Spider-man 2099 was created by Rick Leonardi and Peter David
Perramus was created by Alberto Breccia
Not entirely sure why I did this. But there you go.
Raw version of the last page of my prophet backup. A lot to clean up. You can see better here where the ink smeared on me. What happened was I ended up with my sumi ink mixed in with my india ink, so when I went to do a print for the cave wall textures, the ink smeared, and never really activated the way it should have. Another lesson here was not to get lazy and do that shit on top of my original pencils. I still am amazed at how Breccia did entire pages with this method. I think my setup isn’t right somewhere. I dunno.
Anyways. This page is completely brutalized. I shredded it with a razor blade, soaked it in water, and basically just abused it.oh well.
In honor of Transgender Awareness Week, I’m reposting a short comic I made for my collection Hecate Snake Diaries Vol. 2, about negotiating beauty/self-perception/fuckery as a transwoman. Also it’s mashup with Hannibal which was on TV at the time that I drew it.
This is a two page comic I did for Frank and Andrew’s Comics Workbook Magazine
The top part is just the background I made for the comic, but I thought it might be interesting to see that too.
Here is the uncolored, unlettered, version of a two page spread for my forthcoming Prophet backup. I like it. Feels like I leveled up a little bit making it. My ideas for coloring this page are pretty crazy. Also here’s to scrunching all of the art for your spread right around the middle where the fold will be.
I’m wanting the fold to sort of bisect that top head, and refract it a little bit anyways. What do I know about anything though.
I finished posting my essay on Emma Rios, Kelly Sue Deconnick, Jordie Bellaire, and Clayton Cowles comic Pretty Deadly.
Or if you prefer to read the whole thing one fell swoop, as intended:
Also Emma Rios wrote an amazing reply back on the piece which you can read here:
Emma Rios’ Reply
I also had a back and forth with her on twitter if you want to go dig those up. It was easily the most articulate and interesting thing I’ve ever had a subject of something I’ve written come back with. And moreover, it just made me feel good. Which is really all I care about. Particularly in a week where the role of women in comics criticism has been a topic of discussion, and my own role specifically has been publicly and privately discussed. It’s been a weird week for me. Both because of those public things, and back-channel offers. On the one hand it’s cool to have in your resume that you wrote for this site or that site—and there is a ton of merit to what Heidi said in her article yesterday about the need for women to be getting their work into these spaces, so they aren’t written out of the canon. But on the other hand, I don’t feel like past a certain point any of those sites are helping me do what I want to do when I write about a comic or a movie or whatever. I mean 1) they don’t pay that well, if at all and 2) by this point I have an audience that if I say something, and it’s good—it’s hitting most of the people I’d be interested in it hitting. And also when there is a connection made, it is more one to one between me and the person who reads my work. There’s no filters right now. And I dig that.
I think what is different about this piece than previous ones that I’ve written is that it’s a further fusion of a couple different approaches I have tried critically. For awhile, a lot of my stuff, only focuses on the construction of the art on the page; and I was writing about color, lettering, and script(which I rarely if ever write about comic scripts) all sort of segregated out into their own articles. So like one article would JUST be about the coloring of a particular piece. Another would be about the paneling. The stuff I wrote on Liefeld’s X-force is kind of broken up similarly. Since my essay on Kyoko Okazaki’s Helter Skelter, I’ve been trying to do a kind of total comics style of writing, where I could shift mid sentence between elements of the book—or not even differntiate the elements at all and instead try and speak to the total impact of everything all at once—without ending up in the space of talking about just the plot or whatever.
And while I like what I did with that Helter Skelter piece, what ended up happening was I filled in the gaps between the different parts of the book with myself, and I think the point of viewing swung heavily toward my own life(which wasn’t unintentional, my bible this year has been that House of Psychotic Women book, so I was very much playing with that style).
With Pretty Deadly, I knew I didn’t want the criticism to be about myself, overtly anyways. So I substituted my bio with the perspective of a strong thesis statement which I then tried to make sure everything I said in the piece tied back to. Basically academic essay steez. I didn’t want to convey an opinion on whether I liked or didn’t like Pretty Deadly. Obviously I found it interesting because I wrote this much on it, and if you asked me on twitter if I liked it, I would tell you that I did. But I didn’t want what I had to say to basically just be about whether you should buy the book or not. What do I care if you buy the book or not? No one is paying me. No, instead I just wanted to explore a particular facet of the book as a whole, and use that to analyze the whole spectrum of the contents of the first issue.
This is a process post. More critical process posts.