Prog 1798: Mecha Death!

[JamesC]

So let's get this straight.  I am obliged to condemn all fiction in which a fantastical artificial change in personality on another leads to sexual congress, or I'm a scumbag.

This would include, to grab just a few random pop-cultural examples, the legend of the Minotaur, A Midsummer Night's Dream, every version of Star Trek, Stargate and Buffy, Futurama and bloody Harry Potter (Voldemort's mother magically drugs his father).

And Buck Rogers in the 25th Century!

Can't we all just agree that rape is bad and that bit in Lenny Zero was possibly just a bit of a mis-step?
I don't know Andy Diggle from Adam but I think it's pretty safe to assume he doesn't condone date-rape.
Forgive and forget eh?

[Mikey]

No one got this excited when we talked about bewbs an that in Flesh 

M.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The Dredd artist, this Laurence Campbell fella, is he new? Can't remember seeing this style of art in the prog before. Seems to be a bit of photo manipulation going on, but it's a lot more successfully executed than the Langley-Droids efforts. The knife sticking out of Dredds armour was a great wee touch.

Sorry, am I dragging this thread off topic?

[The Prodigal]

The Dredd artist, this Laurence Campbell fella, is he new? Can't remember seeing this style of art in the prog before. Seems to be a bit of photo manipulation going on, but it's a lot more successfully executed than the Langley-Droids efforts. The knife sticking out of Dredds armour was a great wee touch.

Sorry, am I dragging this thread off topic?

Feel free mate.

I have been just staring at that Dredd art. Lurve it.

[CrazyFoxMachine]

http://2000ad.org/?zone=droid&page=profiles&choice=LAURENCE

Yeah he was in 2000ad loads in the day. Reason he looks different is he used to be inked by other people (Dylan Teague mostly) - he's been orf with Marvel doing stuff - and yeah there's a lot of photo references there - lightbox if those are pencils? OR SUMFINK MORE ELABORATE.

[The Prodigal]

So let's get this straight.  I am obliged to condemn all fiction in which a fantastical artificial change in personality on another leads to sexual congress, or I'm a scumbag.

This would include, to grab just a few random pop-cultural examples, the legend of the Minotaur, A Midsummer Night's Dream, every version of Star Trek, Stargate and Buffy, Futurama and bloody Harry Potter (Voldemort's mother magically drugs his father).

These are stories.  I don't approve of or condone Lenny's actions, any more than I approve of Zeus' or Oberon's or Parmen the Platonian's. I sympathise with Pasiphae, and Lysander, and Uhuru and Tasha Yar - but I still enjoyed the stories.  In this very same story should I not also be condemning the presence of Satellat, who was responsible for spreading the not-dissimilar Block Mania contaminant? Or do you think I approve of Borrisenko's murdering of 350 million mega-citizens through the mind-altering Chaos virus because I enjoyed that story too? 

I appreciate (and frequently make) the argument that rape as a crime is fundamentally different from murder as a source of humour and entertainment because of the ubiquity of its presence and effects, and its bizarrely contested existence. I question whether drugged rape is what Diggle actually intended to depict in this Austin Powersish set-up of repressed judges taking off their tight boots, but I can appreciate that it can be read that way.

Ultimately, however, Lenny isn't a moral character, the system he betrayed and which betrayed him isn't a moral one, the particular story he's in isn't a moral one.  Why in this one instance must I be expected to approve of this character's behaviour in order to accept this story as entertainment?  I don't look to 2000AD's anti-heroes and villains to set my own moral compass. 

As it happens, I also thought the use of the sex-drug on Kramer was unfortunate, because it was unoriginal and predictable, coming after the exact same thing in previous episode, in a story that otherwise has been fresh and surprising.  I too wish that 2000AD was all ages and didn't go quite so far with the sexual content, particularly as my eldest has just become an ardent fan  of Ro-Busters and (early) ABC Warriors, but right now it isn't for kids, and that's what we get.

