Katchoo

Mike Rooth is awesome. He did a great commission for me years ago. Dude should be huge.

! Hyperbole ftw! "Defiled"! Actually can't believe people are still going on about this. STILL! Just remember everyone was all over ES when he was giving out FREE COPIES of SIGNED NWM #1. Oh how little it takes to get people to completely change. The truth is, people are spouting so much hate in ES' direction because their investment is now worth squat. That can be the only reason because I can see no other reason at all to be so ridiculously angry at a late or cancelled comic regardless of how communicative the creators have been about it. Talk about 1st world problems. I'm still waiting for another issue of a comic called Straw Men from 2008. I doubt it will ever happen. Just gotta find some way of getting on with my life.

Thanks guys now to decide what will stay and what will go. I want them all.

I'm confused. The blank variant was #13.

That's a shame.

#1 comic of 2013 on this list: http://www.existentialennui.com/2013/12/the-existential-ennui-review-of-year-10.html http://www.existentialennui.com/2013/12/the-existential-ennui-review-of-year-10.html

Because you don't like it or because of the delays?

Number 1 comic of 2013 according to AV Club (and me) http://www.avclub.com/article/the-best-mainstream-and-superhero-comics-of-2013-200604

I would imagine both of these creators have some say in the way they choose to prioritize. However I did notice this month when making my DCBS order that there was no EoW to order. Expected delay or not? The creators I've talked to that do original IPs as well as Big 2 books usually prioritize their Big 2 books. That's their cash cow, and you can't really blame them. There's also the assumption that creator owned readers tend to be more loyal and more willing to wait through delays, whereas Big 2 execs are less patient. I would have thought they would have made more on their own. Real question. What makes a writer do an Image book if they can make more with DC/Marvel ? Freedom to write any story they want instead of someone else's characters. Owning the rights to their own stuff so if it gets optioned for tv/film they get a nice big cheque. They have control over what happens with their story ie who to sell it to if several people are interested. Plus if it's a hit they'll make more money on it than at the big 2.

You say that like the writers are being forced to write books for Marvel.

Mind MGMT is number 9 in Paste magazine's 10 Best Comics of 2013 http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2013/12/the-10-best-comics-of-2013.html

Seriously man, Wheaton's Law. I think in order for it to be beating a dead horse, people need to have understood the point first. Unfortunately, based on the fact that people keep arguing against things I haven't even said, the discussion hasn't really been able to go anywhere. I'll say something like "I have a problem with the way rape was used as a plot device" and then I get a response like "No! TWD does not cause men to be rapists! How can you not like pancakes??? Troll!!". I can guarantee that the discussion would be vastly different if women were the majority in this discussion. What does that say I wonder? While I am far from the only person participating in this discussion, I am the only one being told to stop it, go away, or to take it to PM. I also wonder what that says. And for the record, when I first mentioned issues I had with this particular plot in TWD I said I didn't really want to get into a debate about it. The issues I mentioned could have been ignored but other people chose to continue with it and the discussion began.

Guys, can you take any discussion about stuff that happens in TWD to PM please? I mean, sheesh. This really isn't the place.

Hahaha, that's brilliant. Are you sure? Rape has been shown on tv plenty of times before so it certainly wasn't because they weren't able to show it. It's got nothing to do with it being an adult comic. Again(!) it's not rape in any way shape or form that I'm arguing against, it is the way it was portrayed here (and in much other media). Please stop making that argument because it is a strawman. It's perfectly possible to not like an element of something that overall you enjoy so the default position here shouldn't be one of defending Kirkman's every action. I loved Black Science but I still called it out for the refrigeration death in it. Nobody called me a troll then though or got super-defensive. Another strawman. Do you honestly believe I said that? Mark Millar got slaughtered in the media (and by other comic pros) for saying something similar to that. It's all out there online if you or anyone else doesn't understand why and would like to find out. If this case was treated in a mature manner I would be ok with it too. Thank goodness! I was beginning to think I was speaking in a different language. I say something and instead of offering a counterpoint all I'm getting is arguments against things I didn't even say. I was thinking myself that it might even have been Kirkman who wanted the rape stuff kept out of the show. There's a chance he looks back on those few issues and has the same criticisms as I have. It was written a good few years ago so maybe he wouldn't be so lazy and thoughtless now.

...And? I'm honestly not arguing that it's unrealistic for that to happen in an apocalyptic world. Of course rape would happen. It happens NOW and it's prevalent. Current statistics on rape and rape convictions is grim reading. My problem is with the way it is portrayed and how it's just thrown in as a plot device without any other considerations. I've tried to explain that (numerous times now) but my point keeps getting missed. Why do you think the guys at AMC chose to omit Michonne's rape and subsequent revenge torture? (Serious question, not rhetorical) I've asked before and got no answer - is the show any less realistic? When you have 1 in 4 women facing sexual assault then maybe every 4th women in fiction needs to be assaulted in order to keep it realistic. Obviously that's a daft idea so the argument that it should be featured the way it was in TWD for realism's sake is also daft. The sad fact is, when it comes to the reality of rape, there aren't many who *truly* want realism because that story would be too difficult and too grim for most people to ever want to read or watch. Though maybe if the reality of it was shown up close then guys might think twice before throwing it in their story without a second thought.

