One of the reasons I think diversity in comics (both diversity in creators as well as characters) is important is because it helps to enlighten readers into different ways of thinking. By coming at a problem from a significantly different perspective than the reader -- whether that's because of race, sexual orientation, nationality, whatever -- the reader can gain insight into other modes of thought. This can lead to both greater empathy with others, and more creativity in general.

But if you limit yourself to diverse voices from the United States, you're still not seeing as diverse a set of material as you could. I think the manga boom has been fantastic from this regard, helping to bring to the US not only a different style of comic storytelling but also some different cultural perspectives about people and the world. But it points to the difficulty in getting material from other cultures -- many use different written languages. In order to read those manga, most Americans would need them to be translated from Japanese into English.

The same holds true of any language. There's a slew of French and Belgian material that's never made into English. There's a good-sized comic scene in India these days, not to mention China and Korea. And though we hear very little about it here, there's comic publishers everywhere from Russia to Brazil. The image I've included with this post is of a comic character from Zimbabwe.

One of the problems highlighted by much of the bullshit populist nationalism that seems to have been engulfing the world the past year is, in part, rooted in a lack of understanding of "others." Whether "other" means someone born in the same country as you but wears a culturally different article of clothing, or they have a different amount of melanin than you, or they practice a different religion, or... The hatred of "others" has been played up by the likes of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, and Marine Le Pen; specifically trying to capitalize on the cultural ignorance of their constituents to encourage them to fear and hate anyone not like them.

But by actively reaching out, and taking in comics (or any other media, for that matter) of those other cultures, we can gain a better understanding and appreciation of where those "others" are coming from. And by eliminating the unknown, we eliminate the fear. And by eliminating the fear, we eliminate the hate.

So maybe, when you're tracking down holiday presents for your friends and family, see if you can snag a comic or two from another country. While not everything is in English, many are. And that can help bridge the gap that some politicians are deliberately trying to turn into an uncrossing chasm.

• Ben Novotny Owen interviews Laurenn McCubbin "about how she brings comics form into the gallery, as well as her upcoming work on Bitch Planet."
• Lew Stringer finds Garth - Man of Mystery from 1946 to be something of a, well... mystery.
  
• Che Grayson, who created the comic Rigamo, presented a TED Talk earlier this year about needing superheroes and it was recently posted online.
  

So there's been all this discussion lately about how they're adding some underarm webbing to Tom Holland's costume in the upcoming Spider-Man: Homecoming. The discussion usually is quick to note how Steve Ditko drew them in for the first issue, and John Romita picked up on them, but whether or not they continue to be seen in the comics is hit or miss depending on the artist. The question then, in a response to the purported movie usage as a sort-of built-in glider or wings, pivots to "Has Spider-Man ever actually used those underarm webbing things to fly?"

A couple of quick Google image searches turn up these two images...

Considering that I recalled one of those images and I'm not even much of a Spider-Man fan, I don't doubt there were hundreds of Spidey fans out there who immediately could've told you that he's done these full-on wings before, and the underarm webbing was never really used like that. The single panel is from Amazing Spider-Man #8; the extended sequence is from Avengers Annual #11. Neither of which were particularly difficult to locate online.

Now, maybe it's because my interest in Marvel comics spun out of a more archeological nature. I enjoyed trying to figure out how all these pieces fit together to form a overarching universe. So I'm perhaps more tuned in to the broader picture of their history, but I'm just surprised that, in the discussions I've seen, very few people bring these ideas up -- that if Spider-Man wanted to use his webbing to fly, or even glide, he'd need to design something different than his usual underarm webbing. A lot of folks have brought up his penchant for creating web parachutes, but mostly in response to the general question of can Spidey "make stuff" with his webbing.

I suppose this is perhaps why I don't feel as much attachment to the Marvel Universe any more. Marvel has over the past decade or so, largely eschewed historical context and continuity, and it would seem that their primary audience has as well. Rather, the audience they've attracted in recent years is not very concerned about long-term continuity, and the previous audience who has, like me, largely left.

That's their prerogative to change directions, of course, and I certainly can't fault them for trying a different approach to attract new readers. After all, the older guys like me who liked the continuity are getting older and literally dying off. So a change of this magnitude needs to take place in order to corporately survive. (Well, survive as a publisher. They're making more than enough off films and licensing these days that they don't have to worry much about closing shop even if they stop doing comics altogether.) Whether or not it's a change that will be successful or not in the long term remains to be seen, but it does seem to bode well for them in the near term.

And the only apparent downside is that, as the movies and TV shows become more and more well-known, the people who can identify the source material become less and less forthcoming to this new audience they might well resent, or even acknowledge.

I like books and reading. No surprise there, right? The last time I was in between jobs was a period of about six months, and I was not at a want for reading material because I had such a backlog already accumulated.

It should also come as no surprise that I have a mixture of digital and printed material. And a large part of why I might choose one over the other is availability. In some cases, it's an older work that no one has gotten around to digitizing yet. For example, Sensational She-Hulk #47 does not seem to be available anywhere, even though comiXology has the rest of that series' run. In other cases, it's a newer work that the author and/or publisher only released digitally because they wanted to gauge interest before committing to a large (i.e. expensive) print run.

