This is the third piece regarding the mini-series DCU Decisions, which is selling poorly. The first issue was reviewed here by TFO's Virgin Reader and the second issue discussed with Nancy Stone here. The series is being examined at the request of friend of the site Caleb Mozzocco. To follow the trend of wasting peoples time with this series right before they do something more important, any questions for Sarah Engelman will have to wait until she returns from Abu Dhabi.
The Factual Opinion: Normally we start these off by asking why you chose this comic to read--obviously, this comic has been foisted upon you. Now, you've read the past interview we did with Nancy Stone on the previous issue of this series. Can you talk a little bit about your feelings coming into the experience?
Engelman: I was trying not to expect too much. I didn't know that I'd be reading this one. I had read Nancy's but I had no idea that there was a new issue [of the series], or that I'd be reading it--I just showed up.
TFO: Upon reading Nancy's review, did you say to yourself "Gosh, I'd really like to read the next issue of this series"?
Engelman: No, I did not.
TFO: So it's with a bit of abject disappointment that you pick up the issue?
Engelman: Well, no. It was an interesting opportunity to see if I would potentially dislike it as much, because I got the feeling that it was...disliked.
The Virgin Reader: Have you ever read a comic book before?
Engelman: I have read very few comic books. The first one I read was a few years ago, given to me by my friend Charlie Fey. It was Rent Girl, it was about a lesbian prostitute in San Francisco. That was fun. I don't know why she gave it to me, but I accepted it.
Virgin: Charlie was a girl?
Engelman: Yes.
Virgin: Was she hitting on you?
Engelman: No, I don't think so. She was a guitarist in the band I was working for. We were in San Francisco and she knew I lived in San Francisco, the author was from San Francisco--I don't know. Apparently lesbian prostitution is rampant in San Francisco.
Virgin: I had a woman give me a lesbian-themed play once, apparently as a means to hit on me.
TFO: What made you so sure that she was trying to hit on you?
Virgin: It's a long story.
TFO: Then don't tell it. Okay, Sarah. So your experience with Rent Girl didn't lead you to exploring more comics?
Engelman: No. I've since read a few. Some I enjoyed, some I didn't.
TFO: Which ones?
Engelman: Most recently the first 100 Bullets. A new one came out, and Marty and I went to some comic book store in our neighborhood--Rocketship, or something like that. So he got all geeky-excited and said "Here, you want to read the first one and I'll read the new one?" So we did that.
Virgin: Some people play tennis...we read comics.
TFO: It's funny you mention that, there was actually one of these controversies--well, controversial among the two people who read comic book blogs--about a negative reaction when a critic posted a pretty caustic response to that first trade. He didn't like the art, he didn't like the covers, he though the story was reminiscient of Matlock--no, Michael Landon. What did you think about what you read?
Engelman: I did find it a little hard to follow at first--that might be my inexperience with comic books. That was...hard. Actually, I haven't finished reading it. It had moved into another story, that was fine, because I was enjoying it more then the first storyline--and then I was reading it in bed and it jumped into another story, and I just went "UGH!" I threw it down on the floor. Just when I thought I was getting something out of it, I was beginning to form an opinion about it--it moved into something else.
TFO: Well, what was your reaction to DCU Decisions # 3?
Engleman: I found it easy to understand. That was a nice surprise. I found it very funny.
Virgin: Good funny or bad funny?
Engelman: Funny for me is always good funny. I don't know if I'm interpreting what [the writers] are doing properly, but for me, what they were trying to express was how they feel about their own current situation through this fantasy world of super-heroes. For some reason, I thought that was totally dorky funny. Like it was really something that [the writers] were just doing for themselves. I'm reading it, but they don't really care. I found that amusing. I don't mean that they really "don't care," but it felt like it was truly for themselves. A way for [the writers] to express their views on political issues. And this one--I don't know what the other two are like--but this issue had a lot of attack on mainstream media. I always find that...cool. In fact, I think one of the news anchors, the girl one--actually, I'm just assuming they are girls and boys. I have no idea. Maybe they said "she and him," and that's why I think that. They have this part where she says "This is a straight news broadcast, and you're giving opinion." and he says "All news is opinion Carla, welcome to the new age of broadcast news." That was pretty pointed, pretty true. But as far as the whole "reason" it's being written? Would I look for it? Try to read it again? No.
TFO: What did you think of the relationship between Lois and Superman?
Engelman: Well, I don't really have any relationship with these characters, so at first I didn't know if Lois knew that Superman was her husband. I know that sounds lame, but I really didn't know.
Virgin: In some movies she doesn't know.
Engelman: Right! They had crushes on each other. I didn't know they were married! But the whole "you're sleeping on the couch because of this argument" thing. I thought that was lame. Of all the things going on in the comic, I thought that was the lamest page.
TFO: What did you think about the art?
Engelman: The art? I enjoyed it, actually. I thought that it was fun. It was colorful, the chicks are hot without being too abnormal. They look like they could be Olympic athletes with boobs. They wouldn't break at the waistline. I found it visually easy to follow, which I enjoyed. I don't have much attention span for comics, otherwise I would be trying to read them all the time. I liked it.
TFO: The plot mechanic that Nancy didn't enjoy, and I don't think [Nina] enjoyed it either, was the whole assassination subplot.
Virgin: Isn't it the actual plot?
TFO: Well, yes, it's supposed to be the actual plot. Most people seem to only respond to the "who's Batman going to vote for" stuff. It doesn't match up to the subplot in terms of interest, that seems to be the argument.
