyone else and more like you think they're weightier and more important. i haven't tried to censor you. I've tried to explain to you what Jim's actual intent was and why there is no cause for being offended. you refuse to listen and remain personally offended where, one, there is no offense intended and two, the thing you're arguing against is a target of mockery. If Jim was making fun of racism, would you consider him a racist? so while your feelings are "valid" (i mean, you're feeling them after all) and you're free to express your opinions on this site, i'm likewise free and able to express my point of view that your argument is full of hooey.


You don't have to agree with me that the word usage was still a poor choice and still potentially hurtful. You certainly don't have to insult my intelligence or make disparaging remarks about the human race.

let's be clear here. i never once called you stupid. i never once personally insulted you. and my comment about the human race is more along the lines of i lose hope when people take themselves and the world around them far too seriously, when they're wound up too tight about trivial matters, when the PC stormtroopers come knocking on the door to make sure we're not doing anything that could potentially offend someone or that someone might disagree with. and the fact that you're offended by my last comment as well, which was not addressed to you individually but in a sarcastic tone for the whole species of homo sapiens...well, you're kind of proving my point for me.


The "it was a parody and that's the context it was used in" argument is still a sad excuse for an apology and unacceptable to me as an explanation.

it is neither an excuse nor an apology as there is nothing to excuse or apologize for. Jim isn't sorry we wrote it. As assistant columns editor, i'm not sorry we ran it. We've tried to explain the context and the intent and you stubbornly refuse to accept it. well, it doesn't really matter if you accept it or not...it's still the truth.


I understand that no offense was meant. I have read "where you're coming from" and I still maintain it was a poor parody and poor choice of word usage.

which you're free to think. but tell me...if you were to satirize this issue, how would you have executed it? there aren't too many ways i can think of to mock the usage of the word "gay" to mean stupid or lame...than to have a mockery of a character, someone who is an object of ridicule, use the word "gay" to mean stupid or lame.


If Jim had responded sans indignance and sarcasm, then I might have been able to come around to his position. However, his (and your) comments have been laced with flippant language that has created a gulf between us. We may be on the same side regarding gay issues (and this I still highly doubt), but there is still a divide between us.

and thank God for that. because i'd sure hate to be on your side of the gulf. it seems like there's a lot less comedy over there and i don't know if i could walk around being clenched so tightly.

oh, and if it seems like Jim and i are using sarcasm and flippant language in our arguments, please rest assured that it's only becaues we're not talking you seriously.


There remains a larger picture here outside the realm of this column and one for which you both have yet to accept responsibility.

see, it's this kind of talk that makes it hard to take you seriously...because you're already taking yourself too seriously for the rest of us! we have to accept responsibility for the larger picture here? you honestly think that a gay kid is going to blow his brains out because Fanboy called something "gay"? you believe there's some group of guys sitting around who're going to be inspired to go assault homosexuals because Fanboy called something "gay"? you feel like Congress is going to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in this country...because Fanboy called something "gay"? because if you do...well, lighten up. get over it. it ain't gonna happen. besides, if it was really going to, then South Park would've already taken care of it. and Archie Bunker would've made sure that civil rights never got off the ground.


In the future, I propose that you treat others who do not share your opinions with a tinge more respect.

first of all, respect is something that has to be earned in my book. i don't know you. you're an anonymous face on the internet to me. i neither respect nor disrespect you. i have very little respect for your argument in this matter. it's not that i disrepect you personally for having a differing opinion...it's the extent of that opinion and the argument you make for it that i have little respect for. there's an important difference there.

(although i'm tempted to not respect you just for using the word "tinge." oy...let me guess: that offended you.)

Drew Shirley
May 27, 2005, 09:35 pm
God, another would be social crusader shows up to blow something massively out of proportion and totally derail a thread. And using Silver Storm's logic, every fictional character that's ever said anything is obviously a reflection of their creator.

That sort of thinking makes me want to puke. Not as much as the "I'm here to defend those that can't defend themselves!" attitude, though. The internet has enough holier than thou crap cramming it's corners, it doesn't need any more.

Jon Hancock
May 28, 2005, 12:53 am
Did someone just imply that Jordan was homophobic.

:giggle: Now that IS silly. Everyone knows his relationship's just a sham for the press :P

Funny stuff Jim. Sad that some people are so narrow minded as to not think and instead react to things without reflecting on meaning.


Q: When's Hawkeye coming back?

Thaddeus Hettle
May 28, 2005, 05:02 am
*Tiptoing around the GREAT CONFLAGERATION alighting this thread*

1. Who would win in a Sorcerer's duel between Grant Morrison and Alan Moore?

2. Can I get my own 'FACK COMMUNISM' lighter anywhere?

3. Is the Canadian government really so evil that they'd abduct several unsuspecting mutants, torture them, erase their memories, all in an effort to turn them into superhuman assassins? I mean, what's Canada got to be afraid of anyway?

Jordan T. Maxwell
May 28, 2005, 05:11 am
Did someone just imply that Jordan was homophobic.

:giggle: Now that IS silly. Everyone knows his relationship's just a sham for the press :P


shhh...i only wish. then i could date Katie Holmes. :D

Ovid
May 29, 2005, 08:39 am
Oh, you... look, have you checked the mail? Did you see if my Ra's Al Ghul statue came in yet?

Your who statue? Man, why can't you read normal books like Superman or Batman?

They... live... together?

YOU'D BE SURPRISED.

I am.
Didn't pick up that they were supposed to be gay, but hilarious nonetheless. :rofl:

The fact that you think I'm offended for "no good reason" indicates to me that you do not (and probably never did) care about my perspective. You are too busy defending Jim's honor (perhaps pride) to understand that my feelings are valid. Period. They carry as much weight as anyone else's.
I'm not going to get involved in this precise argument, but I've heard this sort of sentiment before. Feelings, like arguments, only carry as much weight as there are good reasons for them. Everyone's points-of-view are not necessarily equally valid. That way lies relativism.

But then that's just my opinion. ;)

Niels van Eekelen
May 31, 2005, 09:03 pm
I think I laughed more reading the, um, debate than I did reading the column itself.

And just for the record: I didn't get from the column that Fanboy was supposed to be gay, but his use as a parody was quite obvious to me.

raul grau
Jun 3, 2005, 06:01 am
Jim, nice work on the latest installment... well, I didn't actually read it, but my assistant read it, and he said that it was quite good. Mighty edi-Tor, nice work keeping Jim in line... you're earning your keep. ;)

However, Jim, I am a little disappointed with your numbers. I mean, you mentioned Wolverine by name in the title, yet you are just barely getting more hits than I did with a CFD about Donna Troy... how is that possible? :hmmm:

- Raul