Tordel in the light of our recent interaction I hope its ok to say that firstly (and obviously) you're no scum-bag and secondly I really enjoyed the thought provoking you induced on my part by your post. Excellent post.

Tordel at a very basic level I appreciate the adult nature of 2000AD. I appreciate sex is a fundamental and will feature in story-lines. For me its probably a question of how it is approached and at a very basic level what is depicted. Reading that story for me was like I had just tuned into a pictorial version of a male fantasists porn movie-explicit as hell and full of wonderfully submissive women performing like a male fantasist would want. It honestly made me feel a bit of a sleaze bag when I was reading it in a way no other 2000AD story-line ever has. It was the particular and graphic nature of the sexual scenes and what was being depicted that set it apart from many of the other examples you cite. So there's probably something else in that other than the implied rape thingie.

Cheers Tordel.

[jamesedwards]

The point, Jim...

The point, James, is about you being right and everyone else being wrong. You seem to have missed the part where I point out that what I find objectionable about your posts is not your reading of the story, with which I broadly agree, but your out-of-hand dismissal of alternative readings and your willingness to brand people who disagree with you as rape apologists.

It is this, and not your stance on rape (with which not only I but --I assure you-- everyone else reading this agrees completely) which is marking you out as an objectionable prick. To be fair, this has broadly been my opinion of you for as long as I've been aware of your posts, so you're certainly consistent.

It's a little rich for you to take others to task for not reading your own posts, when you won't extend the same courtesy to me but, for the benefit of the hard of thinking, here is my actual argument rather than the one you seem to believe I'm making:

Rape is bad. If one accepts your reading of the story, then actions depicted are certainly tantamount to rape and therefore also bad. Your eagerness to accuse others of being 'vile' and 'scumbags' for disagreeing with you is only acceptable if one accepts your reading of the story, and of authorial intent, as the only possible reading.

Whilst I broadly agree with your reading of the story, I do not affect to know authorial intent, and I can see there are alternative readings and possible authorial intentions that do not deserve labelling as those of rape apologists or fantasists, and it is your single-minded adherence to your reading and willingness to denigrate those who disagree to which I am objecting.

You may continue to argue with whatever point you imagine I'm making from the comfort of my ignore list.

Jim

The only "alternative readings" suggested thus far:

1) She secretly wanted it
2) she deserved it, the hussy.

Now, the terrible dialogue and inane sci-fi plot devices do make it hard to relate to the strip (a complaint you could never level at Low-Life), but I've not seen one reading of this strip that doesn't ammount to rape or resemble the two classical justifications of rape listed above.

This strip has no depth. For all he's vile about it at least there are layers to an Alan Moore sexual assault. Unless you have a magic alternate reading - and I suspect you don't, and I suspect it would not be a valid or well constructed reading in any case - you cannot fault me for being disturbed about this strip or what Todel said. I don't care how polite he is online, the words he chose to use were dodgy and ugly.

[TordelBack]

...you cannot fault me for being disturbed about this strip or what Todel said. I don't care how polite he is online, the words he chose to use were dodgy and ugly.

James, I would really much rather not continue this discussion, as I come here to relax and enjoy dissecting my favourite dystopian fiction, not to have my real-world values impugned.  The quote above implies, or at least my inference is, that I present a polite facade online while secretly reveling in rape fantasies and 'she was asking for, you honour' banalities. 

Much as I try never to get angry with people I've never met, I confess you've got my goat this time, so I'll press on against what past experiences and my better judgement recommend. 

These are the words in question:

Lenny Zero:  Loving this series, but for the first time this episode seemed to unnecessarily repeat elements from the previous one: stub guns and boinking judges was clever and funny last week, this week it's a bit tired: if you're going to build a story around surprise guest-stars and gags you better keep them fresh!  Couldn't be bothered less by the spit-roast (repressed judges lose inhibitions and are filmed in act of savagely poetic vengeance, so what?), but I did think the arse-to-camera-teetering-on-stillettoes art on Mink was the slightly skeevy part of this instalment.

