I'm trying to think of things!

I haven't written anything here for ages.  I want to, but I don't know what to write about.  My life is filled with work and family, neither of which I am going to bleat about on such a public forum.

I am still reading comics, but I have lost a lot of enthusiasm for current output.  Those I do read seem to have been filled with meaty tragedy/heroism stories, usually about people dying/nearly dying and being saved/something threatening to kill their loved ones/other life and death/world changing decisions serious business stuff.  I have had so much serious stuff  in my life I can think about this shiz for hours, days even, but I don't want to write about it.  I would prefer to read and talk about light hearted stuff, but then I think my writings would go, 'this is fun, I like fun, I hope if you read it you like fun too'.

I don't really know why I would write things or who for.  I'm also painfully aware that I have written stuff like this post before, probably 3 or 4 times.

If this was a lifestyle blog I'd be saying that I'm shutting up shop and I don't like how consumerist lifestyle blogs have become.  That prolly means nothing to anyone who reads this.

I'll tell you what I am doing though, that is watching all the Star Trek series on netflix. I did the full 7 seasons of Voyager (I adore it and Captain Janeway beyond belief) and now I'm on season 5 of DS9.  DS9 started off shoddy but has got loads better.  I thought about writing about Trek, but I have no enthusiasm for that, I like just watching it and writing fb statuses about it to my friends.

Yet I still want to write things, I just need to work out what I want to write about.  Aarrgggh. Writers block is rubbish.

Edit - just press publish and then thought of things I could write about.  Le sigh.  Art stuff. I started drawing.  I am interested in the technicalities of drawing (because I don't understand the technical process).  I am also still putting occasional things up on my New readers...start here! blog and I will hopefully have an interview with a creator up soon.  So I guess I am writing things.

Brilliant

(this is a post I wrote a few weeks back but only just found again)

I just read Roddy Doyle 's brilliant. It's set in Dublin and is a story about how the kids of Dublin defeat the Black Dog of Depression who is ruining the adults’ lives.

It's so literal. Kids are the only ones who can defeat the dog because they are the future. They laugh at almost anything and when they say the word ‘brilliant’ they take away the dog's power.


I didn't enjoy it, it's just too on-the-nose. I think of another book that made everyday words into metaphors - Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere. His treatment of London tube stations is fairly literal, but it's clever, and nestles inside a clever book and the metaphors aren't the whole story.  Brilliant is described as a magical, moving, marvellous story. I find it too obvious to be moving.  It doesn’t feel magical, not if you have an imagination. It's simplistic, depression can’t be staved off and defeated by being cheerful and laughing.  Metaphor doesn’t work unless you follow it through, you can’t do halfway houses. 

Legally Blonde, Teen Titans Go, Rebirth

Legally Blonde is a great film.

I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed it and on a recent re-watch I worked out why.  It's all about female friendship and solidarity.  Elle is a rich sorority chick who appears shallow and mostly interested in getting married to her love, Warner.  Usually in films rich, blonde, popular, shallow, marriage chasing women are bitches.  Not so Elle.  She is friends with everyone in her sorority house (is that the right term?) and she expects other women to be friends too.

When she starts at Harvard and a lecturer asks Vivian for her opinion on Elle's behaviour, Elle is genuinely shocked that Viv goes against her.  When Elle needs a pick me up and goes to a nail salon she takes genuine interest in the beautician's life and becomes friends with her - in films rich women don't usually make friends with poor women, but this friendship is genuine.

All the successes of the film are down to women trusting each other and supporting each other.  The woman the legal team is defending used to be in Elle's sorority and so she  only trusts Elle.  They wouldn't have won the case without Elle.  Viv eventually dumps Warren, stops being a bitch to elle and they become friends.

It's nice to see a film that celebrates female solidarity, girliness (pink, fashion, bubbliness) and seriousness and achievement.  It's great.  If I ever get the inclination I will watch it again and do a full analysis of it.  That would be fun.

