SubscribeHoly Bat-Manga controversy!
Bat-Manga! The Secret History of Batman in Japan was published a couple of weeks ago. I noticed the book at Borders. The thing that drew my attention was that it was released in two formats- both hardbound and paperback. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.
In the late 60’s Shonen King, a weekly Japanese manga anthology for boys, licensed the rights to Batman and Robin. Drawn by Jiro Kuwata, the weekly stories featured Batman and Robin fighting giant robots and mutated dinosaurs.
The stories only appeared for a year. Evidently even DC Comics forgot that Batman and Robin were licensed in Japan. The stories were rediscovered by the book’s authors, Chip Kidd and Saul Ferris.
Bat-Manga! The Secret History of Batman in Japan not only features the original Jiro Kuwata strips translated into English for the first time, it includes an exclusive interview with Jiro Kuwata along with photographs of vintage Japanese Batman toys.
Evidently the book as been met with at least some criticism from some in the comic book blogosphere. The reason? Jiro Kuwata’s name fails to appear on the book’s cover. I guess I could understand the controversy if the book only contained the work of Jiro Kuwata. It doesn’t.
Some of the criticism has been overly brutal.
Chip Kidd has responded to the criticism and has offered an analogy:
But I would put forth the analogy: when Ken Burns made his documentary on the Civil War, the subsequent book had his name, and his writer Geoffrey Ward, on the front. It did not have the names General Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, or Abraham Lincoln, or any contemporary historians that Burns interviewed. That may sound like a stretch, but it’s the same situation. We took it upon ourselves to put this project together because of our love for this material. We spent far more of our own money amassing everything then we’ll ever see out of sales of the book; and without going into details, any money we did get as an advance went right back to Mr. Kuwata, who was thrilled to get it. As he is thrilled with the book—I’ve heard nothing but compliments and thanks from him.
Normally I hate analogies because they almost always invariably suck. This one doesn’t. I think it’s right on the mark.
Reaction to the Wonder Woman PLAYBOY cover
I’ve been trying to keep up with the online funny book feminist overreaction to Tiffany Fallon being painted up to look like Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy. Even though Fallon is technically nude on the cover, it’s not the most titillating image to ever grace the cover of a magazine, especially a magazine such as Playboy. You have to look close to even realize that she is indeed even naked.
Some funny book feminists have been vocal with their disapproval of the cover. Ragnell writes over at Written World:
If they’re smart, they’ll put their foot down and try and reclaim that image. Pink Raygun (NSFW) asked if we’d see a model as Batman in the same sort of thing. The answer’s no. You won’t see Batman in paint on the cover of Playgirl because DC protects their copyright to Batman, and goes out of their way to stop sexualized images of Batman. The character is money to them, they want to control how the public receives him.
The “sexualized images of Batman“ she is referring to is the watercolor artwork of artist Mark Chamberlain. They are more then just sexualized images of Batman. They show Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder engaged in various sex acts. With each other.
Say what you want about the Playboy cover, but at least Wonder Woman isn’t engaged in sodomy with an under aged minor.
It’s true DC sent a “cease & desist” letter to the New York Chelsea art dealer that was selling the gay Batman and Robin watercolors. That was over two years ago. I don’t know what ever became of the case. Honestly, I don’t really care. I noticed today that at least some of the art is still up for sale at the artist’s website. That makes me think DC wasn’t too successful in getting the art removed.
Wonder Woman on the cover of Playboy is not the same thing as artwork featuring Batman and Robin engaged in sodomy. Then again, what if it was? I don’t remember anyone – male or female – getting angry over the Chamberlain artwork showing Batman engaged in gay sex. In fact, I remember the complete opposite. I remember most people reacting to the gay Batman and Robin art as though it was kind of funny.
Imagine that.
-
Recent Comments
-
Sören: Yes I am for real ;-) Never thought that my name is that cool. Actually I would rather change my name if I could......
-
Ryan: 'Cause this here's America! We play real football not that pussy European shit! ...
-
Wildcat: and please don't be as redundant as me as me as me....
-
-
-
-
Books I Am Reading
-
Music I Am Listening To
-
- Peter Graves has died - http://bit.ly/blfTde #cnn
- Courage? Really? http://is.gd/axTwj
- I just ordered my iPad! http://is.gd/auerZ
Follow me @rickrottman