I take it that the bolded bits are where you see my moral degeneration revealed?  I'll agree it's an unlovely paranthesis in a poor excuse for a sentence, but it's also part of a quick a review thrown up between putting the kids to bed and doing the washing up, so sue me.   

What is this scene if not 'savagely poetic vengeance'?  It's savage.  It's an act of vengeance. It's poetic, in the sense which I borrowed from the parent-phrase 'poetic justice', which I understand to mean a specific fate visited on a character which directly relates to a wrong they themselves have done: crudely, one that rhymes.   

Note that I very deliberately didn't use the second part of the phrase 'poetic justice', which would imply Kramer deserved her fate as per some absolute morality, but rather substituted 'vengeance', which implies only that Lenny believes she did.  It's not a great piece of English, but I'll stand by the sentiment, and I do not believe that anything here establishes me as a covert apologist for rape. If you knew me at all away from this forum, I think you'd be aware that that is very, very unlikely, although I don't really see what I feel the need to assert that.

Seeing as you didn't attack my subsequent sentence regarding the depiction of Mink can I assume you're okay with the overly sexualised male-gaze depiction of women across all media?  No, I can't, because that would be a ridiculous over-reading of your posts.

For the record, I also don't support fascist city-states, galactic empires built on religiously-driven bigotry, genetically engineering humans for a life of war, oppressing the planetary consciousness of Mars, or the use of Ratwar.  Just so we're clear.

[Goaty]

Ooh did anyone notice that Dredd still got knife in his uniform shoulder? Awesome!

[Jim_Campbell]

Umm, TB? Objectionable prick. Ignore list.

Just sayin'...

Cheers!

Jim

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Ooh did anyone notice that Dredd still got knife in his uniform shoulder? Awesome!

Pointed it out a few posts back. Just remembered that Frank Miller tried to do something similar when he drew that cover (you know the one, I'm not going to post it here), but he went over the top with it.

Did anyone else detect notes of A Clockwork Orange in this weeks Dredd? I thought the demonstration of [spoiler]the 'innocence' drug[/spoiler] was similar to the scene where Alex is brought out in front of the great and good to demonstrate the Ludovico method. I liked it.

[Jim_Campbell]

Pointed it out a few posts back. Just remembered that Frank Miller tried to do something similar when he drew that cover (you know the one, I'm not going to post it here), but he went over the top with it.

Y'know, that was my immediate thought. I figure it can't be coincidence, and rather enjoyed the reference.

Cheers!

Jim

[Dandontdare]

okay done with this prog's thread.

See ya next prog folks!

[Spaceghost]

Just a couple of thoughts about the prog.

I'm not blown away by Dredd. As has been said it seems like the 'grumpy Dredd proven right about new but obviously flawed idea' formula. I'm not too keen on photo referenced art either and the Planet Replicas helmet sticks out like a sore thumb.

Apologies for picking up this hot potato but I had no problem whatsoever with Lenny Zero. It's been shown many times in the Dredd strip that there is a lot of barely concealed lust simmering under the surface of your average Judge. Dredd is the exception, not the rule and I saw the 'sex gas' as a way to break down the training and abstinence that has been forced on these people from an early age.

The Judges still have sexual feelings and desires but they fight to keep a lid on them. Who's to say that Kramer hadn't privately fantasised about doing rudies with those male Judges and the gas just made her brain go "Ah, fuck it!"?

The rest; loving Aquila. Really top quality. Ichabod begs a one-sitting re-read and 3rillers is action packed fluff (no bad thing).

[vzzbux]

The thing with the gas is that Lenny says that they won't remember a thing when it wears off so they have no control of what they are doing whatsoever. A moral compass say's Lenny would get his comeuppance, but I doubt it.




V