On a more comics note, I saw my first episode of Teen Titans Go! this morning - it was the one where Raven and rose make friends and Starfire, Cybor and Garth go to Cool School.  It was witty and the characters were in character.  I very much enjoyed it.  Almost as much as I've been enjoying the Rebirth books I've been reading.  It's been a good couple of weeks for my entertainment. :)

A new outlet

I started an art blog.  It's on instagram and my username is sarangapie if you want to go have a look.  I'd link it but instagram is bloody odd and I don't think you can view posts unless you have an account, and I don't think you can upload photos without using the app (so you can't upload from a laptop or pc, for example).

Don't get too excited about what is on there.  I can't draw. I'm not being modest, I have no artistic talent. My stuff  is nowhere in the realms of good.  But. I liked drawing in art classes in school (I think I stopped classes at 13).  I hadn't really drawn since - a few moon and goddess doodles, the odd flower, but when I sat down and tried to draw I got really frustrated that I couldn't get what was in my head down on the paper, so I haven't ever bothered.  Then this weekend I realised that didn't matter to me anymore.  The point is to draw, it is in the act of drawing itself.  It doesn't matter if it's trash and no one knows what it is.

And you know what, I'm actually quite proud of what I've done.  I feel accomplished. I drew a daffodil and it resembles a daffodil.  I even drew a mini comic and I think it kind of makes sense.

What caused this change in mindset?  It was the talk I went to last Saturday about trauma and women's comics.  Nicola Streeten referred to her art as bad art, then put it in inverted commas and said she thought it was good art.  It got me thinking that everyone has a different notion of what good art is.  I am used to, and I like, the American superhero art styles (as varied as superhero art is, it usually has a recogniseable style).

Streeten set up Laydeez do Comics.  I came away from the talk wanting that for Norwich, but aware that I don't have the time or energy, or skills, or network, to do this.  But I am pretty desperate to do something creative.  I have spent approx ten months looking after my little boy and have only had the energy to take things in - telly usually.  It's a very passive way to spend your free time.  I have a yearning to do something proactively.  I know I need to get back to New readers... but I feel constrained by the formalities of that site, and anyway, I don't have the time or energy to read comics, scan in pages and then create a decent review, so that's on hiatus for the moment.

I read about how the Birmingham LDC was set up and how the founder was inspired by London LDC to do her own comics.  I thought, I can draw.  If she can, I can.  I haven't checked out her work by the way, I don't know if I'd like it or not.  And I remembered that people say the best way to get better at drawing, is to draw.

So I drew.  I'm not sure if I want to get better, that isn't the point of this exercise.  The point is to give me a creative outlet, and writing isn't really doing that for me at the moment.  Although this post is going pretty well, maybe I just need more inspiring subjects....

Anyway. I draw now.

Cap'n A: Civil War (spoilers)

I saw this last night. I didn't think much of it. It was OK, but I felt like it was an excuse to get lots of costumes fighting each other in cool ways, rather being focused on plot.Having said that, the plot did make sense and was fairly tight, even with such a lot going on.  Perhaps I'm just getting movie event fatigue.

The introduction of Peter Parker was good (and I'm so thankful we didn't get another Spidey origin story). Antman's giant scene was great.  The actor playing Black Panther was good, and had a lovely accent but I didn't like his suit. The Dora Milaje) was perfect.

Perhaps I was also too tired for a cinema showing. The theatre was really hot and I'd had a bad night's sleep and my eyes ached.

I didn't think it deserved the title civil war. The fights were pretty well contained and for Civil War I expect most of America to be trashed.  I did like the plot about the fake Dr guy trying to destroy the Avengers by wrecking their relationships. That felt fresh. One of my problems with watching superhero films is I am watching them as a comics fan, assessing against source material and delighting that these guys are on screen.But after so many Marvel films that delight is gone because I;ve seen them so many times. Now I just need a good film. Ant-man was. Civil war was merely OK.