Engelman: It's funny that you're even saying that, the sub-plot, the plot--it seems like that barely plays a role here. Who is this red guy here? Is that Flash Gordon?
Virgin: That's the Flash, but I call him Shazam. But it isn't Shazam.
Engelman: Yes, this part where he supports the bomber for president, and then he gets a lot of backlash for that--
Virgin: Oh really?
Engelman: He's "pretending." He gets a lot of backlash for it, but he's actually trying to get the whole thing back on topic, which is that there's attempted assassinations going on. What was the question again?
TFO: Just how you responded to that.
Engelman: I didn't care. I don't know who these candidates are. I don't know what they stand for. In super-hero land it seems like everything is blowing up all the time. This is just one other thing that's being saved. It doesn't move me in any way.
Virgin: TFO started laughing a lot right now.
TFO: Do you have any follow ups?
Virgin: Can I ask silly ones?
TFO: You can ask a couple of silly ones, if you have too.
Virgin: If this comic were an ice cream flavor, what flavor would it be?
Engelman: Rainbow sherbet?
Virgin: Because of the colors!
Engelman: Just because of the colors. And it's really sweet. Little tangy.
Virgin: Sweet and tangy.
Engelman: Oh, can I just say that this whole ring thing, this "spotting out" whoever is taking possession in this crowd--that was weird and lame.
Virgin: Actually, you stopped when reading the comic to read it out loud to me, just to say "What is this?"
Engelman: "Green Lantern, scan the crowd immediately around Superman. If any of the forty-seven signs of sudden mental possession appear in anyone..." I read that and went--what?! That is so...arbitrary, and stupid--everything else seemed to at least have something to do with something, but that was just...random. "The forty-seven signs of sudden mental possession."
Virgin: That's something I've found lately when I've read these super-hero ones. I can't remember what it was, but it's this kinda sci-fi edge that almost...it's like a deus ex machina, all the time. "Oh! Actually, the time machine that will take us back three minutes so that we can change and amplify reality will be employed...NOW!" It's just "oh-so-perfect" that something like that, something so perfect, exists. And they throw those in all the time. It's hilarious.
TFO: I'm curious if there's a list at DC Comics headquarters of the "forty-seven signs of mental possession."
Virgin: Can you google it?
TFO: No. Look, I don't WANT to know. I'm just curious. Often times when you see something that's completely stupid and arbitrary--and I agree, it's completely stupid and arbitrary--it has some basis in something. Something from the 1950's that some dude wrote on a deadline to get the hell out of there.
Engelman: Oh, and then they pull it out because it's "kitschy" and "fun!"
TFO: Yeah, and then they chomp on a cigar and say "I own so many railroads!"
Engelman: "There's coins, spilling out of my ears!"
TFO: "That's a nickel if I know my onions!" The final page, when the bad guy is revealed--where you filled with shock and awe that it was the character Jericho?
Engelman: Well, obviously, I had no idea who that is. So no, clearly: I don't care.
Virgin: What's he doing? He's programming people, he's doing the mind control?
TFO: He can take possession of people's bodies. He used to be a hero.
Engelman: All that stuff about how he couldn't make them shoot themselves, because he couldn't be in their bodies at the time of death--couldn't he make them take some poison? Or walk them out to the desert, take some poison there? Leave the body? If you wanted too, isn't there a way around that?
At this point, Nina wanted to ask some questions she found at some kind of self-help site.
Virgin: Is there anything you would like to acknowledge this comic book for?
Engelman: I would like to acknowledge this comic book for seeming to poke fun at the whole political climate right now, the media climate. I appreciated that.
Virgin: Did you find anything missing, or disempowering about this comic book? To you, or to people, or to anything? Or to women. Because you and I have a special point of view.
Engelman: Right.
Virgin: Because we have vaginas.
Engelman: Because we have vaginas.
Virgin: Because of the powers of the pussy.
Engelman: That is true. Power of the pussy, power TO the pussy. I don't know. There's probably a lot missing here. As a woman, I would say that these two green guys? I felt that there homosexual relationship could've been a little more revealed to me. That would have been hot.
TFO: Green Lantern and Green Arrow?
Engelman: Yes. They are totally gay for each other. I loved this blond chick with the hottie fishnets and them, when they had this totally irrelevant dialog: "Sometimes best friends have to work out their--they have to clear the air." See! Right there! We could've gone into some homosexual stuff and that would've been hot.
-Sarah Engelman, Nina Stone, TFO, 2008
DCU Decisions is written by Judd Winick and Bill Willingham, with art by Rick Leonardi, Dan Green & Alex Bleyaert. Published by DC Comics.
Nina, I only say this out of love. Don't listen to Tucker! The next time you start on a story about a near-miss lesbian experience and he's all like, "No no no, talk about this silly who's Batman voting for comic instead," don't listen to him!
Oh well, the tease aside, this was still another excellent article! If it wasn't for Tucker's Economist articles, you would totally pwn him at his own blog! (I think stories of near miss lesbian experiences could push you over the top! lol)
Posted by: Kenny | 2008.10.24 at 09:28
Hey, thanks guys! This was as great a read as always. I thought the bit about the writers writing a book basically for themselves was especially insightful. That describes, like, pretty much every corporate super-comic doesn't it? Good and bad, the majority seem to be like the writers living out their own childhood associations with the characters.
Posted by: caleb | 2008.10.24 at 10:24
excellent post
Posted by: arch 14 | 2008.10.24 at 13:36