(UPDATE: I had originally claimed "Clifford Meth's Comic Book Babylon was never released in print, I believe." Meth alerted me that I was wrong in that statement. It was printed by Aardwolf Publishing.)

Now there are all sorts of reasons why any given book might be released one way and not another. But, by and large, it usually boils down to: nobody in legal control of the contents thinks it would be profitable enough. That's not to say they're necessarily right or wrong, but that's their reading of the market. And despite my, or anyone else's, personal reading preferences it's hard to fault them for their decision. Even if you really, really, really want that big reference book available digitally so you don't have to lug the thing around while you're on a research trip, it's not reasonable to expect the publisher to make put in the time and effort to format a digital version just so it's easier on you. Likewise, you can't complain that a digital book hasn't been printed up just because the internet access at the favorite tree you like to read under is spotty.

As much as I enjoy and appreciate the benefits of digital publication, my book buying habits aren't going away any time soon because, until all these often obscure works that I'm doing research on are available electronically, I'm going to have to keep referring back to dead tree versions of them.

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: On Business: Success in 2016
http://ift.tt/2gBN7u0

Kleefeld on Comics: On History: Environmental Origins?
http://ift.tt/2gf6PgQ

Kleefeld on Comics: Weekly Comics Links
http://ift.tt/2g6vEJ3

FreakSugar: Webcomics Wednesday: Communication Channels
http://ift.tt/2gJWvKM

Kleefeld on Comics: On -isms: Jurying Philosophy
http://ift.tt/2gYLdq8

Kleefeld on Comics: On Strips: Catharsis
http://ift.tt/2gPQP33

One of the "problems" with newspaper comics is a lack of immediacy. That is, because of the lead time needed to get the comics from a cartoonist to seeing print in a newspaper, there's at least a minimum of two weeks before a cartoonist can comment on current events. (Although, frankly, with today's technology, I strongly suspect that could be cut down considerably if any cartoonist or syndicate really was interested in doing so.) But that's why so many strips avoid the issues altogether and fall back on relatively innocuous and staid gags.

Interestingly, though, with President-elect Trump's almost daily bouts of absurdities, he's quickly becoming a figure cartoonists can rely on for ongoing parody. It seems like he's been nominating another racist for yet another cabinet post every other day, and making absurd, unproveable claims just as frequently.

Since I, like so many others, are still processing how so many racist fucktards are willing to send this country to hell for the increasingly futile-looking hope of "draining the swamp", it's refreshing to be able to see some catharsis through newspaper strips, a venue not normally associated with processing the daily news. To that end, I've collected a minor sampling of this week's newspaper strips commenting on some of this political bullshit.






I may have modified the caption on Family Circus to hurry my own catharsis along.

The original deadline to apply for CAKE (Chicago Alternative Comic Expo) was originally November 28, but it was recently extended to December 12. I want to highlight that this week, in part because it's just a really good show in my neck of the woods, but also because it has a tendency to be a very inclusive show. (Which is actually part of the reason why it's so good in the first place.)

The official description of the show, from their website, reads...

The Chicago Alternative Comics Expo (CAKE) is a weekend-long celebration of independent comics, inspired by Chicago’s rich legacy as home to many of underground and alternative comics’ most talented artists– past, present and future. Featuring comics for sale, workshops, exhibitions, panel discussions and more, CAKE is dedicated to fostering community and dialogue amongst independent artists, small presses, publishers and readers.

That doesn't do the inclusive angle justice, though. If you've attended the show in the past, you know what I mean.

The show is actually a curated one, meaning that every application to table at CAKE is assessed individually and scored and only the top scoring folks get in. Last year, they had a little shy of 600 applicants for about 100 slots. But rather than limiting the decisioning of who gets in and who doesn't to a small handful, the number of jurors scoring those applications is around 150. And because they have so many jurors, they have a formal, written Jurying Philosophy. It reads, in part...

We hold ourselves to a broader standard than personal aesthetics in order to create the diverse and representative festival for which CAKE has become known. Additionally, CAKE strives to be a demographically inclusive show that reflects, encourages and advances the full diversity of artists working in our community.

The appreciation of diversity and inclusiveness is baked into CAKE. It's part of the formal recipe of how to bring creators in. (Don't worry; I'll stop with the puns now.)

The organizers at CAKE have done a fantastic job over the years. I wasn't able to attend until its third year, but they clearly had things down really well by that point, and it's only improved every time I've went since. It's very evident that they really just want to put on a great convention for folks who like independent comics. The only real complaint I've heard is that attendees don't have enough money to buy all the cool stuff they want.

But making a concerted effort to make the show a diverse one on top of that adds to the impressiveness of the show. I've noted several times before that I want to read stories that provide a viewpoint other than that of a cishetereo white male, and because of their deliberate focus on bringing in diverse creators, there is plenty of that at CAKE. And while I know that's not the express goal of every convention, I'd love to see more shows take a more formal approach to inclusion and draw in a wider array of creators.

So, hey, any con organizers out there wanting to do that? Talk to these people!