Wonder Woman Earth One

This was a disappointment.  I was curious how Grant Morrison would write her and excited about Yanique Paquette drawing.  Unfortuantely the end result is terrible.

It would be kind to say it is a riff on the golden age.  It is golden age Wondy ideas packaged into a cold, heartless, sneery mess.  It’s a really cynical origin story and Wonder Woman should not be cynical.  I can’t think that Morrison is a fan.  I think he views her as an interesting character, but he has no connection to her.  I don’t think you should write or draw characters you don’t feel a connection with.

The story itself is boring.  Dull.  It flows badly and there’s nothing to keep you interested, no suspense, even thought there are things which should be suspenseful in there.

The art is lacklustre.  The character poses are a bit too much on the sexy side for my taste, and there’s little of the detail and originality and joie de vivre that I’ve seen Paquette do elsewhere.  The colours are nice enough but the inking is one dimensional.  The Amazons look like pin ups, but not very exciting pin ups.

There is so much good Wondy stuff out there.  Bombshells, Legend of Wonder Woman, Sensation Comics and Ame Comi Girls are so much better than this. So much better.  Bombshells would do really well with a non traditional comics audience, it could capitalise on the retro love that is still going around.  And it’s a good story.

Not a misery memoir

On Saturday I went to a talk by graphic novelists Nicola Streetsen and Una as part of the Norfolk and Norwich Festival, literature weekend.  The title of the talk was 'Not a misery Memoir - gender, identity and overcomign trauma'.  Streeten has written and drawn Billy, me and You, a novel about her grief journey (sorry, I hate that phrase) after the death of her 2 year old.  You can see why I was interested in the talk. Una wrote and drew Becoming/Unbecoming, about growing up 70s Yorkshire when the Yorkshire Ripper was around.

I was expecting a talk about horrible, miserable stuff but that wasn't it at all!  Streeten started, and touched upon a few things in her book, the panels about marking people's reaction to her news, the funeral director's problem accepting they didn't want a religious service, stuff like that.  Una talked about feminism and how women's bodies are policed and judged.  But, most of the talk was about how art can show metaphor in a different (better?) way than words can.  About how we read the comics page and about how readers connect comics in a different way than they do to prose, so comics can be more beneficial than prose when processing traumatic things.  They talked about why they chose to do their story as a comic.  They talked about their art styles.  I think Streeten said her rough and ready scratchy style suits the depiction of grief, because grief is rough and ready.  Or maybe that's something I came up with.  There was some brief stuff about the technical process of comics too.  And, I keep forgetting this, they talked about these sorts of books being cathartic for readers, not the writers.  This is very true, I think.

Una comes from a fine art background and her stuff is beautiful.  I had not heard of her before, and now I think I'll be checking out Becoming/Unbecoming.  There's a lot of empty space in the art which I find quite emotional and nerve wracking, but that maybe because of where I'm at in my head (who knew 2 years later I wouldn't be back to normal and that grief taints every part of my day and mind).

They also talked about Laydeez do Comics of which Streeten is a co founder.

Of the audience, I was one of three women in their 20s/30s.  The rest were in their 50s/60s/70s and were there for the literature weekend.  It was very surprising to me but it felt lovely.  To be in a comics environment dominated by well to do professionals, no costumes, by hyperbole, no fuss, and to be surrounded by older people who didn't know anything about comics and were treating the medium and the other attendees seriously - I loved it.  The atmosphere was friendly and informal and I loved seeing Streeten and Una as older woman, and friends, doing comics professionally and chatting easily.

The day was being sketched by the founder (?) and definitely editor of Graphic Medicine, Ian Williams.  This is a tweet of one of his sketches:
https://twitter.com/WritersCentre/status/734015906825797633
His work was lovely!

Jurassic Park vs Jurassic World

I recently watched this 30 minute talk on why Jurassic Park is all heart and why Jurassic World isn’t.

It’s a good talk.  It examines the subtext in J Park and shows us where the subtext is and how it builds to form another narrative alongside the surface text of dinosaurs on the loose.  The subtext is that of family, by the way.

