Hi everyone! “Point/Counterpoint” has undergone a bit of a makeover, including a name change! You’re now looking at “Variations on a Theme.”
It’s not a very clever title, I admit, but it’s not like “Point/Counterpoint in the Blogosphere” was particularly high art, either.
You’ll notice some differences in the approach, I’m sure. But one thing definitely remains the same: I’m always interested in hearing your opinions.
This week’s theme is the upcoming Jenna Jameson project “Shadow Hunter”, which has prompted a lot of fan reaction.
For example, Designated Sidekick is torn:
Yet, at the same time, I want to highlight the fact that Virgin comics takes pains to explain this isn’t a comic with nudity.
Sure, the odds of it being a comic that’s, well, a comic with the usual level of gratuity that’s been pushed in the four colour book market are pretty good. But what interests me is the prospect of a comic produced by Virgin Comics, written by Jenna Jameson, and produced with less gratuitous female flesh per page than mainstream DC / Marvel.
Cheryl Lynn is disappointed:
Y’know, I was so excited when I heard about the deal between Virgin Comics and Jenna Jameson for a new comic book title. I thought that Jenna would finally bring legitimacy to pornographic comics. And once she did, creators who have obviously been champing at the bit to produce pornographic material could move into a genre that is appropriate for them. It would be a place where they could flourish and explore new artistic expressions of sexuality. The result? The end of “fauxcore” garbage that ruins the enjoyment of mainstream comics.
William Gatevackes thinks it’s hilarious:
4. This is how they describe the book:“Shadow Hunter is the story of a provocative superheroine who survives a brush with death only to find herself fighting the legions of hell for her very soul.”
Funny, I thought she would go with a more autobiographical route: a story of a woman who slowly finds her self turning into plastic.
And livejournalist Nenena/Kotetsu is disturbed by certain reactions:
Slut-shaming! Cheap shots at a woman’s physical appearance! Oh, and in case we forgot to point this out in the first batch of jokes, Jameson obviously sucked’n'fucked her way into the writing contract, hyuk hyuk!
So what do you think?
August 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Well, aside from the endless opportunities for amusing headlines, I think it’s a little early to judge the project on its creative merits.
That said, I disagree with Nenena/Kotetsu, mostly because I think Jenna Jameson’s public image is her own creation. I don’t know that she has a right to call foul when people perceive her exactly as she presents herself.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I have to echo the sentiments of Diana:
1. She does sell her body for profit.
2. She has had a lot of work done.
3. She has licensed her body parts for mass production as sex toys.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Recruiting a porn star to create the newest good girl/bad girl property seems to be a 10-15 regression in progress, IMO.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
@Diana
Cover art is available on the JennaComics / VirginComics website. A lot of projects are judged on forthcoming cover art as indicative
Also, it’s not Jenna Jameson calling foul. It’s other comics bloggers.
A female porn entrepreneur is entering a new publishing domain, and the commentary is more on her body, than the body of work. The remarks are about the way she acquired the contract, and, not withstanding her prior career - not that different to the standard issue insults and abuse thrown at female artists, writers and producers.
I wonder if they just have macros and form blog posts for these types of attacks since they’re so repetitive
August 6th, 2007 at 12:49 am
DS: I’m of the opinion that, had Virgin Comics approached Ron Jeremy, the commentary would’ve run along the same lines. Yes, the blogosphere has directed most of its attention to Jameson’s body… but then, isn’t that what Jameson has always expected of her audience?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Diana,
Somehow I doubt commentary on a Ron Jeremy/Virgin Comics project would include much about his body or how he got the project. Sexual innuendos about his performance, sure. Comments about a particular part of his anatomy, possibly. Jokes about his good fortune, definitely. But general comments about his hotness or whoring himself to get work - no.
“….isn’t that what Jameson has always expected of her audience?”
It was always my impression that the audience expected to have bodies to give attention to (seeing as how they were doing so long before Jameson’s career), and that Jameson took advantage of that and her good fortune in order to make money. Which seems to make the same point you were trying to make. Only without implying that the answer to the unasked question “who started it?” is “she asked for it!”
PS - Melissa, I love love love the “variations on a theme” idea - opinions are more nuanced that “point/counterpoint”!
August 9th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for the link!
And to Diana:
I can’t speak for Jameson, but I’m pretty sure that she doesn’t “present herself” as someone who needs to give a blowjob to get a writing contract, someone who has veneral diseases, someone who’s too ugly “to hit with Dan Didio’s dick,” or someone who’s too dumb to write a comic book.
Is she a porn actress and proud of it? Yes. Is pointing out that fact sexist or insulting? No. But what about making a joke about her being ugly, stupid, or needing to give blowjobs in order to get the Virgin contract? Now we’re heading into sexist and insulting territory. Can you tell the difference?
Just because she displays her body in videos and magazines, it doesn’t mean that for some reason it’s automatically a-okay for anybody to insult her intelligence, business skills, or even (yes) her looks. I’m sure that she expects it because she’s been in the business long enough, but that still doesn’t make it okay. Hey, I’m a woman and I expect to encounter a lot of sexism in my life. But just because I expect it, that doesn’t make it okay.