That's an insanely dumb response. YES, a hundred times yes! That's one more thing I hate about it. I made the point before - it's always used to show just how "evil" a guy is. It's so far from what rape actually is. It perpetuates the myth that rape is only committed by evil monsters lurking in dark places. This is exactly why M.Millar got flack. He explained that he used rape in the story to show how bad the guy was. You don't need to tell me how common rape and other awful things are. I don't think that holds any weight for the argument you're putting forward though. In fact, I think it weakens it in this particular case. "A plot like rape" in any story, not just TWD isn't inherently lazy writing and isn't always used for shock. I've already said that. In this case, the rape-revenge issue was most definitely shock for shock's sake. I honestly don't know how you can argue otherwise. I mean, that was Ennis level torture porn. Reading the story, it felt like the only purpose of the rape was to have that torture scene afterwards. That really *spooned* me off. It's so unbelievably lazy and completely disrespectful. It's a dude writing about a woman getting raped and then having revenge torture. That's introducing rape into a story for the shock factor and for "entertainment". And I honestly don't buy the argument of a story like this being "expected" to have rape or that it somehow needs rape to remain realistic (it's about zombies ffs). I'll back up my opinion of that by pointing out there are plenty of similar stories, either end-of-world scenarios or zombie stories that don't have rape and cope just fine without having rape. I mean, if you saw a zombie movie where people were acting like animals and there wasn't a rape scene would you think afterwards "yeah, that was really cool, but the lack of a rape scene really spoiled it for me"? Is this what you're saying? Cos it sounds ridiculous to me. Also, the tv show doesn't have the rape or the torture scene. I've never said Kirkman's writing is plagued with sexism. I even pointed out myself that I was glad Michonne at least had a personality (if I'm remembering correctly) before the rape and it certainly wasn't the definition of her character or the only reason for her being in the comic in the first place. So please don't use strawman arguments.

And you know what? I really really tiptoed around the sexism issue when I first brought it up because I was worried the same old bull would get posted by a bunch of guys. So I was right to be worried. Thanks for that. I only felt even half comfortable going on with it because someone else mentioned sexism first, in the form of bringing up refrigeration of women. The fact I was worried about bringing it up and felt uncomfortable bringing it up is a :censored:ing problem in itself. Then people wonder why sexism in comics continues. "Why don't people call it out?" they say. Yeah, I wonder. Now you're telling me that a discussion thread for the comic I believe has a sexist trope in it isn't the place to discuss that sexist trope. Where should I discuss it? Somewhere you don't visit so it doesn't bother you?

Really? Where would you like me to talk about content of the WD comic if not in the WD discussion thread?

Are you even old enough to read TWD? This whole situation on the one hand is unbelievable yet unfortunately all too common. Someone (usually a woman) mentions the word sexism... and well, look what's happened here. I'm a troll, I'm mental, I'm a bag. Then a guy finally demands that I "GO AWAY!!". Maybe I'm supposed to feel sorry for intruding in your comfy privileged white male bubble. It wasn't me who put rape in TWD and since this is a discussion thread for TWD it's perfectly valid that I should air my opinion on it without essentially being bullied out. "Why aren't there more women in comics?" :censored:ing *headdesk*

If there was a pattern of gay characters being killed off or sexually or physically assaulted just to shock or "entertain" or to further the plot and/or serve to motivate the straight protagonist I think your response would be different. That would be called out and rightfully so. When people pointed out it was homophobic, they wouldn't be called mental or a troll or a bag . They wouldn't say "oh well, it's not for everyone" or "I don't care if you're offended" or "it doesn't have to be deep - it's meant to be entertaining!". The things I'm arguing are all inter-linked, not separate issues. It takes a pretty lazy writer to use as many tropes as Kirkman does. The rape-revenge is as tropey as it gets. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear at the beginning as to what bothered me so much about it, I thought I was, but my argument hasn't changed. How is that even funny? I'll leave you guys to your little boys club.

I've already given a couple of examples where I think rape could be featured well in fiction. But in general, yes I find rape pretty offensive. I think you've been desensitised if you find it unoffensive. For example? What purpose did it serve in this case? The ENTIRE argument is that it's sexist and lazy. That is THE argument. What on earth do you think people call it out for if not the sexism? I'm seriously beginning to doubt you've been following this conversation at all. Straight, white male by any chance? It does, doesn't it? Check out all the guys arguing that there's nothing wrong with the rape of a woman being used as a plot device.

On Monday, Joe Hill tweeted that the final issue of LOCKE & KEY will be in stores on Dec. 18th. I ordered the box set. Chris Ryall at IDW posted this photo of it with the remaining Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 covers on tumblr: That's awesome, thanks.

You said "You're offended by rape". It was a statement all in its own little paragraph. Of course I'm offended by rape. "You're not offended by rape?" was a perfectly reasonable response to what you said. Don't act like you didn't say it. You went on to say you aren't offended by the rape "in this context". In what context, if any, would you find it offensive then? There's a reason this stuff is called out and it's not because the people calling it out are I'm also curious as to why you're telling me my opinion doesn't matter. What on earth does "Who are you to be offended? Exactly." mean?

You're not offended by rape? I need a blank stare emoticon.