Most Hollywood blockbusters  have a family theme to them, what is an action story without romance of kids in peril after all, but not many do so with as much detail and love as J Park does, I think.  I’ll admit, I didn’t recognise the subtext until it was pointed out to me in this video, but now I’ve seen it, it’s so obvious and def explains some of my warm feelings and impressions towards the film.

However, I think the comparison with J World could have been expanded upon.  I’d like to see a demonstration of why the presenter thinks J World is devoid of heart, and is just about Chris Pratt and dinosaurs.  I’d really like to see J World pulled apart like J Park was.

There is one clip in the presentation where the J Park T Rex scene where Rex comes out of the enclosure and threatens Dr Alan Grant and the kids is compared with the J World Indominus Rex against the raptors scene.  The J Park one is about humans and their fear when faced with the monster, and how they form family units.  It is filmed to focus on Grant and the kids, not on the Rex.  It’s contrasted with the J World scene to show that J World has little humanity and is just about big fast paced dino fights.

But these scenes aren’t comparable. There are scenes in J World which show humanity against a monster – the one in the Rex enclosure.  There are scenes in J Park which are cool dino fights.  The T Rex against the raptors near the end, for example.  J World doesn’t have a family bonding scene like J Park does, but it has a different subtext.  There are plenty of family themes in J World, but they are pretty explicit, and surface text.

The subtext in J World is self referential.  It’s a critique on how things need to be bigger, better, nastier, more fearsome, and how the joy is take out of them when that happens.  Well maybe it isn’t subtext as it’s pretty obvious, maybe it’s more metatextual.  Either way, J World isn’t meant to be warm and fuzzy.  It’s meant to be cold, because that’s the state of affairs of sequels, and a film industry where you throw money at CGI and you forget about characters and you let the spectacle overtake the important stuff.  J World is a critique of that state of affairs.  It’s more intelligent than the presenter gives it credit for.  I’d love to see his reasoning.

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (spoilers)

I avoided all reviews and only watched the trailer once, months ago, and saw the film last night.  I quite enjoyed it.  I shall be giving spoilers in this post so click away now if you don't want to read them.  It's not a review post, it's a conversation between me and anyone else who cares to read it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Batman -
I really liked the start where we saw Bruce's experience of the Metropolis MoS fight.  I kind of knew that was coming, but I thought it was done very well.  I even enjoyed Bat's origin story, it was done in a way I hadn't quite seen before and it worked.  I cringed when we had the bit where boy Bruce was lifted aloft by the bats, so was VERY thankful that was a dream sequence.  I'm pretty sure that even when startled bats don't fly into daylight, so I'll put that down to the dream sequence.

Ben Affleck made a good older Bruce and a good Batman.  The numerous different suits made sense in the film.  I didn't quite buy his quick change of heart about Supes, so I'm going to insert some head canon explanation along the lines of he hadn't thought that Superman would have a mother or be just like us humans and also seeing Lois defending Clark gave him something to think about.  The film made it look like eh changed his mind just on the strength of their mother's sharing names.  Which is plausible, I guess, Bruce is still grief stricken even after 30 years, but I think he should need more than that.

I am very interested in the last 20 years of Gotham.  I hope that's explored in Suicide Squad, which we saw the trailer for, and I am also leoking forward to seeing.  I really enjoyed Alfred.  I think that's the best on screen Alfred.

My main problem with Batman, but I can't be bothered to get that worked out about it, is him using guns.  Batman doesn't use guns.  That's a central part of his character.  But then again, Superman doesn't kill people either, apart from in this movie verse.  Once Supes has killed someone I sort of lose any will to get worked up about other character defamations.  It just feel really demoralising.  So I'll just ignore that part of the film.  I'm still pretty angry about Man of Steel though.

