Incompetence is not a defence
Here’s a hint for the defenders of comic books against accusations of anything.
Incompetence is not a defence.
Now I know this is a complex concept, so I’ll explain it again.
Incompetence is not a defence.
Here’s the detailed explanation
If somebody writing or drawing a comic book has shown, over time, a demonstrable inability to draw different female characters, this is not something you defend by saying “Well, what do you expect? The artist is talentless and incompetent”. This is something where you say “We would like the artist replaced by someone with the appropriate skills required for the job”.
In the same manner, when faced with yet another storyline with a poor portrayal of female characters, justifying the portrayal as “bad writing” and saying “Well, this author is known for their low quality work, poor characterisations, and general inability to create female characters that are equally realistic as the male characters” is not a justification. It’s a reason to request the removal of the author and replacement with the requisite skill set to do the job properly.
Defending misogyny, racism, sexism, homophobia, discriminatory writing, abusive writing, or any other criticism of a text by saying “What do you expect? The author/artist is incompetent” is not actually a defence. Incompetence is not a justification, it’s a request for the person you are allegedly defending to be stood down from their position until they acquire the requisite skills and abilities to do their job properly.
I think you're conflating "defending" with "explaining." And anyway, talking about levels of talent is more opinion than fact, especially when it comes to artists. Obviously if the editor thinks an artist is talented, he or she is going to hire that artist and it doesn't really matter much what I think. Editors have different priorities and considerations than fans, such as reliability and speed.
Editors also tend to hire "popular" artists and writers, and those "popular" people aren't necessarily the ones you and I might think have a good handle on female characters but it doesn't matter if their books sell. That's the bottom line. How well are books with well-done female characters selling, compared to books with "hot" writers or artists? If you were an editor, to whom would you be more likely to listen: readers who buy books from "hot" creators or readers who want to see more diversity but don't support well-done female characters with their wallets?
Comment by Elayne Riggs — November 3, 2006 @ 8:18 am
I don't think he's conflating. Because often, that "what do you expect?" includes a suggestion that maybe we should shut up and talk about something important, because we should expect them to be crap.
"Well it sells" or "well, the writer is incompetent" may be explanation. But such statements in certain situations also function to shut down discussion. And that's precisely what Stephen's talking about.
Comment by jen — November 3, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
Elayne
Up front - I'm not wanting to say to you "You are wrong, I am right", but rather "You are right if I conflate the two, but I wish to argue my case that I am not conflating".
Specifically I'm referring to the practice of *defending* an artistic/writer/editor/blogger/anyone by saying "Oh, they're useless" as a DEFENSE wildcard against criticisms. If you think I need to make that clearer, I'll give it a second shot.
In clarification, I think you can explain a lack of ability, a lack of training or a lack of aptitude, but that lack does not justify defending a person by calling attention to their inability.
There's two things that bother me here.
1. I'm expected to forgive and ignore the substantive issue of whatever was bothering me because it wasn't deliberate action. It's like I can't complain about something when it was caused by incompetence, which doesn't actually go anyway to solving the problem that was raised in the first place.
2. How much must it hurt to be one of these people being defended like this? Your fans are excusing your trangressions by saying you suck at your day job. I mean, that's got to hit where it hurts coming from the *fans* of your work. I'd like the people who are trying to explain and/or justify a situation not resort to holding up the person they're defending and saying "See? Useless. Hopeless. A joke of a person" by using the Talent/Skill Deprivation Syndrome Defence.
As far as the opinion of talent versus skills, I agree, it's subjective. But where I read a justification of the visual portrayal of women being along the lines of "Oh well, what do you expect? The artist can't draw women", I have to ask the question - if they can't draw the gender that represents half the population, and they work in an industry that requires them to draw female characters, are they really fully skilled for that job?
Inept is not a defence. It may well be a cause, a reason or an explanation, but I doubt it counts as much of a justification/
Comment by Designated Sidekick — November 3, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
I was having this discussion with my boyfriend with regards to Rob Liefeld's work, and he told me something I didn't know. Apparently Liefeld is wildly popular for his ability to portray action in a page, and that's why his fans will make excuses for his lack of skill with basic anatomy. Which I could vaguely understand as being sort of an excuse for why he's still working. But the "it sells" argument is kinda blurry for me there, as I personally know people who have been turned off of buying titles that they normally would have picked up because incompetant writer or artist x is doing the current run or a guest spot. My thought is that if those artists/writers were, metaphorically speaking, secretly replaced with Folgers crystals, people might actually have a positive response to the change.
I don't really know though, I don't buy anything unless I like the writer(s) and the art.
Comment by wallflower — November 6, 2006 @ 1:08 am
This entry made me happy.
Comment by Tamora Pierce — December 20, 2006 @ 3:34 am