Wonder Woman - Gal Godot is wonderful in this (excuse the pun).  She's tall, she's got a generic European accent that I have decided is authentic Greek (please don't tell me otherwise, not just yet), she fights well and she looked like the was relishing the fight.  She was a lovely calm, intelligent, graceful and decorous Diana Prince.  I was so pleased to see her on screen and so pleased to see Wondy being played that way.

Lex Luthor - I thought this guy was brilliant.  I was not expecting such a young, showboating Lex.  I think he was yelling about Darkseid at the end, was I right?  I couldnt quite make out what he was talking about because there was a couple next to me who were talking through most of the film.  They got louder in the last half hour because they'd got through most of a bottle of wine (you don't drink in UK cinemas) and were gabbing away.  Grrrr.  they'd also gone out for a cigarette halfway through and reeked as they came back, and called me love, and darling.  So my judgey pants come out and I judged them good.

Lois Lane - Amy Adams did a great job again.  I'd like to see her in more action plots - journalist action plots not fight plots, but there was no room in the film for this sort of story.  I liked seeing her and Clark's relationship and seeing them as a couple.  She did a lot of reassuring Clark, and some saving him too.  Always good to see.

Superman - As for Superman, he had quite a distant role in this film.  He was distant from the public (and the camera), distant from Lois, yet he was connecting with his deceased Pa and discussing their relationship.  I felt there was a very big difference between his everyday, passionate Clark and his lofty, inhuman, superior (maybe?) Superman.  Superman was mostly cold and angry and determined.  Clark had the warmth.  I usually think Supes should have warmth too, but I guess that in this particular movie America, in that hostile climate Superman was keeping himself separate from ordinary humans in order to do his job.  Anger with Batman showed abit of his humanity though.  Hopefully he will get more human (in demeanour) with future Justice League movies.

Doomsday - Oh boy.  I have never ever ever enjoyed Doomsday.  This Doomsday was good.  I was excited about him.  I felt he was threatening.  It's a pity I figured out that Supes would die, if I'd not known the source material his death would have had more impact.  OTOH the means of death was new, and Lois being involved in recovery of his body pleased me.  Lois is pretty much an honorary Justice Leaguer by this point.

Other Justice Leaguers - Oh boy I was excited to see Aquaman.  Less so about the Flash.  very much so about Cyborg, surprisingly.

Horses - there was a couple of odd horse shots.  At the start when the ashes of the MoS fight spreads through the streets, a riderless horse runs past Bruce Wayne.  When the Senate hearing has been blown up a copper is on horse and the horse rears, dramatically.  These two instances just seemed very out of place.

Dream sequences - there were a lot.  I'm not sure how many were real or not.  There was one witha red dude and some lightning flahses, ish, which I assumed was a Flash, Barry probably, but he had no resemblance to the Flash dude from the metahuman research data.  Then there was a section where Supes took Bat's cowl off, then ripped out his heart.  I have no idea if the cowl removal was a dream sequence or not.  If not where did Supes discover Bruce's identity?

There were, sadly, some quips.  Quips do not belong in this grim dark movieverse.  If you want to lighten things up you bring in Wondy who enjoys what she's doing.  You don't make jokes, it was cringey.  The discussion at the funeral about getting the Justice League together felt a bit forced.

Overall I rather enjoyed it.  It had his faults, but it was enjoyable, and a perfectly pleasant way to spend and evening. I am even inspired to watch MoS again so long as I fast forward through that scene *glowers*).

More Ghostbusters trailers!

There has been an international trailer released.  It's less racist.  It adresses racism and sexism.  It got me all excited for the sisterhood and the science, like the first one.  Apparently the black actress has been receiving nasty tweets about her performance based on the first trailer.  That seems stupid as well as nasty.  Surely if there is a fault then it lies with the director guiding the actors to perform in a certain way, not the actress/actor themselves.

There has also been a fan edited trailer doing the rounds. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0

I don't like it.  It takes out a lot of the science love and makes it more like the first film, and makes it a very male film - in themes and action.  It took away what made me interested in the new film.  It's a male view of the new film, and I'm sick of that.

Unexpected items in the bagging area

Nicola Scott seems to be drawing Lois Lane and Guy Gardner in Black Magick.
*hearteyes emoticon*

Yes yes I know the top one is lying the wrong way but I don't know how to easily fix that.

For completeness here are all the other comics I have got since my last comic review:

I haven't wanted to cancel any of them. Fancy that.  I have had heard some stuff about DC relaunching AGAIN in May/June.  I have no idea how many titles I'll be getting.  I like their out of continuity stuff most, like Bombshells and Sensation Comics.  I hope we get titles that are written and drawn with passion and love again.

Ghostbusters 2016 trailer

So after much blathering from the local twitterati I watched the new Ghostbusters trailer.

 - It starts with 30 years ago 4 scientists saved New York.

- I think this is the director talking to the audience line, not an in universe line.  I am unclear whether this film is mean to be in continuity, or is a reboot, or a retelling, or a remake.  This trailer leaves me none the wiser.  But I think that line is an overview of the franchise, and is speaking to the fans saying we did this film 30 years ago, now we're doing another one.
Does that make any sense?  Nearly 8 months of baby has stopped my brain working..

- Various people have said that Winston isn't a scientist so the opening line is wrong. I argue that he may not be a scientist by training but he is doing scientific stuff as part of the team, so therefore he is a scientist.

- There has been criticism about making the only non scientist (by training) a black woman.  If this is a reboot, or remake, then it's makes sense that she, like Winston, is also not a scientist.  I'm questioning whether the original film was racist, not just single out the new one.  Mind you, the introduction in the trailer did seem to make her explicitly not scientific, and potentially crass and a bit thick (the scene with the car), which is making me cringe.

- The possession scene where the black lady slaps the ghost out of one of the other women is embarrassing.

- The scene where the 4 of them are on the steps and talking over each other and sounding indecisive made me cringe a bit.

- I got a rather large thrill at seeing female scientists do science equations and be intelligent on screen.

I'd quite like to see it. I think it will be entertaining nonsense.  I love entertaining nonsense.  And monster movies.  There will be 'problematic' stuff (how I hate that word now... it's used as shorthand but rarely it is explained what exactly is the problem) and that will make me wince, but I'll hopefully enjoy the rest of it.

*goes back to watching The Big Bang Theory season 8*  *considers the ways in which this show makes me cringe*

Feeding babies

I'm still breastfeeding, at nearly six months. During these looooing hours spent feeding I've had a lot of time to think about the breastfeeding community, what it means to formula feed, how to settle your baby without the boob and the mechanics and science of breastfeeding and bottle feeding.

We are now combi feeding, with one bottle given at 7pm so I can have a break. My little gannet still breastfeeds after the bottle but is usually done by 9. He has had his seemingly mild tongue tie snipped. I suspect this 'mild' tongue tie was causing more problems than anyone realised.  I should have trusted my instincts and got it snipped much earlier. Now I just can't be arsed to improve his latch, but that's fine. He's getting plenty of food and growing nicely

I feel out of place in breastfeedingplo message boards and groups. Members shout about how wonderful bf is, and I don't feel there is room for someone like me who doesn't enjoy it.  I dont dislike it,  its just how I feed my boy. But I feel alienated from the breast is best lot, from those who will do everything to keep women exclusively breastfeeding. We introduced a bottle of formula because its easy and gives me a much needed break. I don't think there is anything wrong with formula. I'd rather not feed to sleep each night and I loathe co-sleeping. Yet all you hear is how natural it is. If read 'biological norm one more time I'll scream. There doesn't seem to be room for women who aren't evangelical about bf.

I've been reading boobshalffull.wordpress.com  a  blog on combi feeding and low supply.   She talks about how to supplement, to manage your supply and the various physical reasons why bf doesn't work, and the diagnosis rates for these problems.  It's well worth a read.

I am now in the position where I want to bf for at least a year. Not because I enjoy it but because I want the experience. I've gone all clinical in my desires around it.